Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Hammond and May

They haven't officially left yet according to any reliable sources. Until reliable sources confirm they've left, please don't set their dates to 2002-2015 and 2003-2015. Also, the show isn't cancelled until the BBC says it's cancelled, so stop changing the tenses. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If this level of disruptive editing continues, as it probably will today, then maybe semi-protection would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see it was semi-protected at 17:17. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that, although it needs a thorough check-over now the IP's can't get to it. May's little joke couldn't be much worse timed, I must say. --Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What, he said something funny? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is referencing to him joking about quitting on Twitter, which started all the IP commotion on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it joking? His Twitter bio says former TV presenter now @Mr. James May and hes making unemployment jokes... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think he's serious, however IPs saw that and edited info on here, without a good source. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Is someone keeping an eye on their pages today? Probably the same issue there unless they've got protection. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

May and Hammond have had 1 IP edit each, which were reverted. Clarkson is semi-protected. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's encouraging they have both decided to contribute. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Found a really poor source stating they have resigned, I suspect this will circle to a slightly more credibly but still non reliable source and people will start banging it in the articles. SPACKlick (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Metro tabloid said they'd resigned, but it appeared to be a synthesis from other articles that said they might resign/were considering their futures. In any case, if they properly resign, lots of good sources will report it very quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My worry is good sources picking it up before it happens by circling round from articles like this through middling sources. Ex-wikipedian citogenesis could occur here.sig added to unsigned SPACKlick (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If they allow that to happen - they aren't good sources. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And that's stopped Wikipedia from suffering citogenesis when?sig added to unsigned SPACKlick (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that like a Hyundai Genesis, only more circular? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: "the car's the star" actually the Star in the Reasonably Priced Car is the star... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

But who would you ever want to put in a Hyundai Genesis?? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as of 18 Minutes ago from when I posted this, the contracts of May and Hammond ran out, thus meaning neither of them are on BBC's Top Gear anymore RileyMo (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Source? Because this relies on: (1). Knowing their contracts run out at 23:59 on 31 March, which there is no source for
(2). Knowing they haven't signed new ones, which they might have done and not revealed publicly. Basically, this isn't good evidence for anyone to claim they aren't presenters anymore, because it's definitely synthesis. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also the fact that it has been stated in news reports several times that contract negotiations were put on hold. That they're not currently under contract doesn't actually mean they won't present the next series. We need a really reliable source to state that they aren't. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there not at least some argument for mentioning the fact that their status as presenters is currently unclear? I mean the fact that there's so much discussion around it is in itself notable. We have no evidence to suggest that they definitely aren't presenters but we have enough evidence to at least speculate that they might not be.TomB123 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

May has announced his departure but not sure which source to use - nothing from the Beeb yet, only MayContributer111 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a perfectly acceptable source, as is BBC News. However, BBC News is completely unconnected to the BBC's television production so it shouldn't be used as an "official" BBC source, unlike their press office ("Media Centre") which up to this point has been remarkably silent on the issue given the circumstances. The only newspapers I would be hesitant about using are the tabloids (Sun, Mirror, Metro, etc) as you can never be 100% guaranteed on their reliability. Aw16 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't use the Daily Mail ever either (IMO that's the worst tabloid)- BBC News, Guardian, Times, Independent are all good enough sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets stick to http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32431956. Not technically a first party source, but connected enough to be accurate. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're going by first party sources, then in lieu of an offical BBC announcement we should really be using the Guardian's article (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/23/james-may-top-gear-jeremy-clarkson-bbc-richard-hammond) as it was to them that May gave the original interview. All other sources seem to be linking back there. I would assume the current Telegraph source is good enough for the moment though. Aw16 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can't have it both ways. We have a Daily Telegraph source in the article saying that James May has ruled out returning,[1] and a BBC source saying that his agent has said "the presenter was still in talks with the BBC about his role on the show."[2] That same BBC source is being used as a source confirming that Andy Wilman has quit. If we accept the BBC for Wilman, we have to accept it for May, which means that May's departure has not been confirmed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, all sources are saying essentially the same thing, namely that May won't present without Clarkson but would reconsider if Clarkson were to return. As far as " ruling out" goes, perhaps the Telegraph is using slightly more flowery language but the message is basically the same. Aw16 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"May won't present without Clarkson but would reconsider if Clarkson were to return" - @Aw16: That's a reasonable interpretation. More than one BBC executive has hinted that Clarkson may be able to return. Unfortunately, some editors don't seem to see the contradiction.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. Whatever May says trumps anything anyone else says. BBC can say they're still negotiating all they want, May has officially ruled out returning without Jeremy Clarkson. End of. Rusted AutoParts 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not the BBC that says he's negotiating, it's his own agent. And no, what May says doesn't trump anything, because what he said is subject to interpretation. As Aw16 pointed out, what May has said is that he won't present without Clarkson but would reconsider if Clarkson were to return. There's no definite statement to say that he won't be going back at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"he won't present without Clarkson" = he won't do the show without the man BBC fired. He'd reconsider if the BBC rehires Clarkson, which at the present moment seems unlikely. So as of now it means May will not be returning to Top Gear. Rusted AutoParts 18:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarkson wasn't fired. The BBC just said they wouldn't pick up his contract. There's a difference between being fired and not picking up a contract. They haven't picked up new contracts with Hammond or May either, and they haven't been fired. Senior BBC execs have said Clarkson isn't banned and it's quite possible all three could return to host the next series, so any statement that they've "left" at this time is really WP:CRYSTAL. We can't be sure until the next series airs with different presenters. In any case, there was a discussion at WT:TV, started by Martinevans123, regarding inclusion of years in the infobox and the opinion there from experienced editors was that years shouldn't be included in the infobox at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend is right, we simply cannot assume that Clarkson et al are gone for good until their "replacements" are officially announced. Just because they don't have contracts at the moment doesn't mean they will never do Top Gear again. It's entirely possible that after a period of cooling off the BBC could approach the trio to work on a freelance basis or even sign new contracts. At the moment, it's just a case of being patient, waiting for official word from the BBC's publicity office and not jumping to conclusions as the press (and some contributors) seem to have done. Aw16 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

Please remove the word "factual" from the opening line in the description.

