Talk:List of Top Gear (2002 TV series) episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

correction

I won't edit the main page (don't want to mess up anything), but in S09E04 the Robin Space Shuttle _doesn't_ explode upon impact - when watched frame-by-frame it is obvious that the explosion was filimed elswhere and added just for effect - the Robin lands in a field (some cows are visible just behind), while in the explosion shot some mid-sized bush-like plants are seen instead, the two shots are filmed at totally different levels of zoom, and most importantly, no effects of the explosion are to be seen when the wreck is shown.

proposal

Could i propose adding sceen shots or something of every episode in order to lighten the text ridden page? user:tmr5555

I'm ok with that. List_of_south_park_episodes is a featured list and it has a screenshot for each episode, so I guess it is ok from a legal standpoint. Just a word of warning, recently there has been a push to make sure that a fair use rationale is provided, otherwise the images may be deleted without warning. An example of a good fair use rationale is at Image:201 stadium with gas.gif where it says:

This image is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (Discordance) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

* it is a low resolution still of a film;

* it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the film in any way;

* the image is provided at the official website (southparkstudios) as a free download;

* it illustrates the film in question and aids commentary on the plot outline in particular terrance and philip's scheme to save canada.

South Park is Copyright Comedy Central

So as long as the copyright info is good, I don't see a problem. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I set up this page last week and I would have included a screenshot column but I don't have any to upload, so the column would have looked a bit bare. The templates tried out on the Talk:Top Gear page when talking about this had screenshot columns so it's easy enough to add.

The above unsigned comment was added by me Jimbow25

I put as much of the old screenshots back as I could. Way to go PS2, you just ruined a really nice page. You know that getting a good screenshot to represent an entire episode is not an easy task? That's a lot of work you just blew out the window. Let's hope that the TG community will fix this ASAP, hopefully with both new shots and maybe an improved template.Sturmovik 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion confined to one place: #Most of the fair use images have been removed. This is being done on a wide scale, so don't think it is me picking on Top Gear. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose to split up the Seasons by page.

I propose that the article be a gateway to pages with each individual season. I point towards Mythbusters for an example:

• MythBusters (season 1)
• MythBusters (season 2)
• MythBusters (season 3)
• List of MythBusters special episodes

That way, we don't have a long article with an unmanageable way of editing. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with one page per season in the long-term, but I started an overall page first to encourage the material to get written, bearing in mind it was originally one section on the main TG page. Once the majority of the episodes have decent write-ups it will be too long but at the moment a list of episodes for say season 2 will have nothing on it but a list of airdates, I didn't want to start 8 or more pages at once. Maybe we can expand the article a bit, and make sure we have a fairly settled stadnard format for how we set out an episodes, before we split it? Jimbow25 12:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good by me. --293.xx.xxx.xx 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do it. It's harder that way to search for a particular episode.

Yes, searching for a particular episode gets as easy as hitting ctrl-f and writing a reviewed car's name in that episode, when the list is only one page.88.233.12.85 06:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we really need to split it now. Notice the warning on the edit page "This page is 146 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles."? IT's only going to get bigger... LicenseFee 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive Info Dump into Season 7 and Suggestion

Right, I did a massive info dump into Season 7, and also added a short noteable blurb from the news segment in most of them. So edit as you will, i'm not picky. I suggest that Season 7 have it's own seperate page as well. --293.xx.xxx.xx 03:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Guests

I know that the guests link have been wiki linked...but couldn't we also add a brief (One-two word) occupation bit...for example for Ian Wright, I suggest we make it "Retired Footballer Ian Wright"...or something like that? --Skully Collins 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna remain somewhat neutral on this. I can see in cases like Sir Michael Gambon or British Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman but elsewhere? Any other opinions?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind this idea. I often have no idea who the person is and have to consult Wikipedia to find out who more information :) Aldango 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think this article needs major cleanup. There is less content on the series' closer to the top of the page, and having said this, I notice that some of the more closer series' may also need a bit of touch up. --Pkwebmaster 16:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you think it needs a cleanup/touchup. If you're referring to the lack of content at the beginning of the article, it isn't possible to clean up something that isn't there. Of course you can suggest someone adds the information, but that's sort of stating the obvious. ~~ Peteb16 16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, It still needs a lotta work... --Pkwebmaster 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinda hard when the early episodes are scant. I have enough troubles trying to get stuff from finalgear.com for Season 6. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

... Season 3 appears very inaccurate - unless they dropped the Hilux of a building three times which I don't seem to remember them doing.

I've finally managed to get the bulk of the episodes from the torrent download so I'll have a look into this is the coming weeks. The Topgear page on the BBC has enough information to make sure the file has been named correctly

Template Storage

This is a "clean" template that can be readily copied into the article when needed.

#	Episode	Airdate	Guests
XX	Series X Episode X	[[XX January]] [[XXXX]]	[[Celebrity Name]]
Review: Text of the relevant sections goes in here. Usually the first segment shown on the episode. This may also qualify as the Main Segment below. News: Noteable news blurbs goes here. Challenge: Any challenges the shows hosts are made to do go here. Star in a reasonably priced car: The episodes weekly celebrity guest goes here, with there laptimes. Main review: Usually the one car segment that has a lengthy review. can be put up on top if needed.

--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a template would be easier to manage. I started putting something together, but there are still a few too many bugs to make to use.

For instance, (I am not sure why it didn't grab the line breaks, so click edit to view a cleaner version)

{{User:PS2pcGAMER/Top Gear episode | overall episode num = 2 | series = 1 | episode = 2 | airdate = [[1 January]] [[2007]] | guests = Jimmy Carr | image = TopGearLogo.jpg | caption = the caption | review = Honda Civic, Toyota Carolla, and some other cars that they do some stuff with | review2 = | review3 = | news = Some car stuff | challenge = Another fun challenge | challenge2 = | star = Carr does a lap | main review = Some car }}

Yields...

#	Episode	Airdate	Guests
2	Series 1 Episode 2	1 January 2007	Jimmy Carr
Main review: Some car Review: Honda Civic, Toyota Carolla, and some other cars that they do some stuff with News: Some car stuff Challenge: Another fun challenge Star in a reasonably priced car: Carr does a lap

Obviously there is a large outstanding bug in what I have programmed, the extra line breaks when the field is not used. Feel free to play around with it at User:PS2pcGAMER/Top Gear episode if you think you can fix it or have any other changes.

Would a switch to using templates even be worthwhile? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron Top Speed

I watched season 9 episode 2 and saw that James May reached >407 km/h. 407 km = 252.898075241 mi so that would be 252 mph before rounding. If we round it is 253 mph, as is stated http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/ (as of 07 Feb 2007) as having been reached. This is also the stated top speed of the Veyron, which was the task at hand. Anything over 407.164032 km/h will be at or over 253 mph without rounding. I am writing all this because I am finding inconsistencies between Wikipedia and the Top Gear site (Top Gear site says both in different places). Nitrous231 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• And in different episodes; S7E5, the one where they first introduced the Veyron, said 252. Kinitawowi 12:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really care about 1 mph?

