Talk:Red Dwarf/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

[type of particle]-[word referring to head or brain]

Is it worth mentioning insults like "Hadron head" and "Molecule mind"? There's an obvious pattern there. RobbieG 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How will it help?

It's "molecule head". Kryten uses this as an insult when he's parodying Casablanca in Camille.

No, it's "molecule mind", in "Kryten", and the film he's imitating is The Wild One. RobbieG 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD Releases

I've added some info about the releases in continental Europe being the Remastered versions of the show, rather than the original like the UK and Australia. I'm not sure if the US releases contain the remastered or original, so have that out at the moment. Can anyone confirm which version the US has?White43 11:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The content on the US DVDs is, as far as I know - and with the odd minor exception - identical to the Region 2 ones. That is, original episodes, not rehamstered. Seb Patrick 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add Region 1 to the list of places that don't have Remastered releases then. White43 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the rehamstered versions, especially the ones with Hammy Hampster in Tales From the Riverbank: The Next Generation. (Okay, that's only a joke that a Red Dwarf fan can apprediate.) But thanks for keeping up on the remastered editions. Val42 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What's a "hampster"? A hamper for hamsters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I live in the US, but I have no idea where I can find a Red Dwarf DVD. If I can get a copy, then I'll tell you weather it's the remastered or original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRTyner (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Was Red Dwarf not carried by PBS stations? I thought it was at one point. If so, it should be added to the PBS category (as is Monty Python, etc.); plus since PBS aired it, that would qualify the show for the 1980s TV shows in the United States and 1990s TV shows in the United States categories. Can anyone confirm the PBS connection? 23skidoo 04:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is shown on one of the local (Salt Lake City market) PBS stations, KUED, Saturdays at 10:30 p.m. Val42 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There were also several runs (the complete series, twice at least) on the PBS station in Phoenix during the late 90s/early 2000s.

The show appeared on many PBS stations...on the Series VIII DVD, there's clips of the cast performing promos for many of the PBS stations Red Dwarf appeared on. Bruiseviolet (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters' Appearances Outside of the Series

Are there any plans for including a section mentioning the characters appearances in other places aside from the Red Dwarf series? I ask because Dave Lister appears in the background of page three of The Savage Hulk comic as well as on page 42. EthanGilchrist 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)EthanGilchrist

I personally wasn't aware of any use of the characters outside of Red Dwarf (except for the potrayal of Dwane Dibbley on Can't Smeg, Won't Smeg). Has there been anymore instances? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.193.178 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

What is the accepted reason for Rimmer's death?

What is the accepted reason for Rimmer's death? Because the episode Timeslides appears to "correct" the previous continuity, or at least give a new reason for him dying - something which itself is not contradicted later in Dwarf history. My question, more completely, then, is "Did Rimmer die along with the rest of the Red Dwarf crew after failing to repair the drive plate correctly, or by touching an exploding box?"

Before Timeslides, Rimmer had died because he had failed to secure the drive plates correctly. In an episode that I don't remember now, we actually saw the video of the bridge crew dying from the accident. (Was it the gespatcho soup episode?) It was never explained in Timeslides or afterwards why Rimmer had survived until then. Nor was his death in Timeslides ever brought up again. Val42 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

His death as established in series 1 and 2 was likewise never brought up again. The episode you're referring to is Me2, the final episode of series 1. The events in Timeslides rewrite the earlier version of events, and we can assume that when the Justice Computer finds Rimmer guilty of murder in the fourth series, he is doing so because Rimmer himself escaped death. The normal way of speaking about how Rimmer died is that he touched an exploding box in the episode Timeslides. The stuff about the drive plate and him being a hologram in series 1 and 2 is elaboration, in the sense that it's only what you tell people who want much more information than the casual observer would require.

I'm pretty sure that the accepted reason for Rimmer's death is that he touched an exploding box. The events shown in Me2 were "corrected" by time-travel. Presumably Rimmer's visit to his younger self, and the information being overheard by Thicky Holden, caused a second stasis booth to be created for Red Dwarf somehow.

We found out in Stasis Leak that there is already a second stasis booth. Maybe Rimmer ended up using it anyway, but not because of the events in Stasis Leak. Val42 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rimmer died because he touched a box. I thought everyone knew this?

I think this discussion has established that this is the generally accepted reason, yes. However I'm sure that there are those who disagree, as with anything.

I guess the answer to the question depends from which series you are refering to (or have watched). Anyone who had only seen up to episode 4 of the series III would say he died by the radiation leak. From episode 5 until the start of series VIII, it was because of hitting a box of explosives in glee. Through series VIII however, it would now seem that Rimmer is not actually dead any longer, after being resurected with the rest of the crew by the nanobots. It's all a question of perspective. Frostyvegi 04:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Is" or "was"?

Can we please agree whether to perceive Red Dwarf in the past or present tense for this article? I've recently made a change to the opening paragraph to render it past-tense (in direct contradiction to the edit before me), but have skim-read the entire page only to find no objective view on this; it seems to skip between the past and present tenses throughout. On the whole, the article appears to mainly frame Red Dwarf in the past tense, as per Blackadder and The Brittas Empire, for example, but there are the occasional lapses. My opinion is that we should follow the past tense in general, except when we are speaking about the present moment of watching Red Dwarf, as found in (eg) "scenario": "The main dramatic thrust of the series is Lister's attempt to get back to Earth". We use the present-tense here because when we watch the series, this is what we find. However, I would argue that Red Dwarf as a programme is a completed body of work (despite the cliffhanger ending of series VIII which is the single detail causing ambiguity on this issue), and until either a film, a special or a new series has been released, we should treat Red Dwarf historically.

Agree: Although Red Dwarf conventions and events are still organized and the fan base is still clearly very active, I think we should be talking about the show in the past-tense now. The longer the whole film fiasco gets drawn out the less likely it is we'll ever be blessed with it, I personally think we've seen the last material made now. There's no harm in changing it to the past tense to reflect the current likelihood of this, then if we were to see anything new made the tense can be changed accordingly with one quick edit. Kris 11:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(I've moved these comments to the bottom of the page, as per WP:TALK convention)

Anyway... I don't particularly agree with this assessment. The show was never officially cancelled, and as soon as Doug Naylor and GNP turn around and say they want to make more, the BBC would be almost certain to commission it - it's still (I think, or at least it certainly was before The Office) BBC2's highest rated sitcom, and the DVD sales are excellent. It's on a clear hiatus while attempts are made to make the movie, but the TV series has not actually finished. That said, I don't particularly want to get drawn into an edit war on this, and it's true that it's less problematic within the context of an article lead to say "was" (because it saves faffing around saying "It is a sitcom that ran for a while, but is currently off the air, but isn't actually finished", or something). So, while I think clear mention needs to be made in the article of its unclear status, I'm happy to leave it as it's been edited to at the moment. Seb Patrick 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That puts a clearer stance on my original sentiments – I'd love to see more Red Dwarf, and still hope they can get their acts together, but have my doubts. From the perspective of the here and now it would make for a more coherent article if we consistently referred to the show in the past tense, as grudging as it may be. It's a necessary assumption given the context of an encyclopaedic description and, as I say, can easily be changed again upon any developments. I'll go through it and change to the past tense if we have official consensus on this. Kris 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Creative works "are" not "were" unless lost or destroyed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "was" explains that no new episodes of Red Dwarf are currently in production or being shown on television. As stated in the paragraph that opened this very reasonable debate, Blackadder, The Brittas Empire and many other comedy series contemporary with Red Dwarf have wiki pages that begin with "was". I suggest we follow the convention, and the majority of views contributing to this discussion appear to be happy with this decision. Please do not turn this into an edit war, and allow a consensus to be reached here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.146 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

"was" does not explain anything of the sort, at least 98% of finished TV shows on Wikipedia use the correct tense "is", a creative works exists. "Red Dwarf was an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom" not correct, "Red Dwarf is an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom", correct, because it still is an adult-[..] sitcom. Your edits could be construed as malicious vandalism as per WP:SOURCE you've failed to source the show no longer exists, when it is established to the contrary in the article that it does exist. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Red Dwarf was an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom [...] that achieved a global cult following" is correct both grammatically and factually. It achieved a global cult following - past tense. It is no longer achieving a cult status because it is no longer being produced. My editing in the best interests of what was then perceived to be the majority view of this discussion can hardly be called vandalism; stubbornly reverting such changes without settling the matter in this debate could be. This is what the previous "vandalism" charge was referring to; no need to try and level the same position against me. Also, to insist that somebody must prove something no longer exists isn't fair - try and prove that *anything* doesn't exist and you'll see it's impossible. Hardly fair to put "[citation needed]" after "was" and insist it be fulfilled or default to "is". As far as I'm concerned this discussion is still open, and I'd like to see other people's views rather than accept your weight being thrown around, but like Seb above I shan't be making more changes on this matter as I'm not interested in being involved in an edit war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.212.106 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Clearly this should be past tense. Look at the opening paragraph. It's not saying the show is or isn't still available on DVD or as a work of art in some other form. It's saying it ran (past tense) between 1988 and 1999. Read it: "Red Dwarf was a [...] sitcom, running [...] between 1988 and 1999..." It isn't *still* running between 1988 and 1999, is it? What people are doing is changing this paragraph into nonsense by insisting it means something it does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.206.108 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I think we can be happy with the opening paragraph beginning as follows: "Red Dwarf is an adult-orientated British science fiction sitcom, that ran for eight television series on BBC2 between 1988 and 1999, and achieved a global cult following." Beyond this I think we should go with the position established above that we should speak about the show in past-tense, until we learn that a new series, special or a film are in production. In the meantime, I'll put the "resolved" tag on this topic.

