Talk:Red Dwarf

Former good articleRed Dwarf was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 26, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 22, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Missing on British Sci-Fi TV category page

This Red Dwarf tv series is entirely missing from the category list of British TV science fiction series found here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_science_fiction_television_shows Chaseholden (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Missing in British tv science fiction

This Red Dwarf tv series is entirely missing from the category list of British TV science fiction series found here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_science_fiction_television_shows

Chaseholden (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Article review

It has been a while since this has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

  • There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. While some of these might fall under MOS:PLOT, others such as information on the home video release or the novel do not.
  • There are unrelibale sources used in the article, including Whatculture, Twitter, and IMDB. These should be replaced.
  • There are lots of short, one or two line paragraphs, and some MOS:OVERSECTION in the bottom half of "Spin-offs and merchandise".

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No efforts have been made to address the nominator's concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. While some of these might fall under MOS:PLOT, others such as information on the home video release or the novel do not. There are unrelibale sources used in the article, including Whatculture, Twitter, and IMDB. These should be replaced. There are lots of short, one or two line paragraphs, and some MOS:OVERSECTION in the bottom half of "Spin-offs and merchandise". Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not sure which issues are with the plot, but I don't think MOS:PLOT is meant for entire TV series, but for specific 1:1 topics (like a film, or an episode). This topic is about 12 episodes and a film, so when referring to something from the plot, the specific episode (or film) should be referenced. Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Budget

A quarter of a million pounds per episode? Surely not! I very much doubt this is correct, if it is, please a can a reference be provided? ~2026-25965-79 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I could see this being true later but not in 1988. Mattl (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This field seems really unreliable for an overview of a TV show. Sure, the budget might be the same for a whole season (although not always), but it's highly unlikely to be the exact same amount throughout it's lifespan. Shows will no doubt wax and wane over time. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rename article?

Currently, this article shares a similar name to red dwarf, and is the first search result for 'red dwarf' for some reason. As this causes confusion and between the decade old tv show and the star type, I suggest we rename it to "Red Dwarf (Programme)" while the star red dwarf be renamed "Red Dwarf (Star)" or "M-type main sequence star" in line with the other star types. Pancakes321 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - the TV programme is clearly the primary topic, and as such no distinction is needed for this article. I wouldn't be averse to renaming the star article to "Red Dwarf (Star)" - which I think is a good idea actually - but as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there's no need or requirement for this to be changed as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
PS: Your original edit suggested that you think people are more likely to be searching for the star, and not the TV programme. I suggest WP:NWFCTM which also works in reverse - just because something isn't what first comes to mind doesn't mean the same is true for the rest of the tinterweb. I had to go five pages of Google before I got a reference to the star when I just typed in "Red Dwarf". Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
PPS: (Sorry) I've just checked the archives, and was amused to see that this was discussed back in 2017, where I made the same suggestion of renaming the star to "Red dwarf (stellar object)"[1] - obviously nothing ever came of that... Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.