• If a police man catches you going 21mph in a 20mph school zone, you are speeding and must pay a fine. Yes, I do care about 1mph. 1 is the difference between single and married, on and off, and if i just leave one letter out of every word in this sentence, it makes it unreadable. Besides, would you rather be right or wrong? 1mph can mean the difference Nitrous231 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about 1 mph just doesn't make sense. Especially when it has to do with such a high speeds wich you can't drive on a normal road. The Bugatti is just REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. That's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.28.134.41 (talk • contribs).

• Genius, you're the one complaining about arguing and here you are arguing... and if its the fastest production car in the world (even historically), the correct top speed should still be recorded. The Bugatti Veyron is fast, no doubt, but I for one want to know just how fast. Nitrous231 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's 407.9kph or 253.4mph, as demonstrated by James May in TG 09x02.Sebhaque 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Gas Station Riot

I had heard a suggestion that the town in Alabama where there was nearly a riot due to their challenge had voted to ban filming in future. Is this true and does anyone know what the town is called? Harry Hayfield 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The town was Bagdad

Future episodes

There are two sources for future episodes, namely http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/nextepisode.shtml. For the next episode as of 21/02/07, I have referenced all information to both sources. Should we use one, the other, or both? Also, the way I've done it is a bit messy, but it will suffice for now, although I don't actually know how to clean it up. --Bolmedias 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, any references whose content are the same, like Ace<ref>Bob</ref>Charlie<ref>Bob</ref> can be named and repeated, like such: Ace<ref name="bob">Bob</ref>Charlie<ref name="bob" /> making multiple occurances of one reference, rather than several references the same. Take a look at how I've changed what you did. – DBD 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. You see, I'm not very good with this sort of thing, but I just wanted the entry to be up to scratch. Bolmedias 11:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Spellings

This is a wiki page about a British tv show, I believe that we should try to keep all the spelling and terminology to British ways. Shotmenot 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, wrong. It's not a case of belief. It is a case of Wikipedia policy, that's how it works. DBD 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works! Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English states that: "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." Quite how you don't know this DBD, seeing as you're so keen to allude to 'Wikipedia policy', I don't know! The globetrotter 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my comment. I was pointing out that regardless of shot's belief, that it is policy that British spelling is used. Bearing in mind that I agree with the policy and that I am a long-time and hard-working 'pedian, please re-read my comment in a revised light. Though I do slightly resent your comment, I can forgive because of this difference of tonereading... DBD 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense

The entire thing needs to be in present tense!

• I'm on the yearbook staff at my school and we use the present progressive - ex: Nitrous231 is editing the wiki. But we should look at the wikipedia policy and also at other articles. Nitrous231 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of References

In the past few hours, User:293.xx.xxx.xx has deleted all of the references from s9 stating "This is a Episode recap page!! We don't need references!!" Whilst I understand and can see why this user has made the edit, I feel that some of the references were fairly useful- especially the bit about how building the Robin space shuttle took months, rather than the 12 days as stated in the prog, and added value to the article. It wouldn't make much sense to try and plug these references into the main Top Gear page, and someone's taken time and effort to find these. Rather than simply reverting, I thought i'd ask what other wiki users think. Should we keep or delete? The globetrotter 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The references are both semi-required, and useful - I'm restoring them DBD 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration. As long as they are reliable, the references can only add to the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an episode recap page, and the episode is well enough adequate. Furthermore, various other Tv lists don't have them, and the inline references look ugly. Let's not also forget Wikipedia:Fancruft. I'm deleting them due to irrelevance. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:293.xx.xxx.xx, there are now three users here who assert that the references serve a purpose. If you are so keen to delete them, at least suggest how to incorporate the Robin Shuttle story into the main article. I feel that knowing that a factual prog distorts the truth is fairly interesting! The globetrotter 10:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The episode number is of course a reference in itself. However due to the methods of TV production there are things you cannot know by watching an episode - the 12 day/4½ month issue being a perfect example. Mark83 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, any consensus to restore the refs? BTW List of Doctor Who serials has 23 references, List of The Colbert Report episodes (2006) has 19, List of Never Mind the Buzzcocks episodes has 20, but sadly List of Baywatch episodes has none at all. Anyway, just showing there is some precedent for a list of eps to include references, and picked these progs because I thought they may have some useful bits of info. The globetrotter 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here's what I did:
  • I removed 3 references. The James May cite was hard to understand, and the only reference that supposedly referenced the new series actually alluded to the previous series (Series 8). Thankfully, the bbc.co.uk article had them that was much more clearer, so I used that instead. The other two were just preview articles, and frankly, they have no bearing on the shows since they are previews and are made redundant by the actual airing of the episode.
  • As for the Reliant Robin trivia....I took an idea from here and edited likewise. That is my compromise. The info is trivia and should not be included in the main episode body and should be regulated to footnote status. If you can prove that it was mentioned in the episode itself, then by all means, give me a timestamp range from the finalgear.com torrent and I can go check it out myself. I challenge it under the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"That is my compromise"? Power mad. You're simply removing material that there is precident for, and that people say they want to see here. Ever thought of deleting articles that don't interest you? I'm presuming that's going to be your next step into non-constructive wiki editing. The globetrotter 10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Do wish for me to outright delete them then? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Verifiability is absolute in a sense. If I come in and ask "Where is the timestamp period for them noting it took them 4.5 Months to complete in the episode?" and nobody can prove it, and/or I go and check the episode and never hear it mentioned, what does that precedent set? --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, fool? That's not in an episode! I think you may have the impression that we should be using one source and one source only for this page (the episodes) - you are spectacularly wrong! Wikipedia encourages the use of as wide a plethora of sources as possible - thus, the references which were until now so prevalent in this article are, according to policy, a good thing. So stop being a wank. DBD 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility. Calling me fool was uncalled for. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with 293.xx.xxx.xx, however that doesn't mean I want to hurl abuse, accusations and names! The globetrotter and DBD/DBD, stop it. Mark83 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand, The globetrotter has given several episode lists on Wikipedia. Much like my Family Guy link, those pages put items that are not relevant to the episode summary as footnotes. For example, this note references a scheduling anomoly, where the original broadcaster was not the first place the episode was first aired, but rather a second party. Now this info alone is insignificant in the list sumamry itself, and is attributed likewise. See also Colbert Report Notes and Never Mind the Buzzcocks notes. All of them have theri relevant notes neatly tied to the end and not cluttering up the episode boxes themselves.

Now let's put it in context here. The episode itself is the Primary source for each episode listing summary here. We edit a basic summary of what happens in the airing of the episode. Now let's look at the disputed reference. While the episode airing says 12 days, the article reveals that it took Top Gear 4.5 Months via a third party to cock about with a Reliant Robin.