I've reverted the "Resolved" tag, and no disrespect because I agree with the previous sentiment, but I don't think this discussion is actually resolved so go figure. The point Fenton, Matthew makes is an interesting one, of course Red Dwarf will always be what it is, but as 82.152.212.106 says, it's unreasonable to expect citations for axiomic statements. Check out obliteration by incorporation. The thing is, everyone talks about Red Dwarf in the past tense in a reminiscent way, and there's no guarantee there'll be more produced. Would you talk about a classic film in the present tense because there's a chance a sequel might be made? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned this is the bottom line: an encyclopaedic article needs to be consistent. As dynamic as Wikipedia is, for true consistency the only tense that will supply it in this context is past tense. I will say again, this could be changed for the brief interim that would exist if a new series were to break out, but otherwise there's little justification for referring to something in the present tense when there's no genuine evidence for its continuation. Kris 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if another series is possible, in fact it's wholly irrelevant. We are an encyclopaedia, we write in the English language, a creative work is because it exists, if the classical film still exists then yes, it still "is". Fiction becomes "was" when it no longer exists. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So you keep saying, and your point has been taken on board. Do you have anything more to add?

I'd say "was" in principle, just for whatever my contribution's worth... though the opening paragraph has changed and if it's talking about Red Dwarf as a "franchise" then "is" is better, until it's then specifically speaking about the TV programme. Elsewhere I agree with everyone that past-tense should be the norm for this article. I don't like the word "franchise" though - it sounds far too corporate. Can we think of a better one?

Mixed Reactions?

This section contains the statement "On the other hand, there are many Red Dwarf fans who feel that Series VII and VIII, either individually or as a whole, are the equal of — if not superior to — the earlier series,"

The statement is pretty weasel-worded with the "either individually or as a whole" qualification, and the "if not superior to" clause, as well as the vague "many Red Dwarf fans". But the clear implication is that there are plenty of fans who think that VII and VIII are as good as earlier series, and a significant number who think they are better. And I just don't think this is true...

From what I have heard, the general consensus is VII and VIII (as a whole) are worse than the earlier series; and that VIII (individually) is particularly bad. My guess (not based on any statistical evidence, I admit) is that the proportion of RD fans who think that VII and VIII are as good as earlier series is pretty small, and the number who think they are better is tiny.

TomH 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a site editor of the most active RD fansite on the net, I can tell you that the series VII/VIII debate is very much an ongoing thing, and there are indeed plenty of people who like those two series as much as, if not more than, some of the other series (it's usually I, II or VI that come in for the most criticism from these people). You have to remember that there are many fans who came onboard in 1997 or '99, and that those two series did garner by far the show's highest ratings. I don't agree with those who like VII and VIII, but there are many of them out there - including Grant Naylor Productions' own DVD coordinator, webmaster, and long-serving fan figure Andrew Ellard. The statement could perhaps be better worded, but I have at least tried to back it up by linking to fan-written articles that defend the later series. But while I think that those fans are wrong, I think it's unfairly unrepresentative of Dwarf fandom to just dismissively state that EVERYONE hates VII and VIII. Seb Patrick 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Seb, I think you can equate it (on a smaller scale) to the two Star Wars Trilogies. If we've got documentary evidence that opinion is divided, I'd expect that to be sufficient for an encyclopaedia. I don't think any of them are rubbish, but I wouldn't call them my favourites. That's just me being subjective. Wikipedia can't be. Andymarczak 11:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Most active RD fansite...sounds like a Rimmer qualification to me, not something to be used to show authority...and BTW reddwarf.co.uk was more popular than your site, and actually HAS an alexa rating unlike yours. Speaking as a *FAN* of the show who has actively participated in *THE* most active chat community for Red Dwarf (alt.tv.red-dwarf in usenet) S1-6 were good, 7 was dismal and 8 was better than 7 but was no S1-6 and most people in ATVRD had the same feelings although some hated S8 as much as S7. There were a few who liked S7 and 8, but only a few (BTW, I am currently not active in ATVRD but I was when both S7 and S8 originally came out). It's wrong to say that everyone hated S7/8, but it's also wrong to say that there are plenty of people who liked them. SmUX 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... rd.co.uk isn't a fansite. It's the official GNP site. And a Usenet group isn't the same thing as a fansite, either - and even then, ATVRD has pretty much died a death in recent years. It's not the only Dwarf community on the net, and nor are the opinions of people back when the series aired the ONLY opinions that exist or are valid. Otherwise (to extend Andymarczak's Star Wars analogy) you might as well say that only people who saw Star Wars in 1977 are allowed to comment on it, and only with the opinions they had then (because, after all, opinions can change). Anyway, I don't want to get into a "my site's better than yours" debate on here - suffice to say, a lot of discussion about the series still takes place on G&T, more than in most places, and it's clear that there are some people (myself not among them, I hasten to add) who like those later series. Particularly younger fans, who discovered the series from '97 onwards. Seb Patrick 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, you have about 15 people max using your fansite so I'd be surprised if it was the "most active" as you say. And of all these people, only one has admitted that he likes Red Dwarf VIII! I don't need to mention his name, but he tries to explain his view on the Krytie TV commentary you've made, and nobody else agrees with him. It would be pretty objective to say "the majority of Red Dwarf fans find series VIII to be a severe drop in quality from 1-VI, with a shift in its emphasis from integrating intelligent sci-fi concepts and intricate character scenes into episodes to mostly featuring characters rushing around and gurning at the most sudden and contrived impulses."

Good to know you're a fan, but G&T in fact has something in the region of 120 registered users. Obviously, not all of those comment, but there's a thriving community of regular visitors and commenters. And to be quite frank, even if there were only "15 people max" using the site, that would still make it the most active fansite in terms of discussion and debate - unless you can show me another RD site that is (a) unofficial, (b) not just a message board, and (c) actually updated more than once every couple of years? Seb Patrick 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Expletives

The sentence "Felix Sapiens: a species of humanoids who evolved over three million years from common domestic cats. A main character of the show (The Cat) is one of these creatures, of which only two are ever seen on screen. " is incorrect. The Cat was evolved from the black cat List illegally brought on board not from humanoids as stated. -- RND  T  C  16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Humanoid" does not refer to our human species. It means "human in approximate form", which the Cat essentially is, as an upright biped. The sentence does not imply that the Cat evolved "from humanoids", as you state, but that he is one of the species of humanoids "who evolved over three million years from common domesticated cats". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.146 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

He's also referred to as a 'humanoid' on screen at least twice ("Justice" and "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" spring to mind). RobbieG 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, the second of the two Felix Sapiens seen in the episode is the priest cat, somewhat more enlightened than DJJ's character. I would have liked to see more cats over time, but hey! It's up to the writers, at the end of it all. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Lists

For about half to two-thirds of its length, and a few terminology disputes aside, the article's finally starting to look in good shape. However, I think those pesky lists at the end are problematic - I'm referring to the "Continuity", "Pastiche and Parody" and "Invented words" sections, here. Not only do the lists make the article inordinately long, they also come across as quite fancrufty, and it's a generally accepted fact that an article will never get Featured Status when it contains a number trivia-esque lists such as these. In addition, they seem to offer carte blanche for people dropping in and adding loads more to them, making them needlessly lengthy and exhaustive.