Someone finds the article, and adds it to the summary. Now here I come along. I take a quick scan of the episode list, and I find this little blurb about a 12 day build ballooning to 4.5 months. So I go to finalgear.com, torrent the episode in question, and watch. I don't hear the 4.5 month hangup, so I watch again a couple mroe times. I don't hear it. Now I go back, and wonder why this info was put in originally when it's wrong. My obvious idea would be to just delete it, because it's harmful (trying to pose as fact in an episode summary) and isn't sourced properly.

Now you guys raise a stink about it, and restore it. I look into it more, and I decide to challenge it. It's not in the episode, so why is this info added to the sumamry as fact when it's not mentioned in the episode? So we both get into a fight over it. I then do a little research, and I find the Family Guy Episode list and see that some other Wikipedias have "agreed" that the airing schedule of a particular Family Guy Episode warranted a mention, but not in the main article. "Good idea, race to the list here and edit it likewise. While i'm at it, also reconfirm the other reference marks per Wikipedia: Citing Sources.

Now here is my arguement: If other lists of episodes can do it, why not us? It seems that the other lists have adopted a kinda common code of sorts. Keep "extra info" regulated to footnotes. I mean, is it that hard to be lead by example?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Also note that I have not reverted any deletions at any time, as I believe that discussion is the key to moving any debate forward, which is why I took acception to your quick deletions after DBD had re-added the links. You make some good points, which I would encourage you to post elswehere; if there is one thing this debate has indicated, it is that some blanket decision needs to be taken for references in episode lists. What I do not understand is the view that if something isn't mentioned in the programme it shouldn't be clarified here; as they wanted viewers to believe that it took 12 days, they really wouldn't want to add that it really took a lot longer. With no chance of the real story being mentioned on the TV programme, and a good referenced source (quotes from someone actively involved with the project) it really adds value to the episode information. In terms of Wikipedia: Citing Sources, I believe that the links "...improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia." We hear what they tell us in the episodes, but we can show that they don't mind bending the truth. BTW I think that it would be a good idea to avoid mentioning torrent sites that carry copyrighted material. The globetrotter 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seasons are screwed

I don't know if all of them are, but season 3 is completely screwed up. There was only 9 episodes but this has 10, and the tenth episode appears to have been created with bits from other episodes. Improbcat 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the last episode for each season is a 'Best of Top Gear', with clips from each of the other episodes in that season. This is usually shown during the break between seasons where TG is off-air to film the next season. Sebhaque 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please let me join in on this

I tend to use the wiki episodes list as source for my file naming conventions. Yet again the List_of_MythBusters_episodes episode list seems an example. down here the "specials" of "best of's" are numberless! at least I could use a $sequence.$episode# or special#.S$$.E$$.$name.avi if you catch my drift ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.29.145 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaguar XJR on the cool wall

There seems to be a mistake under Series 2 Episode 4: "Cool Wall: Jaguar XJR is uncool, but it is cool if its in black as Hannibal Lecter owned one". I've just watched this episode again, and they place the XJR in the cool section, bordering Sub Zero. It's the XJ6 SE (that they are briefly discussing because of it's ugly grille), that is placed in the uncool secion. Zedrick 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the fair use images have been removed

I removed most of the fair use images per WP:NONFREE ("decorative use") and the recent push to remove fair use images from list of... articles. I have left the first image of Dawe, Hammond and Clarkson as I felt that it was particularly important in the history of the show, but if someone disagrees, they should feel free to remove it. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well seems like i'm dumping all the new info I gleaned from the torrents I gotten for the empty Top Gear Episodes. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I honestly think that one image per series is justifiable. I just didn't think that any of the images really exemplified a series, but feel free to take a go at it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it have killed you to tell me thru my talk page "Oh, I wanna delete the images offa Top Gear Episodes, any objections?" Instead, I had to waste an hour going back into my history and putting {{db-author}} tags on the images. An hour I could've spent adding info, but instead wasted because someone was inconsiderate enough not to tell me and regulate the task to a bot that only got two of the 30 odd images I uploaded? I would've deleted it happily, but no.--293.xx.xxx.xx 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of uploaders, so I didn't see the point in leaving them each a message, which is why I left the message here. The whole point in telling people that their image has been orphaned is so that they have a chance to "de-orphan" it before deletion. However, since this is more of a policy thing, none of the images were going to be readded anyway, so what is the point in notifying everyone individually? I'm not sure why you felt the need to tag it with {{db-author}}. I did my best to tag all of the images with {{orfud}}. If I missed any, Betacommandbot would have just tagged it for me. The bot is going through thousands of image files and it takes time to tag them all. What is the rush to get them deleted anyway? As long as they are off the articles, it doesn't matter if they are on the server for a few extra days. It is going to take a very long time to clear the orphaned fair use backlog anyway. As I said, I am sorry that you took the time to upload these images just for me to come by and remove them a few months later and it is unfortunate that you spent the time to tag orphaned images for deletion when a bot would have hit them all eventually. Next time I will be sure to leave you a courtesy message on your talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think a picture per episode would be helpful. Perhaps in the older TGs, where there wasn't really a main feature, this might be quite hard to do, but in the latest seasons there have been the large challenges. I believe on the official Top Gear website they have pictures of upcoming/past episodes, so I think that having a small picture with a caption doesn't really diminish the quality of the article. Just my two pence. Sebhaque 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from. This might be of some interest: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you completely understood where we were coming from you might have respected our point of view instead of dismissing it out of hand. You know, I feel that this just another example of the admins throwing their weight around to somehow justify their existence. There's always been a lot of resistance to these episode lists / guides here and this feels like another chapter in that saga. My feelings aside, your actions in removing the images have essentially ruined this article. In case you hadn't noticed, this list is more than just a bare bones listing, it has short episode summaries and without something to help the eye parse the content the article has become a morass of text. At the very least this article should have been given some special consideration and grouped under the same policy as the individual episode pages and their use of screenshots. Maybe I should hold my tongue tho, I wouldn't want you to "improve" the page by simply deleting all of the "useless information" in the article (and wiping out the rest of the hard work in the process). Instead of getting on some sort high horse about "free content", perhaps you should stick to two more basic questions: 1) Goes this action make the article better/more useful and 2) how much community effort am I wiping out. In this case your action made the page significantly LESS useful and wiped out a significant amount of community effort. I contributed a number of those screenshots and you have rendered all of my efforts, which were well within legal and policy bounds, completely non-existent. Way to motivate the Wikipedia community by allowing users to spend large amounts of time and effort making pages better only to see those efforts eliminated at a whim.Sturmovik 05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1) This was an editorial decision and one that was done throughout much of the community. Obviously there is some objection, but the removal of images from this article seems to be in line with community's feelings on the issue. I'm not sure what why you think that being an admin has anything do with this situation as I have acted strictly as an editor. If you have an issue with admins that is fine, but it is absolutely not relevant to this particular situation. 2) My entire basis for removing the image agrees with your own statement that the page "has short episode summaries and without something to help the eye parse the content the article has become a morass of text." i.e. the images were used only for decoration use only, which fails our fair use criteria. If there is too much text that makes the page daunting to read, add some empty space or try something else, but images aren't the only solution. 3) Many of the images were not in line with policy, although this wasn't the basis for my removal as this issue could have been addressed. Many images had no fair use rationale whatsoever. Many of the images that did have a fair use rationale had a very weak claim. Some of the images could even be replaced with free content ones. Do a search on flickr for "Top Gear" and you will see what I mean. I even uploaded a few onto the commons awhile back and inserted them into this article, but they were removed by people who apparently wanted a fair use image instead.

My response to your questions are as follows. 1) There are free alternative images out there, not for every episode, but there are some. The whole point in removing the fair use images is to encourage the upload of free versions. If we kept all the fair use images, especially using them as decoration as was the case for this page, it does nothing to promote our goal of being a free encyclopedia. 2) The hard work of editors is undone all the time on Wikipedia. Just because someone spent a lot of time on their contributions, it doesn't mean that the contributions are necessarily in line with the encyclopedia's goals. Yes, it is quite discouraging to people to see their hard work removed and I truly do feel bad for them, but articles are constantly being reshaped to fit into the community's consensus. I personally have had portions of my contributions eliminated/rewritten/etc. That is just the nature of a collaborative project. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I understand your view on this too, and it's fine with me. There's no use in getting in a large argument over a few pictures. If a fan knows which episode they're looking for, they probably won't need a picture anyway. Thanks. :] Sebhaque 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

question

does anyone know the original episode in which jeremy clarkson says that he will eat his hair if the vauxhall ends up looking like the concept car? b/c in season 5 episode 1, hammond says that in the last season jeremy said he'd eat his own hair. i need to know the original episode in which this happened. Thanks. Sadartha 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Series 10

Please can I note that any editing of this to give a more precise start date MUST be referenced. Acceptable references could include www.bbc.co.uk/topgear www.topgear.com and Applause Store (tickets for recordings, likely to air the Sunday following the first recording). Halsteadk 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

Would it not be a good idea to have a list or some other way of showing the music that was used in each episode. I often find that I am watching an episode and i have to search for quite a while in various different places to find out what the music was when it would be so much easier to find out if it were just listed here. Shploom 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The forums on finalgear.com compile this information: [1]. As the music isn't credited at the end of TG, it might be difficult to provide this on Wikipedia without straying into original research. Yes, it could be copied from Finalgear but that would be copyvio and it could be argued that it's just original research somewhere else, not an authoritative source. Given the sheer number of pieces of music used in some films (76 are shown for series 9 episode 6, the first episode I picked at random), this may also take up more space than the rest of the article itself - it then potentially looks like we're writing about a music show rather than a car show! Also would need to bear in mind that some people will watch the show on BBC Prime, UKTVG2, and other channels where the show is edited, occasionally with different music than the original. Nice idea but I just don't think this is the place. Would it be appropriate to link to this information on finalgear.com? Halsteadk 16:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Best of

Do the "best of" episodes contain any new content at all, even commentary, or are they entirely pieced together from the other episodes? Ham Pastrami 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the latter – they're just clip shows. With the exception of The Jimmy Carr Show aka Best of the Guests, which had new material by Carrnage himself. DBD 08:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Need to add the most recent Best of which was on last night. I can't do it as I only saw the last 10 minutes which featured them driving across the English Channel in their amphibious cars. TheTrojanHought (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari on the Moon

Can someone elaborate on what that was about? 83.100.229.21 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I saw of the show, it was mentioned in the open, then May said something about them not being able to show it. Probably just a joke. Darry2385 12:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a commentary on the recent "scandal" about faking television DBD 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Just a Joke. 81.110.245.215 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was also a joke, yes DBD 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Propose to split series into articles (2)

Can we please talk about seperating each series by page? I haven't got the Wiki knowledge to do the big movements needed, but this list is just too long! I'll help in all I can. Anyone going to help by getting it started? LicenseFee 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the series have to be split up. The article is oversized and it's now getting very difficult to find information you need. You have to be very precise with the scroll bar to find an episode. This difficulty will only increase as more and more episodes are added.

This is what I propose to do: This page should be a list only (no summaries, just # !! episode !! airdate !! guest) a seperate table per series header. Under each header there should be a link directing the reader to the main article for that series. The series article will feature the relevant untouched series table from this article. Any objections? Other suggestions? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we use the list of Lost episodes as an example and that we use the episode list template to make the pages more maintainable Juice10 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is by far the largest article I have seen in Wikipedia. So far, I've started some implementation of a transition to articles by season pages. _{El Greco}^(talk) 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So far I got series one and two done, but series one needs a lot of work. It seems whoever wrote it took it off some website, style and everything. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great work! Although would you mind if I lightened the darker lines on the episode lists? The text is a little bit difficult to read imho.

Example:

Ep #	Prod. Code	Title	Director(s)	Airdate
1	GFGA001W	"Series 1 Episode 1"	Brian Klein	October 20 2002
2	GFGA002P	"Series 1 Episode 2"		October 27 2002

~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, use #ffC0B2, but remember to alternate between white and #ffC0B2. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made that clearer. Does it have to be white or can I not alternate between #ffC0B2 and #ffE0D2 as above? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it white. That's like the standard followed for the List of ... episodes. It makes it easier to read with #ffC0B2 and then white. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth taking a look at List of The Simpsons episodes also, which is a Wikipedia:Featured List, and has a lot of seasons to "catalogue".-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just realised something. The new episode list, if it continues as it is, won't have anything to use as a reference. Each episode will look the same in the list. Other shows, like the Simpsons or Friends, have the episode title to aid someone trying to find a certain episode but in this case there's nothing destinctive about the title. I was thinking that if we kept the guest field, or perhaps a 'car' field (and there's room for at least one of these fields) this would be useful for someone trying to find details of a particular episode, if of course they remember which guest or which car was in it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Guest field would be better than a car field, since multiple cars can be shown on the show at once, and that would bunch up the list. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New fields have been added at {{episode list}} just yesterday. There is now a field for Director, one for writer (though that is redundant here), and 4 auxiliary fields (previously 3). The problem with a guest field is that on some episodes there have been quite a few guests. Like when they changed the cheap car. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the splitting is complete. Now just some tidying up on the individual series pages is needed and some on this page. Does that {{episode list}} have different style setup, and if not can one be proposed? _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the new format terrible to be honest, it's just pretty without imparting any significant imformation. I loved the old format where I could search for a car and find out the episode it was featured on. Please consider a revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.40.92 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To what? We can't carry on cramming every episode on one page. Tip: If you need to find the series article which contains a certain car, type 'Top Gear' and then the car name in the search engine on the left. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would however like to see if it's possible to include more 'significant' information without taking up any more room and reinstate my suggestion for a car(s) field. In order to do it however we might have to get rid of a few things (sorry El Greco!). Director isn't needed, it's the same guy all the time so we could just say that somewhere, the title could be shortened to just the episode number and, if really necessary, we could remove the production number which, to me, doesn't really mean anything to anyone other than the BBC. ~~ Peteb16