I'd propose, therefore, cutting all of the lists, and instead turning each of them into a paragraph or so explaining the more relevant examples. As an encyclopaedia article, this doesn't need to list every single continuity error or pastiche - one or two would be good as representative of the series, but Wikipedia is not a nitpicky fansite. Take a look at the Spaced article - Spaced contains far, far more movie/TV/sci-fi/etc. references than Dwarf does, yet that article doesn't contain a lengthy list at all.

I'd start work on chopping up the lists myself straight away, but I fear that people will just take it as vandalism and start revert wars. So I thought it best to outline my thinking here first, in the hope that some form agreement and consensus can be come to with the regular editors of the article, and so we can try and get this thing under control. Chop the lists, and I think we could look at putting the article into Peer Review before another assault on Good and/or Featured status... Seb Patrick 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seb, have given this a go - User:Andymarczak/sandbox - Andymarczak 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite like that it's a good effort – of course Lister didn't have his appendix out twice, that was just a joke in Thanks For The Memory, but I'm splitting hairs! Stick it up as far as I'm concerned. Kris 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I always took that as a continuity error - "That's why I was orphan, even though my parents were alive, that's why I had my appendix out - twice." Anyway - it's no biggie. Any other feedback? --Andymarczak 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's when Lister gives Rimmer about a year of his memory as a deathday present so that he can experience having had a proper girlfriend, during which time Lister must have had his appendix out, and Rimmer had had his appendix out another time so he recalls having his appendix out twice... Never mind I'm confusing myself, I see what you mean, it's a continuity error in Rimmer's memory, but not in the context we're talking about. Moot point, sorry, I'll shut up now – I like the rewrite style that's the bottom line. Kris 12:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a continuity error - from Rimmer's remembering Lister having had it done, it means that when Legion removes it in Legion, it's the second time. It's been "explained away" in joking fashion numerous times - but it's easily the show's most famed error. Seb Patrick 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about that... cool, never noticed it before! I just watch the episodes, don't usually delve into the trivia with other fans, so it's apparent fame would be lost on me. I obviously have much geeking and much to learn ahead of me, when just watching it becomes not enough. Kris 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Has this issue been resolved? Someone changing the article has decided so.

Evidently. Onwards to featured status! RobbieG 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's resolved, as I'm only involved due to having this watchlisted due to a long term vandal on numerous RD related articles. From what I've seen discussion was in favour of trimming down some of the fancruft, and a proposed version was met with approval by at least one editor and nobody really seemed to object. The initial trimming down was done with an edit summary of "removed lists and replaced with summary. If others take issue with this, please make your thoughts known on the talk page", so under the circumstances I think it's better to at least discuss any issues with the new version instead of blanket reverting. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. If people wish to disagree, that is their right. I think this article still needs a bit of trimming. My instinct is there is too much on the DVD, VHS releases, specials, and other sub headings around that. Will tackle that next. They are worthy of mention, but IMHO are mentioned in too much detail. Andymarczak 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on... I'm fine with the deletion of a few ugly lists, but I strongly object to the deletion of relevant information from Wikipedia. Are quality articles really expected to sacrifice detail for the sake of brevity? RobbieG 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly. This is why it's annoying that it's been changed and somehow the case needs to be put here for it to be reverted. It's one thing to remove/abridge a few lists, but some really good sections are threatened with being cut right down, and are constantly being reverted on the grounds that the case needs to be made to preserve them. Since when was that ever the way around things worked?

Wikipedia "prefers" prose to lists, it's more encyclopaedic. Matthew 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nothing against the lists being removed. I object to the references to "fancruft" and the idea that the release information is somehow too detailed. I also object to the deletion of prose just for the sake of "trimming down". RobbieG 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This section is titled "lists" which gives the impression that we are agreeing to reduce the lists that are currently too long, for the sake of brevity. Not to removal of relevant prose. If someone wants to do this, please start a new discussion topic.

Kid's show revisited

The above discussion has a 'resolved' tag and doesn't seem to have been taken seriously, but here's a quote from TV Tropes' page on Bowdlerisation[1]:

"BBC Kids (at least in Canada) has shown episodes of Red Dwarf with heavy edits. One particular episode had virtually the entire middle of the episode removed, as the episode dealt largely with a main character's romancing a fellow hologram, making the resulting plot unintelligible."

So perhaps it is worth mentioning that some regard this as a kid's show after all?

BTW, I'm guessing the episode in question was "Holoship." RobbieG 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. This show was never a "kid's show". In fact BBC Kids is not a kids-only channel. It's a 24/7 channel, currently showing (as it happens,) Rob Grant's The Strangerers! After watershed, of course! -- Andymarczak 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Why's it called BBC Kids then? Sounds awfully strange to me. Regardless of that though, surely the fact that it was Bowdlerised implies that the BBC Kids version was intended for a younger audience than was originally intended. RobbieG 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

he he - I'll rephrase that. It's a 24/7 channel, showing kids stuff during the day, and grown up stuff at night. Knowing nothing about Canadian broadcast rules I can't speculate why they cut it, but unless anyone from Canada knows about this, I don't think a single reference in another wiki is enough corroborating evidence to suggest it was actually aimed at kids. --Andymarczak 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Kryten's head was designed specifically to appeal to children. He's the "cute" one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.37.7.247 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

You're kidding, right? RobbieG 11:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope so! Anyway, the main issue here is the classification of the TV show. From memory, and this is only in terms of Australian Broadcasting Classification, most, if not all, Red Dwarf episodes were given the PG (Parental Guideance Recommended) classification, which advises that the content is mild. Shows intended for young (children) audiences are rated to a G (General or very mild) rating. The show was never intended for young audiences, as shown with the use of swear words, and as RobbieG said, severe editing of the show to allow it to be broadcast to younger audiences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frostyvegi (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

If Red Dwarf wasn't in part intended for children then please explain the toys. 86.138.62.51 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an utterly pointless debate. What a foreign broadcaster does with the show is irrelevant. Red Dwarf aired after 9pm and contained frequent sexual references, bad language and some pretty scary scenes (the bit in Demons and Angels where the 'low' Rimmer threatens to rape Lister is not suitable for children at all; Psirens had some pretty strong stuff in it, along with a few other episodes). Sure, some teenagers and kids were allowed to watch it by their parents, but by that logic Aliens is a kid's film. The DVDs are also all rated '12' and some of the VHS releases were rated '15' on release, IIRC.--Werthead 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I regard the "threatening to rape Lister" moment as one akin to scenes in Mrs Doubtfire (sticking up her middle finger, using the f word and so on) rather than ones in Aliens. There is no blood and gore in Red Dwarf at all. It's just things that will go over the heads of children/young teenagers and be appreciated by adults, rather than potentially damage them psychologically. And there are no toys of the Alien ships or facehuggers for children to buy either. You may consider it a pointless debate but other people obviously disagree! 194.66.226.95 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the concept of rape can have a very traumatic effect on children. Anyway, there was some gore in Red Dwarf ("Psirens", for example). There was never very much gore, but then, how much gore is there in other comedies aimed at adults, such as Fawlty Towers, Extras or Men Behaving Badly? Gore is more a staple of horror television. Oh, and by the way, there were children's toys made for Alien. RobbieG 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'm sure that when children hear the phrase "and then I'm going to have you" they understand fully and think immediately of the horror of rape. One for the adults that will go over the kids' heads by any chance? Since swearing is bleeped on the DVD outtakes and mouths are even blurred to make the words impossible to make out, I think we can rest on this subject that this programme isn't "unsuitable for kids". I for one remember enjoying it around 7pm in the late 80s which is certainly isn't a child unfriendly time. 78.86.120.49 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf although aimed at the adult market, can be viewed by children on certain episodes. All shows were originally broadcast at 9:00pm post-watershed slot on BBC2. The DVD certificate ratings vary from 12 rating to 15 rating for the Smeg Ups, so this clearly indicates that the show was aimed at adults. The novels also contain adult material, so please, let's put this matter to rest: Red Dwarf, although aimed at the adult market, can be viewed by teenagers. --Nreive 09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hope you like the template I've made. Feel free to make any improvements/reworkings. Now I can't sit about here all day, I'm off to take the penguin for a walk. Lugnuts 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When was Red Dwarf axed?

I can't find on the wiki page when Red Dwarf was axed. Was it between six and seven, before being brought back again after a long "suspension" (like happened during Colin Baker's Doctor Who era), or after series eight? If it's the latter, does anyone know whether the BBC are in talks yet about resurrecting it? Thanks.

It's never been "axed". It was on hiatus between series six and seven, partly because after the writers' split it took Doug a while to get going on creating new Dwarf by himself, and partly because Craig Charles was imprisoned on remand for part of that time. Since series eight, meanwhile, Doug's efforts have been focused on making the movie. If GNP go to the BBC and say "We want to make another series", in all likelihood the BBC would agree to it, given that VIII garnered the show's highest ratings, and the DVDs are among their very bestselling comedy ones. However, at the moment, GNP don't want to make another TV series - they want to make a movie.

So, it's never been officially cancelled by the BBC - in both instances so far, the decision to put it on hiatus has come from the makers. Seb Patrick 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all true. However if GNP were to go to the BBC and ask for a reasonable budget for a new series they will likely run into the same old problems. Red Dwarf has always had to prove itself, again and again, as if every series was the first one. The cliffhanger ending was put onto series VIII as a last-minute decision in order to pursuade the BBC to fund a ninth series - Doug Naylor was worried that wrapping everything up nicely would inadvertantly "end" the series for good, from the BBC's point of view.

If a ninth series is made, or a movie, I pray for it to really push forward the boundaries set by series VIII, and feature fart gags and all that kind of thing. My favourite moments in Red Dwarf prior to series VIII appear in series III, when the replacement to Kryten hilariously uses his genitals to cut a brick in half, and then in series IV, when all the characters hilariously run away from the curry monster! More moments like this please!!! And fart gags, people slipping on sick, and constantly "accidentally" dressing up as the wrong person!!!

I don't really care for them making a second series of Red Dwarf VIII. I think they could have a lot of fun making a movie but I doubt it'll be a big hit.81.157.212.236 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, and as a reply to Seb Patrick's stupid smug remark above... Fans of Red Dwarf - Enjoy this for yourselves as I do!! From the ganymede.tv webite: "GNP have actually decided to try and set the wheels in motion on creating some new television (series or specials, we don’t know). The BBC’s reply? They don’t want it. And why? Well, according to a direct quote reported by Doug (sadly, we don’t know the specific source) : “They’re no longer interested in the sort of audience the show used to attract”." FUCKING BRILLIANT, SIRS! I rejoice! 81.157.212.138 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a couple of stupid responses to the issue on that website, arf! Check this one out: "the dvd sales have shown that the series still has wings though. take it to sky, or c4. fuck, hbo would probably love it." Love it! As though the DVD sales didn't represent interest in old series, but new ones! Hilarious!! Next, from another stupid ganymede & titan member: "I guess they’re only interested in attracting the sort of audience who watch “Big Brother.”" Yep! Because the BBC make Big Brother don't they! Another: "the BBC don’t want a good sitcom audience…" As if series VIII was a good sitcom! Clearly this just proves the point about what the later series has done to the Red Dwarf legacy. Oh man this has totally made my day, as you can probably tell. Let GNP focus on Red Dwarf stage shows in Chippenham and leave TV to programmes that know what clever plot structure and good humour is. "They would be scared of placing Dwarf, or anything remotely ‘geeky’, in a prime comedy slot." Like the BBC are scared of doing it! They just don't want it because any new Dwarf would be tat! "The bottom line is - RED DWARF IX COULD BE FUCKING FANTASTIC." Yes, or: Red Dwarf VIII shouldn't have ended on a cliffhanger, so that Red Dwarf IX wouldn't have to tie up any loose ends ten-plus years earlier. The bottom line is - the cast are too old, the writers aren't capable of doing clever or funny stuff anymore, and nobody is interested in a new series apart from the people obsessed with it who don't have any other interests anyway. Doug Naylor's statement has proved what the rest of us knew all along: Red Dwarf has had its day. Get over it. This is great. I feel so serene right now. 81.157.212.138 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can people cut down on the insults, the POV-pushing and the cussing, please? I'm sure you wouldn't like to offend anyone, and there is a reminder at the top of the page to keep things civil. RobbieG 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the personal attacks, there, based on a comment made months ago when information that has since become available wasn't widely known. Shock horror. Anyway, keep it up and I'll bring in an RfA. Also, I applaud your remarkable cowardice in hiding behind anonymity to insult me, just because I've bothered to actually register and admit to my identity. Seb Patrick 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Basis in Scientific Theory section

I've just removed this section for a variety of reasons. It conflicted somewhat with the introduction, seemed quite out of place, was not physically sound, and had a considerable amount of rather irrelevant material. --Philosophus ^T 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To add a bit more, the section didn't cite sources, and quite simply seemed wrong to me. It would be absurd to say that the series has a basis in science. --Philosophus ^T 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section is a dubious one, but normally we'd discuss any such removal on this page, arrive at a consensus and then sort it out, so I'm just going to put it back in for now, although I vote for removal. The essence of the paragraph could be fitted into one succinct sentence and incorporated elsewhere in the text if needs be. Kris 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't all that bloated. I trimmed it a little; removed an irrelevancy and added a "cite needed" tag to the Hawking assertion. --Orange Mike 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The section is unsourced, and just doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective. Please don't add it again unless it can be supported with reliable sources. --Philosophus ^T 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion, but used a more accurate title. What additional sourcing are you demanding? --Orange Mike 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... it might help to know what the source given actually contains. It was my interpretation that it only contained the Hawking mention. Nevertheless, the section makes very bold claims and thus needs strong sourcing; in my opinion it is essentially linking technobabble with current scientific theory. Tachyons, for example, are more popular in science fiction than in actual high energy theory (where they are only considered in certain areas, and aren't contained in any globally accepted theories like the SM), and references to them usually don't have anything to do with actual theories (see Tachyons in fiction). No source is given to assert that mentions of tachyons in Red Dwarf are grounded in even very speculative theories. While the section claims that the stasis booth is grounded in science, no source is given to support this, and Stasis (fiction) disagrees. In addition to problems with the points that it mentions, the section also gives an absurd level of undue weight to a particular view, since the vast majority of show has no scientific basis and is in fact completely unscientific (even the beginning of the article itself notes that science fiction is not the show's primary focus). And, to address the last sentence, I'm not sure why Hawking being a fan is relevant to the section; while it would be relevant elsewhere, having a fan who is also a well known physicist doesn't give any scientific basis to the show. I know many scientists who are fans of the show, many of whom are physicists, but I fail to see how that pertains to this issue. --Philosophus ^T 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle to deletion of selection. It's probably more appropriate in Doug's (and also, I suppose Grant's) own wikipage. I will watch the sourced material tonight to look at the evidence and try and find more references as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frostyvegi (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

article title

I believe the title of this article should be changed to "Red Dwarf (TV Show)" For clearer disambiguation, and to eliminate the (imo) pointless capitalization issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kouban (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I was thinking something similar, but thought we could maybe call the article "Lipton's Kryten Factor, Sponsored by Lipton". And have it so that people aren't redirected here when they search for "Red Dwarf" - they just have to know it's "Lipton's Kryten Factor, Sponsored by Lipton" and type that in perfectly without any mistakes. Agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Thing About the Theme Tune

When Howard Goodall wrote the theme tune for Red Dwarf, he initially wanted it to overlay perfectly with the original Derbyshire arrangement of the Doctor Who theme because he was inspired by the Wizard of Oz / Dark Side of the Moon myth. Somebody with authority please add this to the main article, thanks.

Interesting information. Where was this written?Frostyvegi 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard this too; anyone know where the interview was published? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.32.90 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Pretty sure it was in a Saturday or Sunday newspaper supplement like the Guardian Guide or Telegraph Guide or whatever they call those things. It'll probably be hard to track down, but I remember I was around 14 or 15 which would place it somewhere in the mid-nineties. Good luck finding it - if you do please say so here and perhaps put a bit of information in the main article since it's very interesting and isn't touched on anywhere else that I can find.

I don't remember this. Please provide more details or a link if you can, as this is fascinating information.