Example: (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I used bullet points to split the cars because with commas they seemed to merge into one. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give some feedback on the above table please? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The above newer version of the table with the car details is much better than what is on the page now. Considering the episode naming being the date isn't helpful neither is the production code or director; knowing which cars are in which episode is important. Though I still think how the page was originally is far superior to these new tables and should be reverted back. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of WP:Article size we cannot revert back as we would continue to expand an already overfilled page per episode produced. Our only choice is to improve on this compact version of the page to make it easier to find an episode. If the above is much better then this is a step forward. Other ideas may also be acceptable work such as short summaries of an entire series written in prose above each table, but we need to all agree on these things. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This change does make it harder to find specific episodes of Top Gear. Sure the search can be used but browsing through the list is no longer an easy task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchello (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What else do you propose we do about it? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a terrible idea. I use this page to find specific events from episodes with the find function in firefox and I'm sure other people do as well. With all the series pages separated it's impossible to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.244.121 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The same would be true and still is true of Wikipedia's own search engine. If you type 'Top Gear' followed by the event you're looking for in the search box on the left, it will find the page the episode is on. Please read WP:Article size and you will hopefully understand why what has been done here was unavoidable. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree this new format is useless, frankly I don't care who the director or the guest are, I want to be able to find a episode based on what actually happens in it whether that is the cars or challenges, and I shouldn't have to waste my time searching for something that I probably don't know what is called anyway, or should I search for "Top Gear that episode where they buy cheap cars and have challenges"? In fact even now I am using the old history pages to find what I am looking for since this new format is so useless. Also the series and episode number is not a "title" that should be changed to some useful information as well as the product code! I am quite sure no one is coming here and trying to find Top Gear episodes by their product code... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.112.162 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment. This page used to be easy to find an episode based on a car featured in it or a challenge in the episode. The director and production code is fairly worthless information. The template with the cars and guests would at least be better than what is on the page now. However I think how it was originally was still much better. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an episode list not a summaries page. Also most of those episodes if I'm not mistaken probably violate WP:EPISODE in that the plot summary is too long. Also please check out WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Articles are split up to articles more readable and manageable. The list was over 200KB long. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This page has become worse than pointless. If you want a good example of good episode "captions" check out the season specific Colbert Report entries. The summary bar has all of the recurring content cues to help people find what they are looking for. If you copy that style, minus the specific summary text the article will be concise and useful. I recommend removing the director and production code and adding in the main review and maybe the challenge "title" if there's room. If something doesn't change here I am going to take unilateral action because the current format is unacceptable. Sturmovik (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop threatening and knock it off. You forgot to list this wikilink instead: List of The Colbert Report episodes, kind of convenient you listed that one which is equivalent to this one: Top Gear (series 1). So, stop being lazy and stop whining. This is not the ultimate Top Gear informational website period. There are rules and guidelines to adhere by. It's amazing how all of you show up after the fact and not before to discuss. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was showing the example of the Colbert Report season summary page as something which can be used for the Top Gear episode summary page. The director column is worthless, its the same damn guy for all of them. I'm complaining now because I had no reason to visit this page between seasons. I have better things to do with my time than obsessively guard Top Gear pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmovik (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Topgear.s2.hosts.jpg

Image:Topgear.s2.hosts.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious fact on Series 7 Episode 1

The bit of Series 7 Episode 1 I would like to refer to...The three look at the Mini Cooper Estate Concept from the Tokyo Auto Salon...is somehow a piece of dubious information as the link points to the "Motor Show", despite both taking place in the same venue, I want to point out that the Motor Show and the Auto Salon are two totally different shows, not to mention that the Motor Show takes place in October biennially whereas the Auto Salon takes place every mid-January and is mainly for modified vehicles, just want to point this out. Willirennen (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who edited this Article so radically it was fine before.

Whoever edited this article please explain yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.8.210.74 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The changes have been discussed at the top of the page. They were carried out because a concensus was reached to do so and no one attempted to oppose the changes until after they were done. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This new format is useless, frankly I don't care who the director or the guest are, I want to be able to find a episode based on what actually happens in it whether that is the cars or challenges, and I shouldn't have to waste my time searching for something that I probably don't know what is called anyway, or should I search for "Top Gear that episode where they buy cheap cars and have challenges"? In fact even now I am using the old history pages to find what I am looking for since this new format is so useless. Also the series and episode number is not a "title" that should be changed to some useful information as well as the product code! I am quite sure no one is coming here and trying to find Top Gear episodes by their product code... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.112.162 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when the main page gets too big, you split it up. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand why this article was split up, it has however made it largely useless for finding a specific episode in a timely fashion. If it needs to be split up, why not into two or three sections instead of 11? --Aienan (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this author.. the old article was MUCH better - I could just search for a car. It's not a matter of making this page look good, it's pointless if you have a 'organised' page that you can't get the information the majority of the users are after. I vote for the return of the 'single' page - to enable searching. --Lieb39 (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The new Format is By all means USLESS. I have no clue what is avilable and what isn't. I spend most of my time reviewing the old history in the formatting. And no you do not just break up a page if it gets to big if it is necessary. The new format is usless!! When I am looking for episodes the new format doesn't help. If I am looking for episodes with smart car I used to be able to hit ctrl+f and type 'smart car' now I must go to EACH season. Furthermore, no one opposed the revision because the page didn't carry a disclaimer for the change. I believe the people who changed it did so that they would have the possibilty of recieving an award and then they could become admin. I firmly believe that. The new revision is utter Trollop and should be removed immeditly! And do not bash my spelling because I am typing this on my phone. Jab843 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

hey what happened ???

What have you done with my site? I love Top Gear and this was the best content index on the web i bookmarked it some time ago and allways look for a detailed description for each episode now its gone and all thats left is a very short information about the airing date and the star in a reasonably priced car please bring back the old one it was much better looking and more detailed you should respect the great work from the one who has done the previous page pleas restore it

sorry for my english its not my home language --ForceB (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic, the summaries haven't gone, they've only been split into seperate articles. Series 1 is here, Series 2 is here and so on. Look for the the main article links above each series table and everything is how it was before. We had to do this because Wikipedia doesn't allow us make very long articles, for some people the article was difficult to read this way. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative list tables

We seem to be in a no win situation. People need as much information about an episode as possible on one page, but we can't make this anything more than an episode list because of size limitations. So I propose two different list formats for this page as a quick reference. One of these I've already proposed above but added more fields.

1. Using a table format, disposing of information available in the series articles and replacing it with quick references to cars and challenges featured in the programme.

Ep #	Total	Airdate	Reviews	Challange	Guest
1	1	October 20 2002	Citroën Berlingo • Pagani Zonda • Lamborghini Murciélago • Mazda 6	Speed cameras	Harry Enfield
2	2	October 27 2002	Ford Focus RS • Noble M12 GTO	Double-Decker Bus	Jay Kay
3	3	November 3 2002	Mini Cooper • Toyota Yaris Verso	Granny's Donuts	Ross Kemp

2. Using the episode list template, information would take up slightly more room, but looks a bit more tidier and would be more in keeping with other lists. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to change the top fields to the main series colour. Also, title isn't optional.

#	Total	Title	Reviews	Challange	Guest	Original airdate
1	1	"Series 01, Episode 01"	Citroën Berlingo • Pagani Zonda • Lamborghini Murciélago • Mazda 6	Speed cameras	Harry Enfield	October 20 2002
2	2	"Series 01 Episode 02"	Ford Focus RS • Noble M12 GTO	Double-Decker Bus	Jay Kay	October 27 2002
3	3	"Series 01, Episode 03"	Mini Cooper • Toyota Yaris Verso	Granny's donuts	Ross Kemp	November 3 2002

Please post your opinions below, or any other ideas you may have. Thanks! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should only list the Main Review, else it gets out of hand rather quickly. Here's an example with Season 10.

Ep #	Prod. Code	Title	Airdate	Main Review	Guest
(1) 80	ENEA691F	"Series 10 Episode 1"	October 7 2007	Volkswagen Golf GTI W12	Helen Mirren
(2) 81	ENEA692A	"Series 10 Episode 2"	October 14 2007	Audi R8	Jools Holland
(3) 82	ENEA693T	"Series 10 Episode 3"	October 28 2007	Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano	Ronnie Wood
(4) 83		"Series 10 Episode 4"	November 4 2007	Botswana	None
(5) 84		"Series 10 Episode 5"	November 11 2007	Caparo T1	Simon Cowell
(6) 85		"Series 10 Episode 6"	November 18 2007	Honda Civic Type R	Lawrence Dallaglio
(7) 86		"Series 10 Episode 7"	November 25 2007	Aston Martin DBS	Jennifer Saunders
(8) 87		"Series 10 Episode 8"	December 2 2007	Vauxhall VXR8	James Blunt & Lewis Hamilton
(9) 88		"Series 10 Episode 9"	December 9 2007	Ascari A10	Keith Allen
(10) 89		"Series 10 Episode 10"	December 23 2007	Jaguar XF	David Tennant

If you can't decide how to fit the challenge in this should be pretty acceptable to everyone. If you do put the challenge in, again you should only put in the Main Challenge.Sturmovik (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, you can't list everything that was done on the show. And trying to decide what should and shouldn't be included here on the mainpage is still going to be criticized by all the IP users who think that wikipedia is going to tell them every little detail about what happened in the episode. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise we can't please everyone, but if it's possible to improve the quality of the information without taking any more space, shouldn't we aim for that instead? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend going with tables 1 or 2, either is acceptable. While I think the first one is better than the second, the second one does at least keep it more consistent with other lists as you said. But since this is Wikipedia, we probably should stay consistent with the template and go with the second table you laid out. Regardless either table should make everyone happy since you can still get a good idea of what happened in each episode. And if you want to read more detail, there the series specific page with the full text on it. I wouldn't use any table that lists the production code or the director since that is just wasting space that could be used for more important information. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OracleGuy01. I very much detest this new format, and would prefer it to be restored to the original. I know that as the page is very large this is probably impossible, but, as mentioned before, the first or second templates listed above would work very well. Each episode would only take a line of text and even the new series' and their large content could be transcribed into four or five bullet points. I'm actually considering updating the current layout to incorporate the changes from the table above, does anybody want to comment on this? Sebhaque (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I say go ahead and do that if you want to put the time into doing it all. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been a month, can we finally PLEASE decide on something. I'd do it myself, but some Wikinazi would just revert everything saying that "no decision has been reached". Amazing how easy it is to ruin a page, but how hard it is to fix it. Again I propose droping the Director for the Main Review and the title for the main challenge. We can always add multiple reviews and challenges later.Sturmovik (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision

Alright in an effort to help move things forward, I say we use the second table (the #, total, title, reviews, challenge, guest, air date one) shown above. I'm not sure exactly how the Wikipedia rules go on this but if no one disagrees before say March 30th, that is the decision on the new format. Since people are willing to do the change, we need to have a consensus. Speak now or don't get mad when the format is changed. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For my own search purposes, I've included all the detailed episode lists at User:Snowolf/TG. (Just dropping a note) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode count was not synchronous

Hi, there was a mismatch between the episode articles count and those on the main page. Caused by the Specials - "Top Gear Winter Olympics", "Top Gear of the Pops", "Polar Special". I took over the count from the episodes, cause there they included the specials and set (S) in the series - episode count. As (S) for special, as some of you might have guessed... I hope you know or can guess what i mean ^^ If I have time the next few hours, i gonna add the eleven's Series with Grund force... but if you're eager to do it - do not wait for me ;) KingPingLu (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, can somebody tell me, why my font size is so small? can'T find a reason for that.... anyway, i added series 11 - episode 0 --> Special: Top Ground Gear Force. But I have no idea what hexacolour i should choose, so someone's gonna edit this an, as for production code, director and the whole episode page i have no information. would be nice if s.o. could add these! greets KingPingLu (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Revamping

As decided further down, I have started to implement the new tables. If the in use template isn't on the page and you want to convert over a series, feel free. I could use the help. Hopefully the new format should make everyone happy. In addition if you see errors or critical omissions with any updated tables, please correct them. OracleGuy01 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Much better now.. Finally the page is useful again - and I'm sure everyone will agree. Cheers --Lieb39 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may - I welcome the revamp of the index page (as I'm recording it to HDD from digital, it's very useful for cataloguing and up til now i've had to skip back and forth thru the main pages trying to identify each one by e.g. reviews or guests), the only niggle is ... why bother including "episode title"? It's just a repeat of the Series and Episode number (which can be found variously at the top and left hand side of the same table anyway) which is a whole lot of redundancy and bloat for no benefit. The special editions should be easy enough to mark out in some other way (?). 82.46.180.56 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to do AFAIK with Wikipedia consistency with other pages that list TV episodes. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the new format, nicely done, the old list was absolutely useless if you were looking for a particular challenge/review or pretty much anything. I could live with less vibrant colours though, as consulting the colour legend at the top, then scrolling up and down is really far less efficient than simply reading the series number.--67.193.23.221 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Series 11 - 6 Episodes?