This was in a BBC documentary in the early 90s about theme music for comedies. It looked at the music for Blackadder and Red Dwarf and a couple of others, and the thing about Doctor Who is true - Goodall was inspired by the Wizard of Oz / Dark Side of the Moon myth and BEGAN the process of the Dwarf theme tune by trying to make something that would layer over the Derbyshire arrangement. However a short time into the process the tune had its own structure, and he didn't pursue that idea anymore. The themes don't line up but you can still hear some harmonic similarities in places.81.157.212.236 18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the text tracks on the Remastered episodes makes a sly reference to Goodall's experiments here if you check them out. It (as a joke) suggests watching the remastered opening credits whilst listening to Dark Side of the Moon and seeing if they match up. Not the Doctor Who theme (which wouldn't work either) but interesting anyway! 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Does anyone know how to access the easter egg on the Bodysnatcher disc (disc one)? Thanks. 86.133.167.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to the subtitle page and turns subtitles "on". Now select "off" and press "up". You'll highlight the two stars on the JMC logo. Press enter and you'll access an audio-only ten minute clip of Doug and Rob discussing their involvement in Spitting Image. 86.146.103.64 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When did Robert Klewellyns have toothache?

When did Robert Klewellyns have toothache? I know he mentions it in one of the Red Dwarf DVD commentaries but I can't find it now.

He had toothache throughout Spring 1991. He mentions it in one of the commentaries for either series 3 or 4; sorry to not be more specific but it'll be a bit of a trawl to search for you.

The Justice Birds

What were the Justice Birds called in the episode Justice? Were they given a name? Since they were edited out of the episode and only appear in the deleted scenes, do they get named in one of the novels? My brother suggested that I call them "Shit Birds" but I'll only do this if I don't get the official name for them. Thanks in advance!

The official name for them is "Litter Birds", as seen on a sign on a bin in the scene in question, and also stated in the Series IV DVD collector's booklet. IMO your brother's name for them is funnier, however.  :-) RobbieG 11:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf Song Lyrics

Anyone object to the lyrics of all the Red Dwarf songs being put in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.183.232 (talk • contribs)

Yes; they've been in the article in the past, and they've been removed. Wikipedia doesn't allow reproduction of song lyrics as it's an infringement of copyright. Seb Patrick 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's okay we could post them but change them slightly so they don't infringe copyright anymore. But then put a little note saying "these lyrics have been changed, the code to get the correct lyrics is as follows: convert 'angel delight' to 'cold outside'", or whatever. I bet loads of people come here trying to find the lyrics and it's a shame they can't get them.

But we'd still be reproducing a large portion of the lyrics, and anyway, the code would be made to be broken, so it'd still be infringement. Besides, that would look really daft ("It's angel delight, there's no kind of atmosphere..."!?), hardly suitable material for an encyclopaedia. People looking for song lyrics should go to a song lyrics database. There are probably even song lyrics wikis out there that you might like to visit, try Googling for them. This, however, is an encyclopaedia. RobbieG 11:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a majority of people wanting to put lyrics up or what the overall consensus should be, so I'm only contributing this because I thought of it and don't really have a view either way... maybe people could use asterisks to make the lyrics less clear, if this would get around the copyright issue? For example: "It's c*** outside, no kind of a****h****, I'm all alone, more or less; want to f**, far away from here, f** f** f**, in the sun sun sun..." etc. Does this present itself as a reasonable solution?

Can we stop this lunacy now please? You can't put the lyrics up in any form unless you get permission from the person who wrote them. So how about pestering Howard Goodall instead? Andymarczak 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so aggressive. Nobody's "pestering" you. If people want lyrics here then yes they should ask Howard Goodall - thanks for bringing that up. But don't be mean towards people who are clearly trying to help.

In any case, it appears that use of the Red Dwarf logo and other images is causing just as much fuss. If these images are used without sorting out the "fair use" issue then I say we should just put the lyrics up anyway. We'll know it's okay if we ignore the warning on the images and nothing happens.

The logo can reasonably be said to be a necessary illustration of the subject matter, and there's still a high chance it'll get deleted by the looks of things, so that's surely all the more reason not to put anything else that infringes copyright up here. RobbieG 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Or: Keep the logo (and images of the cast and the front cover of the first Red Dwarf book) in the article until it's deleted, and ALSO add the lyrics until the date that the pending "fair use" issue is resolved. Presto, everyone's happy.

Answer me this : in what sense do wasting a big chunk of space with the lyrics to the theme tune heighten the understanding of the subject matter for readers of the article?

I'd hazard : none whatsoever. They're just material from the programme, just like script extracts would be. There's no need for them. At all. Seb Patrick 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm supporting to keep the lyrics in this case. There's no "wasting a big chunk of space" in wikipedia as the article length isn't limited. I see no reason to get rid of the lyrics - it's just a matter of opinion as to whether they're of value or not.

So we've gone from it being a copyright issue to being one of your own personal opinion as to whether lyrics are of interest or not to readers of the article. Thanks for making your motivations plainly obvious. I've added a lyrics section, and will continue to restore them as long as you insist on keeping the aforementioned photos without "fair use" rationale.

If I appear aggressive, I apologise, but it is only because this talk page is being littered with juvenile rubbish that detracts from the serious discussion. Also anonymous posting does not give your posts credibility. In terms of the logos, it is true that they might contravene copyright, so this article might be left with no pictures or lyrics. The general rule of thumb I've found is that song lyrics are not reproduced verbatim on any song page, so this should be the same. It doesn't add any weight to an already lengthy article. Andymarczak 09:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, the image is arguably fair use because it provides a necessary illustration for an encyclopaedia article. The lyrics are plainly not, because (a) encyclopaedias don't list song lyrics, song books do that (b) other Wikipedia articles on TV shows seem to manage fine without lyrics, (c) the lyrics contain too much copyright information to be legally allowed and (d) we don't print actual phrases from the programme here anyway, Wikiquote is the place for them (although Wikiquote doesn't print full song lyrics either). Articles are advised to be kept concise, and this article has already been criticised for being too long. This is not a personal "I don't think they're interesting" issue, this is a "encyclopaedias don't print them, so Wikipedia is not the place for them" issue. Don't you see? This page has to abide by Wikipedia policy, and copyrighted song lyrics contravene that. RobbieG 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, "Don't you see?" is a quote of Rimmer from one of the episodes. It's very clever to quote Red Dwarf wherever possible. I love it.

The lyrics have reappeared, without really any explanation. So I've deleted them. The debate seems to have died down here, but the lyrics are fundamentally against Wikipedia policy, so I think they should go. Any comments?Wikifuzzygum 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very frustrating, the lyrics have now come back - with the message "Once again - if you're going to remove the lyrics please also remove the images. If not, just leave these where they are, thanks." Again, this is user 212.219.208.10 However, I think it has been succesfully argues that the images fall under fair use - they are, after all, illustrating an encyclopaedic article. However, if the user refuses to debate the issue, we will just be reverting and deleting for ever. Very dreary. I think that the images should stay for now, and the lyrics should go. Can we have some decent discussion 212.219.208.10? Wikifuzzygum 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no discussion to be had. A single anonymous user, using different IP addresses, is deliberately causing trouble because he/she knows it winds up established editors. This is clear vandalism of Wikipedia in order to make a point by someone too cowardly to actually register an account and identify themselves, and it shouldn't be tolerated. The worst part is that if someone's IP address is constantly changing, they can't be held to task under the 3RR rule, because they can claim that they were different people. Editors with an account, meanwhile, can potentially be punished for trying to keep the article in a decent state. Hopefully, however, there are enough people reverting this anonymous troublemaker's edits at any one time that it won't fall to a single person to keep doing it. It's beginning to get out of hand, though, and if it continues for any longer than a few more days, I'd suggest getting the article locked to unregistered editors. Seb Patrick 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww, I always hate it when an article gets locked to unregistered users, because Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If we are dealing with a persistent vandal with multiple IP addresses, can't we just block all those addresses from editing? This may all just be a misunderstanding, since the person seems to be confused over Wikipedia policy and guidelines in places, but I find it difficult to take anyone seriously if they want to print "It's c*** outside, there's no kind of a****h***"... RobbieG 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great news for people who either wanted the lyrics to stay or the images to be removed! Thanks to everyone who helped in this campaign! I'm happy to leave the lyrics off now the pictures are gone. Keep up the good work everyone and remember to post here if you get any more ideas for the article!

Fair use rationale for Image:RedDwarfCast.jpg

Image:RedDwarfCast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is going on about.

Is anybody able to translate this Betacommandbot message into something we can all understand so that we know what we're being told to do? Thanks.

Anybody attending to this? How long do we have before we have to remove them or they are deleted automatically?

Fair use rationale for Image:Red dwarf logo.png

Image:Red dwarf logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should attend to this or we might just have to remove the Red Dwarf logo.

Fair use rationale for Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg

Image:Red Dwarf IWCD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How long before all these images are removed by the BetacommandBot thing? I'm getting impatient.