I simply think that the statement "6 episodes" should not be there until a link has been added. The series have not even got recording yet, thus making such a claim senseless without supporting link. Please do remove that if a link cannot be found which supports the claim. --80.216.64.31 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The link where it says 6 episodes can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/seriespreview.shtml.

I've added the 6-ep back into the article - sorry if this miffs anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebhaque (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source for what will be in episode 2? It hasn't even aired yet. Chaparral2J (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet more information on episode 3, even before episode 2 has aired. If this remains unsourced, I will remove it as speculation. Chaparral2J (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All the details are up on radiotimes.com Custardninja (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

...And even if they we'rent, a condensed version is available on Freeview/Cable electronic programme guides upto 2 weeks in advance :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Then cite your source if it hasn't happened yet. If there is this website that has solid information on it, cite it as the source of the episode details. OracleGuy01 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the shorter length series is something to do with the olympics being on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.1.84 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so, but if you look at previous years, the "summer" series tended to be quite short compared to the "winter" ones (which also often sprouted special editions), including one that only had 5 "real" episodes. Its maybe just a general BBC scheduling and programme-making thing. People taking holidays, etc. Remember that, even though the "film" footage may be in the can weeks or months ahead of time, the studio based segments are made on the wednesday preceding the sunday airdate and so have to account for such things. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did /you/ look at previous years? The summer 2003 series was 10 shows, the summer 2004 series was 10 shows, the summer 2005 series was 11 shows, the summer 2006 series was 8 shows, but was cut short because of the 2006 FIFA World Cup, and there was no summer 2007 series at all. The only "special" that originally aired in the summertime is the Top Gear: Polar Special. There has never been a Top Gear series with five episodes.

It baffles me why anybody would make a claim like this that is so easily refutable. Come on, check your facts before posting, man. Warren -talk- 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I got confused with the preceding winter series, and was feeling sure enough of myself that I didn't go back and check. But there seemed to be a recurring alternation of long series - short series (esp. s7 and s9... which are also odd numbered ones, which is maybe what threw me) in the last couple of years. There certainly doesn't seem to be any set episode count for this show unlike most others. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

inclusion of the specials on the index page

I think we should bring them back... for one thing if nothing else, the Polar Special is being repeated soon, and I had to go into the series 8, then 10, then finally 9 main pages to actually find what series it was from! (Maybe it isn't "officially" part of it, but it was shown at that time - perhaps it could have a stand-out entry in between series?)

Not to the extent of including all the best-ofs and the like, but anything that's an actual, discrete programme with its own title and unique material, e.g. polar challenge, TGOTP, TG Ground force, Winter Olympics (which even got to feature in the new-style intro graphics for heaven's sake) that people may be looking for, and are after all included as seperate episodes on the main pages and therefore, to be pedantic, require indexing regardless of how you feel about them?

I might go ahead and do this at some point if there are no super compelling arguments for not doing it ;) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The special episodes that aren't clip shows (so things like the polar special and the winter olympics) can be placed on the index. I don't see any reason against doing so. They are TG episodes after all. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

come across another "best of"... where should I stick it?

My freeview recorder has slurped up an edition of TG that I don't see listed on any of the detailed series lists - "Best of Top Gear - The Supercars". I reckon it's probably a Series 7 one, to go with Special Guests, Challenges etc, can anyone confirm this? It's got the Veyron vs Cessna challenge for one thing, so it shouldn't be any earlier than S7 where this appeared originally.

I know it's only a minor, almost insignificant edition compared to the main eps, but the other best ofs (even the untitled ones) have been included so we may as well complete the set. Haven't watched it in full yet so I can't contribute a proper summary until then, so thought I'd get some guidance before I skim through it to find if there's anything I haven't seen before. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Series 11

Any references to support that the new Top Gear in the Autumn will be an extention of series 11 and not a whole new series 12? The article is currently adding on extra episodes to series 11 instead of a new series... LicenseFee (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've heard. I heard that series 12 is probably going to be starting in October but unless anyone can reference a legitimate, reliable source citing the start date, adding series 12 to the article should just be deleted since just posting rumors is misleading. 71.94.6.179 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Children in Need special

If a Children in Need special does occur, then it will have it's own page a la Top Ground Gear Force. Please do not add this to Series 12. Thanks. LicenseFee (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Specials Links

On Top Gear's (Current Format) main page, saying 99 episodes and 5 specials, that link brings you here, but where are the links to Top Gear specials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.72.23 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Under 'related shows' in the info box. There listed are Stars in Fast Cars, Top Gear Winter Olympics, Top Gear of the Pops, Top Gear: Polar Special and Top Ground Gear Force. Regarding this, I will make a little note at the top of the episode page. LicenseFee (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam special

Just a note that this special is not being advertised as a part of series 12, but as a 75-minute special. [2] Halsteadk (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that it is formally part of Series 12 and completes the advertised 8 programs. It's only a special in the sense of the American Roadtrip episode (S09E03) which was also described as a special episode by the presenters along with there trip to Botswana. The presenters are simply saying that the Series has ended due to the fact we will see no more traditional layout episodes in this series. Dsgtrain (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The episode will be longer than the usual hour, about 75 minutes if I am correct, and has been advertised as the Top Gear Botswana Special, in the same format as the Top Gear Polar special, which is counted as a seperate edition away from the series. I, therefore, assume creating a completely new article will be the best way to keep everything organised? LicenseFee (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters... :) I was checking the Radio Times website to confirm it is 75 mins (I spotted that the paper Radio Times magazine says 60, but fear not TG fans, they are now saying 75!) but the website has "8/8" which indicates they think it's part of the series.[3]

Oh Lord. Thank you unreliable sources. Do we believe the Radio Times or the Top Gear homepage? LicenseFee (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, Topgear.com clearly says that Series 12 is over "Series 12 may be over, but there’s one more calorie-filled slice of Top Gear goodness to look forward to before the end of the year: a 75-minute Vietnam special on BBC Two on December 28 at 8pm." [4]. Therefore, I take it as its own special. Any disagreements? LicenseFee (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An authoritative source clouds the issue further - the BBC's Top Gear website is calling it Episode 8 and it is described as "ending the current series": [5] Halsteadk (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I took it apon myself to create Top Gear Vietnam Special. I take the production companies and producers word over the BBC, sadly, but if anyone disagrees please feel free. LicenseFee (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think you guys may be taking this all a bit too seriously? Bumcheekcity (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard the phrase 'Neccessity is the mother of invention and procrastination is the drunk uncle of Wikipedia'? ;) LicenseFee (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reaction and reception (in series specific articles)

As this relates to all of the series-specific pages, rather than pick one series and bury it or put it on all the relevant pages and fork the discussion, I have placed this on this talk page as it covers all series!