No Aliens

I'm putting this on the talk page, so that when reverting vandalism by the anonymous user (clearly the same person with different IP addresses), it can be referred to as clear discussion : The fact that there are no aliens in Red Dwarf is a significant and often-discussed tenet of the series. There is a fan made document online that outlines the various species of creature in Dwarf, with reference to Rob Grant and Doug Naylor's assertion that the show (and the books) are set in a universe with no aliens in. This is a completely different issue to the fact that "contentious words like 'retard'" are never used in the series. That fact is irrelevant to the context of the series as a whole. The person constantly reverting others' constructive edits is clearly doing so in order to make a point (just as they are by constantly adding the theme tune lyrics to the article), and it needs to stop. If it doesn't stop, I'm going to request that the article be locked temporarily to new or unregistered editors, as it amounts to little more than a sustained campaign of vandalism by somebody with an axe to grind. Incidentally, I'm seeking permission from Grant Naylor Productions for the use of copyrighted images for illustrative purposes, so the fact that there are fair use images in the article will hopefully shortly no longer be a valid defence against constantly inserting the lyrics (not that it ever was, if you actually read Wikipedia policy). Seb Patrick 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes great and please seek permission to post the lyrics here too.

There seem to be a lot of web sites that mention the "no alien" policy of Red Dwarf, but it is proving hard to find what could be termed an "authoratitive source". There is one entry here http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44155.asp that we might be able to use a reference, but I'll keep looking for something better.fg 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact that there are no life-forms depicted on screen that aren't of Earth origin, so no aliens do appear in the programme. It's notable because it sets the show apart from most other science-fiction shows. RobbieG 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It has to be specifically defined as a "policy" or something similar to differentiate it from all other things that just don't happen to occur in the programme, though.

if there are no aliens in red dwarf then explain the character with the fangs

He's a cat, evolved from a domestic cat, and ultimately of Earth origin. RobbieG 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish that they'd had the budget in series VII to go with the "Rimmer riding on the back of an alien" idea planned for the beginning of Stoke me a Clipper. Then all this bollocks about there being some specific decision NEVER to feature aliens would have been blown right out of the water. I love when people speculate and create little nonsense stories to explain everything that just hasn't had a chance to happen.

Well, they seem to have deliberately scrapped that idea, and I'm sure one of the DVDs said something about the no-aliens policy. Besides, that was series VII, wasn't it. Multiple writers and no Rob Grant. RobbieG 09:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what you're misremembering - it wasn't a no-aliens policy - it was robots they've stated that they didn't want to include, and they changed their mind for season III after realising that Kryten worked in season II. It's quite possible that Rob Grant was against featuring aliens, and they just didn't do them because of this, but I wouldn't call this a "policy" if there was a potential for aliens to be present once he left, or if they might change their minds after the show has been running a few years. No aliens on screen doesn't mean a no-aliens policy - I think this is quite important. They obviously left it open so they could do them later if they wanted.

OK - why don't we use this as a reference until we find something better? It seems pretty comprehensive, although it is a rather fannish looking site. http://members.aol.com/holly5120/aliens.html If there are no reasonable arguments against this, I'll add it in a couple of days. fg 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not acceptable as evidence. I could easily make some home site that says "Red Dwarf is a catchphrase-oriented comedy and the repeated use of the word 'smeg' proves this". It means nothing.

The show DOES have a no aliens policy. Rob and Doug repeatedly stated this in interviews, and it's stated definitively, and in significant detail, in the first novel - which, although located in a parallel fictional universe, do stick to the same basic mechanics as the TV show. It explains at length how a lack of aliens was 'proved'. This is backed up in the TV universe by Lister's comments in the first series.

A quick Google reveals this from Doug Naylor: http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/interviews/doug-naylor.html "we don't want any aliens in our science-fiction series" seems clear enough. OR http://www.ganymede.tv/indepth/the-rob-grant-interview "we decided not to have any aliens in it". If this isn't enough, it's a simple matter to check the BTL and Smegazine interviews for more. Alternatively, Doug Naylor DOES mention the 'no aliens rule' again in the documentaries coming in October on the Bodysnatcher DVD.

It was a specific decision by the makers, and in this case the reason no aliens appear is because of the writers' original policy. A policy that continued after Rob left the franchise. (Quickie gag monsters, like the Vidal beast, are never given an origin story, but there's no reason to think they break the rule given the plethora of weird life out there, all of Earth origin.) The show has never and would never include life-forms not originating from Earth. A few vague interview references to 'aliens' are simple shorthand, the early Stoke draft did NOT feature an alien, but another GELF-like beast; I've read it. Red Dwarf features strange life-forms all the time; you need only look at the number of times the cast call GELFs 'aliens' to appreciate this.

Hopefully that's answered that one.

Surely the TARDIS on Red Dwarf proves the presence of alien life? Or at least hint that they're open to it? 81.157.212.77 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be facetious, but there's no proof that wasn't a regular police phone box. Besides, it's been pretty demonstrably proven (by the links that the above anonymous provdided) that there is no alien life and this was a definite decision. The TARDIS was a cameo, an easter egg for the super observant. I seriously doubt that they would have based an episode around it. RobbieG 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are space weevils of earth/human origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.107.232 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has never been stated. — Val42 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the logical answer is that some GELFs manufactured the space weevil maggot things and blasted them into space so that they can wreak havok on corn supplies of any ship they randomly bump into. "Space weevils" doesn't mean they originated in space as an alien life form, it means they float around in space. 86.134.124.67 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Expletives section

Could somebody please explain the rationale for retaining the "expletives" section as it now stands? You've drawn my attention to it by deleting the one part that gave it some value - namely its ending, where the definition of "smeg-head" and "smeg-for-brains" was presented in quite an intelligent and eloquent manner. As it is now, the expletives section appears as a careful list of swear-words that have appeared in the programme. Why has this happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.252 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2007

The section was originally part of the invented words section, listing the invented insults and curse words in the series. Now it seems to have grown into a "list of naughty words used once in the course of the entire series", which does strike me as rather pointless and excessive. Unfortunately, whenever I try to trim it down, my edit is reverted by an anonymous user with multiple IP addresses, on the grounds that "the structure and meaning are both fine. There's nothing wrong with it." It's true - I don't see anything wrong from a grammatical perspective, and it is perfectly clear. I'm just not sure that all of it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Thoughts? RobbieG 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this, Robbie. It's not necessary to describe the use of every word. Though there is an interesting crossover argument with the "is it/was it for kids?" thread that is neverending. If a show contains swear words (as Red Dwarf does, even as early as "Waiting For God"), then that nails the argument that it was not written for kids. Andymarczak 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't "nail the argument" at all though. I don't think the issues are related, Red Dwarf has been established as "not a kids' show" but loads of kids' programmes feature swearing in abundance. Some of the lewdest work ever has been exclusively for children, and was shown during the teatime slot on BBC1. I grew up effing and blinding because of this, and a good thing too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.212.115 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2007

I have a friend in the UK sent me over some tapes of Byker Grove recently. I can't believe how much swearing you're allowed in kids' programs over there. We'd never get away with that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.164.220 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2007

To be perfectly honest, the whole article needs to be cut down massively, but people are so sodding well precious about the sentences they added two years ago that the chances of it being shortened to something that anybody with only a passing interest in Red Dwarf will attempt to read is practically nil. Check out all other wiki pages for contemporary sitcoms and you'll see that a summary of the series and a bit about how the characters interact is all you really need. I mean for god's sake there's a section on VHS releases which isn't relevant anymore, but what'll happen when somebody attempts to remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.32.178 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2007

I had a go at removing the VHS section and my edit was reverted because apparently the old information remains useful for historical reasons. This article is 23 pages of A4 when printed out - it's really formidable to anyone who just wants a few nuggets of essential information. Maybe we could have a separate page for "old but historically interesting information" that we link to from the main article, and just keep Red Dwarf wiki relevant to now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.167.245 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2007

I think people are missing the point of Wikipedia entirely - it's supposed to be detailed! An article is supposed to fully cover its subject, past, present and future. Now, in the case of the expletives, I agree - should only contain those made up for the show, but in the case of, say, the VHS section, that's relevant to the show, whether the DVDs have replaced them or not. Bear in mind that this article is supposed to contain detailed information about Red Dwarf, not a fleeting summary as some of you seem to want. _TheIslander 09:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe the structure needs to be worked out then so that people can get to what they want straight away. At the moment it all feels a bit random, but it seems you're suggesting a "past, present, future" structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.167.245 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2007

People, please always remember to sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~, which Wikipedia automatically translates into a signature and timestamp. It's really not hard. Back to the topic in hand, I disagree; I think the structure as it is right now is fine. I'm not saying that a little tweak here and there wouldn't help, but I certainly don't think rearranging it into a past/present/future format would be at all beneficial. _TheIslander 11:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the expletives passage has any merit in an encylopedia...swear words are used all the time in programmes, as pointed out by someone above. We don't have to write about it here.

Seraphim ^Whipp 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seb Patrick has now remodelled this section and I approve of his changes. Subject closed for me. 81.157.212.8 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Same here - good job Seb Patrick ;) _TheIslander 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto.

Seraphim ^Whipp 16:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Grant AND Naylor?

Not a major thing, but worth mentioning. The opening of the article refers to 'Grant Naylor' as the creator(s) of the show. But they never wrote the show under this name. At its inception they were 'Rob Grant and Doug Naylor' - both within the industry and as credited - and only took the gestalt title to write and publicise the novels. 'Grant Naylor' only ever worked on the show as a director during Series V.

Of course this is also an issue with the Grant Naylor page...but I figured it was worth mentioning.193.203.75.243 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. "Grant Naylor" refers to them as a gestalt entity and is the name of the production company. When referring to them as people, however, (eg as writers of the series) they should be "Grant and Naylor", as one might speak of "Lovett and Llewellyn".81.157.212.236 17:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise "GNP" should also be "G&P" 81.157.212.77 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, no it shouldn't. GNP stands for Grant Naylor Productions - which, irrespective of Rob Grant's involvement, is the name of the production company that controls the franchise. Seb Patrick 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for clearing this up. 81.157.212.219 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Page title

Why is this now "Red Dwarf (TV Series)"? Since the "see also" section doesn't mention any other articles with the name "Red Dwarf", why can't this be called just "Red Dwarf"? The star type is not capitalised, so there's unlikely to be much confusion there, especially since the top of the page says "For the type of star, see Red dwarf". Quite apart from that, the opening sentence is "Red Dwarf is a British science fiction comedy franchise..." Franchise, not TV series. This covers books, websites, "the movie" (if there really will be such a thing), figurines, Mr. Flibble glove puppets, the lot. It's not an article on the TV series. Besides all this, wouldn't the correct capitalisation be "Red Dwarf (TV series)" anyway? RobbieG 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It appears to have been changed on the whim of one person (not blaming the admin who moved it - they appear to have done so in good faith after someone attempted to do a cut-and-paste edit), with no discussion taking place or consensus reached whatsoever. I'd be in full support of moving it back to its rightful place, for the reasons you outline above (i.e. that the article doesn't refer solely to the TV series). Seb Patrick 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. RobbieG 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

God, that's confusing. How about "Red Dwarf (Franchise)" as someone suggested above? 86.142.211.237 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be far more confusing. Why don't we just use the name "Red Dwarf", which is what it's called and what anyone interested in the show is likely to search for? Wikipedia articles are supposed to use the simplest titles available. RobbieG 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the name "Red Dwarf" is shared by that other thing called a red dwarf, and which uses the wiki title "Red Dwarf". I know the wiki title for it is actually "Red dwarf" but if you look closely you can see that these are actually exactly the same ("d" and "D" are the same letter). You were even the one who emphasised the "franchise" element above "TV Series" earlier; what made you change your mind? 86.142.40.98 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But by the same rationale, why not rename red dwarf as "Red dwarf (star)"? Seb Patrick 18:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Seb. Rename this one "Red Dwarf (Comedy Franchise)" and the other one "Red Dwarf (Star)" to remove all ambiguity. I think it's silly the only difference is in the capitalisation since a dictionary wouldn't differentiate them in this way. 194.66.226.95 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I was actually disagreeing with the calls to add a qualifier to this article's name, so I'm not sure you do agree with me ;-) However, if it's to happen, then I'm not hugely keen on the use of the word "franchise", it has to be said. How about simply "Red Dwarf (comedy)" or "Red Dwarf (comedy series)"? Seb Patrick 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to qualify to 86.142.40.98 that I did not "change my mind", and that, as I stated above, I have never seen any good reason why this page could not be called just "Red Dwarf", and that, in any case, since the article refers to the franchise as a whole, not just the TV series, "Red Dwarf (TV Series)" was misleading. This article existed for a very long time as just "Red Dwarf", without complaints, which would suggest that most people don't have any difficulty in pressing the shift key. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think some people are confused about Wikipedia naming conventions; "Red Dwarf (Comedy Franchise)" would not be an acceptable title under any circumstances because the capitalisation does make a difference. Dictionaries do differentiate based on capitalisation, and so does Wikipedia.

"Red Dwarf (comedy)" (which I think is the least bad alternative) still strikes me as completely redundant, since there is no article entitled "Red Dwarf" which is not about a comedy. As to changing "Red dwarf" to "Red Dwarf (Star)", well, the capitals are wrong anyway, but it's only a small step between doing that and deciding to rename every article, so that we end up with "Byronic hero (character type)", "Basque language (language)" and "European Union (supranational union)", which would eliminate all confusion as to what the articles were about, but would look silly and no-one would ever be able find the page they were looking for. RobbieG 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robbie. The whole point of qualifiers in brackets after a name is to differentiate between articles that would otherwise have identical names. Under Wikipedia naming conventions, however, these two names are not identical (you only have to bother to read site policy to discover that - see WP:CAPS for more). Furthermore, even if the odd person might accidentally hit the TV series article when looking for the star, or vice versa, there are disambiguation links at the top of the articles for that precise reason. Seb Patrick 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How are "Red dwarf" and "Red Dwarf" not identical? They are identical in all but the capitalisation of the "D" in "Dwarf". I agree that the disambiguation allows people to swap to the one they *meant* to go to, but in itself there's nothing to make anyone assume the comedy franchise will have a capital letter. People putting "doctor who" into a search engine will also get Doctor Who, Doctor who and doctor Who. If you put "Doctor who" into wikipedia, it takes you to "Doctor Who" because they both mean THE SAME THING. So yes people can use the disambiguation, and it should stay because I can't be bothered to continue this argument, but you should at least accept that a capital letter makes no difference to meaning and shouldn't be used to differentiate two things that share what is otherwise an identical name. 81.157.213.45 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've just answered your own question - they're not identical because of the capitalisation. Again, I repeat - look at WP:CAPS and you'll see that current Wikipedia naming convention dictates that its acceptable to have two pages with the same lettering but different capitalisation. Now, there are those who believe that such pages are problematic, and are pushing to have it changed - see this list - but the fact of the matter is, they're currently accepted. And capitalisation does exist for a reason - if a capital letter made no difference to meaning, as you suggest, then we simply wouldn't have it. Bear in mind that, for example, the words "Conservative" and "conservative" mean two very different things. Seb Patrick 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for showing me that list. Yes I understand that there's a difference between "liberal" and "Liberal" - the issue isn't that I'm stupid, it's that the differentiation of wiki titles by capitalisation alone is more confusing than the slight clarification we could offer. If you put "conservative" into the wiki search engine, it redirects you to "Conservatism", and says you were redirected from "Conservative" even though you didn't put a capital "C". So I disagree that I answered my own question: capitalisation does *not* stop two titles from being identical, especially when we're dealing with "Dwarf/dwarf" rather than "Conservative/conservative". However I've already said that this is not a subject that I wish to fight about. The disambiguation link is enough to help sort people out. 81.157.213.45 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can an Emohawk change a character's teeth?