I have changed the positioning of this section in the series articles it appears (7, 8, 9, 10 currently) as it was inappropriate to have this before the list of episodes, and certainly inappropriate to not have another main heading for the list (so the list was appearing as part of the criticism section). As there is a bit of debate over whether these sections should appear at all, I should probably note that I have no problem personally with this, provided it is appropriately placed within the article. Halsteadk (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would Like to see Viewing figures in the episode list, get them of BARB perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.0.188 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Series 13

This shows 7 recording dates and therefore 7 episodes for series 13. I've got no idea how to reference this though any help would be appreciated. Thanks Matty2002 (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the link blacklisted? Rubbish thing. Matty2002 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you set the link up incorrectly by adding a space. I've edited it out, but the link still doesn't work because the site is no darned good. Drmargi (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep changing the reviews to an Aston Martin and a Vauxhall? I own the mag and it says that they're testing the R8 V10 and the ZR1 130.113.234.230 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Series 14

Please do not include theories or rumors on the upcoming series on the main page. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy. Only information with good references belongs on the page. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Specials

The specials strike me as needing some reconsidering, and should all be added to the episode lists, not just a selected few. They're specials, yes, but they're also Top Gear episodes that could be incorporated in much the same way as Vicar of Dibley or Doctor Who incorporate their special episodes into their respective articles. Also, why is Stars in Fast Cars described as a special in the main article but not listed as one here? Then, given we've now gotten a series of cross-country specials, should the US (FL-LA) and Botswana episodes be counted as a special, particularly considering US is titled The US Special on the DVD? Drmargi (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If TG and the BBC call them "specials"[6] then what basis do we have not to? I don't understand your edit summary that "specials are entirely out of studio (and thus don't include US film)". I seem to remember most have had an intro in the studio, perhaps the US one was the only(?) one to also have a studio piece at the end but it was the first one so maybe it's just different - don't see how that makes it not a special. Unless they're completely separate from a series run they should all be listed as episodes with an appropriate title (Botswana Special) etc. Halsteadk (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Was getting rather fed up of the half-hearted editing and reverting going on which was leaving the article in a state of either self-contradiction (claiming there were 8 specials not in the list, when 4 of them are in the list) or not correctly explaining how the special episodes fitted in. So hopefully it is now sorted. Halsteadk (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering about the "Worst car" special[7] and where to include it. Surely it should go in place of a 2012 Christmas Special? --Peulle (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a "special" in the same sense, it's a DVD - the TG presenters release them individually or in pairs every year and AFAIK they have never been shown on TV. The "specials" referred to here are those that have been shown on TV. Halsteadk (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Series 15?

How are there new episodes on BBC America? Last Monday they released one, and will continue releasing them. On TV Guide it says that the last aired episode is episode 236. How is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.66.127 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably being shown for the first time on BBC America, rather than brand new completely unseen episodes. Perhaps in counting the episodes they are continuing the numbering from the old format Top Gear. In any case, I don't think any change is needed to the article due to this. Halsteadk (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

BBCAmerica is showing Series 13 and 14 back-to-back. The first episode of Series 13 ran on Monday (thus the sudden new influx of Stig-as-Schumacher posts). Drmargi (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Series 15 Airdates

Please do not add airdates or other information on the upcoming series 15 unless it is properly referenced. If the BBC and/or the Top Gear team haven't announced the official date, it counts as a rumor and is a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I took them and the ep count off, and also changed the color for the series to a light yellow. Whoever added the line to the list had just copy and pasted the color from series 14. Tekdude (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Although not a sufficient reference, Applause Store has announced the studio dates for Series 15 (cannot post URL as their site is blacklisted). The first is Weds 23rd June, suggesting the first studio-based show of the series will be aired on Sun 27th June. Still needs to be confirmed before this is added (and I'm quite happy to revert anyone who does add it - as I just have!). Halsteadk (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest issue of Top Gear Magazine reports that "The new season of Top Gear starts on 27 june on BBC 2". You can find an image of said page on FinalGear.com. -- Geodefender (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already used it as a reference and edited the table. It's not the greatest source, but I vote we leave it in and let date remain. However, the source should be replaced as soon as Top Gear or the BBC release an official statement on the web. Tekdude (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Series 15, ep 5

Taken from http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2010/07/22/cruise-and-diaz/ which states Cruise and Diaz in the car, yet the current page says Ross? The episode would have been filmed by today, so are they just having a laugh on their blog as Cruise and Diaz are just in a video related to Ross, or are they actually in the Kia (as bobbleheads or something)? borandi (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fiasco"? (edit summary). You don't think you might be overstating the importance of this? The "blog" is a WP:NEWSBLOG so is admissable, and it was also mentioned on Chris Evans's radio show this morning that Cruise at least would be in the car this week. However, the show hasn't actually been on yet and all of this will be irrelevant in a couple of days time, so on past experience of pointless disputes with people, it would be best not to get too concerned about it. If there isn't a ref for Ross taking part, then just delete his name and leave it alone. (It is conceivable that although it was filmed yesterday the segment might not be shown until a following week - that has been done before.) Halsteadk (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's now on the BBC as a full news item as well, and looks like someone has already made the change to the page anyway. Also, there's almost never any references given to people who will appear in future episodes - names seem to go up on this page about 9-12 days before the filming anyway. Whether that's from someone in the know (they're usually right) or anything else... (I think Cruise/Diaz must have been a last minute add-in, and Ross won't take part/be rescheduled. That's purely my own speculation, however.) borandi (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Series 16

When will season 16 start ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/Brumbassen) 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place for discussions like this. No Series 16 start date has been announced yet. Best places to look for official information are the Top Gear website and Top Gear Magazine. The Applause Store website may also announce filming dates quite early. Any other reliable sources get their info from an official source. Any other rumours (including unreferenced claims on Wikipedia) aren't worth bothering with. Halsteadk (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Official Top Gear magazine says early next year if that's worth adding to the article (reference)

The current magazine is saying January 2011 but no more than that. This section is attracting a lot of unreferenced claims, please can I ask other editors to keep an eye on this. Wikipedia will be taken as "fact" by some and should not be a source of rumours. It is not good enough to claim the start date is the 3rd January, or that there will be 12 episodes, or that a certain programme will be a Christmas Day special, or that there will be multiple Stigs in the next series without a reference that actually states that (and not just a link to a page that is vaguely related to the Stig). Halsteadk (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A new episode appears to be on tonight? 82.33.0.188 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Top Gear Production website calls the new episode on tonight (21st December 2010)Series 15. As does the BBC Website. http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/series-15-rehearsal-gallery-top-gear-tv-2010-12-17 http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/next_episode.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by NevilleHope (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys ! New Episode:

New Episode announced http://www.gtspirit.com/2011/01/18/top-gear-season-16-episode-1-airs-on-january-23/

Sunday January 23 on BBC Two at 20:00 BST in HD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.212.199 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The episode with Danny Boyle is episode 15x7. http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/series-15-episode-7-danny-boyle-in-our-reasonably-priced-car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.109.11 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)