Why can an Emohawk change a character's teeth? The polymorph was established as an emotion-leech, not one that can also change a character's teeth and hair. Was there some established reason for this that I missed - maybe given in one of the books? 81.157.213.45 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, but Duane Dibbley always looked like that. For that matter, bitterness and cool aren't really emotions, and cool isn't a negative emotion, so several established polymorph characteristics were disregarded. I didn't really like "Polymorph II: Emohawk" anyway, it was just an excuse to reuse some old gags. Please note, however, that this page should really be for discussing improvements to the article, not the article's subject. RobbieG 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Emohawk changed the Cat's fangs and hair into Dibbley's overbite and pudding basin, and the colour of Rimmer's hair to that of Ace's, which is a bit different from just taking away personality characteristics that aren't negative or exclusively emotions. However while the books do for example make the original series III Polymorph visit the hologram suite rather than attach physically to Rimmer's body as per the series, I'm not sure what they do with regards the Emohawk. It's very possible the re-appearance of Dibbley and Ace was exclusive to the TV series, as RobbieG says it was primarily an attempt to please the fans. It's unlikely the books would have a reason to translate "OMG!!! Dibbley is back!!! Audience going beserk at this and look he can't even open the cupboard without spilling stuff LOL!!!" from the screen to the page. 81.157.202.46 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Two quick questions about the Bodysnatcher DVD

Two quick questions about the Bodysnatcher DVD: 1) When The End Remastered was first aired, it was actually a different version to what later was shown as the first of the Remastered series - a work-in-progress I suppose it was, with things like Norm's close-ups not yet being fully "treated" in terms of colouring etc, and him saying "Bing Bong" instead of the electronic sound. For historical reasons this is interesting, and as "historical interest" is largely the focus of this release, I was wondering whether extracts of this version will be making their way onto the DVD. 2) I'd really love to find Rob Grant's view of the Remastereds, given that neither he nor Doug Naylor were fond of the production on series one and two. I'd like to know whether he considers the Remastereds to be close to his original vision of the series, or whether their "series eight-style" additions detract from this. Will he be on the Remastered documentary, or maybe recording one or two commentaries with Doug for the Remastereds? This would be so great. Thanks to anyone who can let me have answers to these! 81.157.212.157 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above, this page is for discussion of the Red Dwarf article, not the show itself. However, you can find everything you could possibly want to know about Bodysnatcher - or, at least, everything that is currently known - at The Official Site. If you've heard anything about the DVD that isn't on that site, it'll be a lie or guesswork.

But yes, Rob Grant is on the DVD, in both documentary and commentary form. Seb Patrick 16:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not offering a view on the Remastereds though, it seems. Blast. 81.157.212.157 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's been confirmed Rob Grant won't be offering a view on the Remastereds as he didn't think it was appropriate to do so. Annoying this, since he and Doug both were unhappy with the production of series 1 and 2, and it would have been interesting to know whether he thought the Remastereds were closer to what he wanted. I'll still consider getting the set though, providing it falls into the £20 mark or thereabouts. 86.144.204.242 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this truly NPOV?

In the "mixed reactions" section of the article, we get this:

"On the other hand, there are other Red Dwarf fans who feel that Series VII and VIII, either individually or as a whole, are the equal of — if not superior to — the earlier series, and the topic is therefore the subject of constant fervent debate among the show's fanbase.[12]"

If you click on [12] you get a link to an article by one fan of series VII. I really don't know why one person liking this series merits mention, as it's hardly proof that there are many people out there who like series VII or VIII. Nor can I happily accept that the wording "the equal of - if not superior to -" is not an unbiased statement. Couldn't we at least change it so it says "...there are other Red Dwarf fans who feel that Series VII and VIII are no weaker than the earlier series..."? In any case, more substantial evidence is required that there are people out there who have this view. Official viewing figures and review sites? 81.157.201.71 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think they are - at times - the equal to, although rarely - if ever - superior to the other series (although I'd say things went downhill as early as series VI). Of course, that is original research and POV on my part. I suggest altering the statement to one you prefer, but bear in mind fansites indicate that there are at least some fans who like the last 2 series, as the link would seem to indicate. The DVDs seem to be selling well enough. RobbieG 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current wording is too heavy and suggests one person emphasising their opinion. I'll change it to the suggested "no weaker than" alternative and see how people respond. 86.145.169.84 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Series seven and eight are rubbish anyway. 86.144.204.242 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not NPOV. RobbieG 15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Only people with a primitive sense of humour, logic and science have an affinity for series VIII and most of series VII. This is obvious even if it can't be stated as true fact in the main article. But we all *know*. 86.144.32.28 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's your opinion. I personally disagree - I thought Series I-V were consistently good, whereas Series VI-VIII were not so strong, but there were good scenes in all of them. I don't watch a comedy show like Red Dwarf for the science (and if I did, Series I had hardly any true science fiction in it anyway) and I don't see what's so illogical about the last two series. Well, except the whole mirror universe nonsense in the last episode, but that was definitely not one of the better episodes. Anyway, the point is, I don't know anything of the sort, and neither do you. We can all have our opinions, but that does not make them factual or verifiable. RobbieG 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you've said you don't see what's so illogical about the last two series kind of proves the point against you, I'm afraid. You're the sort of person who settles for less, is the nice way of saying it. 81.157.212.147 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't see what's so illogical about series VIII? How about this comparison: The Cat having six nipples and a strong sense of smell = logical, because he evolved from a domestic cat. The revelation in Back in the Red that he has colour co-ordinated internal organs, a decorated stomach wall, as well as a "cool" sounding heart beat and pulse = illogical. There's no reason why this would happen, other than the writers wanted to have a hilarious moment which featured Hollister dancing to the latter. And this is hardly a one-off instance of breaking logic to shoe-horn in some special moment of gurning or slapstick, as it happens repeatedly in the series. I hope this has helped. 86.138.62.32 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC know that Red Dwarf killed itself with series VIII, and now won't commission another series, so whatever your opinion, the facts are there. No more new Dwarf unless GNP take it elsewhere. There's an arrogance to Doug Naylor saying that a new series should be commissioned on the basis of its strength when the most recent series was 10 years ago. If GNP were going around with a script for series IX (or at least its first episode) worth producing, as they had to before series 1 was given the green-light, then they might have been reporting a different story. 81.157.212.244 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Dwarf DVDs

Red Dwarf DVDs are currently £10 each at both WHSmith and Virgin stores. 81.157.213.100 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw series 1, 2 and 4 for £9 each today in the Woolworths in Tooting Broadway. So it's bargain time for all the little worms! 86.144.206.29 18:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan stuff

I've removed a number of sections that seemed to be essentially discussions about cult status, continuity, etc, imported from fan sites. Please let's respect verifiability, use only reliable sources, and avoid original research. It just isn't on to put a statement into the article because it's your own opinion or because you read about it on a forum. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And as been pointed out to you before at the very least continuity has been dealt with by the writers so it's not a "fan issue" .Garda40 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tentatively agree that the "mixed reactions" section could be deemed as OR, and more suited to discussion on forums. But the continuity issue is very firmly a core part of the series' history, and for that reason, I believe the section should stay. The sections on fandom and pastiche are also rooted in fact. Seb Patrick 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Garda40, I edit quite a lot of articles but I'm not aware of addressing this issue before. Did the writers address continuity issues? If so, where? --Tony Sidaway 03

54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It was addressed directly in the Smeg Ups video, for starters. Continuity issues have also been alluded to in various interviews with the writers and cast. RobbieG 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but might as well just delete it all anyway huh? 86.138.62.32 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? RobbieG 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

David Ross

---

I was suprised to see , that David Ross's character Bio , had no mention of him presenting "scrap heap challange" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Textkingjoe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, mainly because he didn't. You're muddling him up with Robert Llewellyn, who played Kryten except for his first appearanceGed UK (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to know why Craig Charles' Bio has no mention of him turning down the part of Joey in Friends to play the part of Lister. Surely this is regarded a moderately significant career-move? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a have a source, it can go in, otherwise it's just another unsubstantiated rumour. Ged UK (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be found on the Dwarfing USA documentary on the series V set. "BUY IT NOW" as Lardy Andrew would say. 86.141.194.122 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha. That's very funny. Yes, I salute you. I know Lister has been known to do a bit of time travel, but really; Red Dwarf - 1987, Friends - 1993. --Nreive (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They're making a "joke" about Craig Bierko, who was Lister in the US pilot, and who did indeed turn down the role of Joey. Hilarious. Seb Patrick (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

None other than John Lennon himself appeared in the curry monster outfit. 86.141.193.252 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Impressive considering he was dead by then Ged UK (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Paul McCartney in the Curry Monster outfit (see Beat the Geek for this info), while Lennon just provided a few voices for vending machines and the like in the first couple of series. Again this is well known information, ask anyone like Seb Patrick or Andrew Ellard or John Hoare or Jonathan Capps. 86.141.193.252 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The creature who says "bidoo pidoo" to the Cat in Better than Life (she's supposed to be a kind of Marilyn Monroe) is played by the same actress who later became the blonde one in Men Behaving Badly. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always been confused by that "bidoo pidoo" creature to be honest. Is that supposed to be what Marilyn Monroe normally says (ie "boopoopeedoo") or is she just meant to be like a weird alien imitation version that can't get it right, or something? 81.157.200.193 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)