Top Gear has/had many elements that rendered it far from factual. A number of skits are performed and cars are put through trials and tribulations that no road user would consider. Often there is a build section which has the presenters build caravans, ambulances and the like, which are far removed from their factual couterparts. It is also clear that the presenters have not the required skills to complete these builds which fact lead one to conclude that these sections are pure entertainment and fantasy.

The sentence could be left without the word, or the word could be replaced with something more appropriate and accurate e.g. "entertainment"

Bluesjnr (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - What about fact-based? I think the distinction being drawn here is with TV non-factual. But I agree the definition is a bit blurry. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Guinness Book of Records has an entry for Top Gear, under "Most widely viewed factual TV programme". --AussieLegend (✉) 20:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What happens now?

So its official, there are new presenters on the show. So what do we do now, is it time for Top Gear (2015 TV series) or what... I think the change will be too big to fit into this article... Open to suggestions though. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. Why don't we live dangerously and wait until we know something more than one of three hosts' names? Then we can make an informed decision. There's no need to rush headlong into a new article that will have a couple sentences' content. --Drmargi (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't create a new article simply because presenters change. If the series continues with "series 23" then there is no reason to create an article, just as we didn't when Richard Hammond left Brainiac: Science Abuse and it subsequently lasted only 2 more series. Concerns about fitting changes into this article are unfounded. The article is currently only 74kB file size with 34kB of readable prose - there is plenty of room for expansion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing potential changes, it could well be helpful for when the "new" TG is unveiled to the public. However, my opinion is the same as Aussie's - a new article should only be created if the new show is significantly different to the old - new presenters doesn't count. No new articles were created when Jason Dawe, or either Stig left - because the actual programme & format were still the same. Unless the programme itself is sufficiently different to the old, then it should be within the same article. And really, that question cannot be answered until the new one is revealed and seen. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just wanted to open a discussion here before someone boldly tries to change something and makes a mess... What really sucks is I'm going to be on an aeroplane to England when they air the final clips with Jeremy.... :( EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that New "New" Top Gear with new presenters would be as different to Old "New" Top Gear as Old "New" Top Gear was to Old "Old" Top Gear. But yes, speculation (meritorious though it might be) is probably not - yet - cause for a new article.151.225.163.215 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't speculate about anything. To do so here would be contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

End of "TG (2002)"?

Since Clarkson, Wilman, Hammond and May have all confirmed their departures, might we not judge this incarnation of Top Gear to be complete? If it returns, will it not be Top Gear (2016 TV series)? DBD 08:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May has said he won't return without Clarkson, not that he won't return at all. Senior BBC execs have said that he isn't banned and have hinted at a possible return. Hammond hasn't confirmed his departure. In fact he said, quite accurately, that he's not quitting anything, as there's nothing to quit. This is accurate because all of the contracts have expired; they weren't terminated by anyone. All three have stopped being presenters solely because their contracts ran out. However, new contracts can be written at any time. The only person who has quit is Wilman, but there's nothing stopping him coming back either. When it all comes down to it, we have no idea what's going on and we can't make any judgements about the show, although some editors have. For now, the only judgement that we can make is to sit and wait until reliable sources that don't contradict each other tell us what's happening. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We can cross this bridge when we come to it. I'd been thinking along similar lines myself if we get new presenters and senior production team, but we'd need to judge how different the show is to its current incarnation. There aren't different articles for the different eras of Doctor Who for instance, or EastEnders. But, as you say AussieLegend it's all up in the air at the moment, we don't know what we're going to get. To preemptively do anything would be presumptuous at the least. Aw16 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, BBC aired the final studio episode tonight. James and Richard both said their goodbyes. This article should now having a closing date. The only thing that could be aired now are unforseeable specials, and keeping the timeline open based on that would be WP:SPECULATION. If BBC rehashes the show, it should undoubtedly be a new series and get it's own article here. Twirlypen (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've stated above, there aren't different articles for the different eras of other shows so why should Top Gear be any different? The only reason that the "old" and "new" Top Gears are separate (aside from the length of any prospective combined article) is because the "new" is so radically different in format and tone to the "old". I'm beginning to go into the realms of speculation here, but I can't imagine the Chris Evans-led Top Gear is going to be that different from the Clarkson/Hammond/May era. But let's stick with facts here, we know that it's coming back in 2016 and until the BBC says something different we should assume that it's going to be a continuation and not a reboot. If they advertise as a reboot closer to the time of broadcast then perhaps we can reconsider, but that's going to be 6 months away at the very least, if not longer. For the time being at least, it's far better to keep it as it is. Aw16 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should years be included in the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is not to include the dates in the info box. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Should years that presenters appeared in the series be included in the infobox? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Votes

This section should contain only votes and a brief rationale for the vote. Discussion is to be limited to the appropriate section.

Yes

• Yes There is no harm in keeping information in an infobox, and it is helpful to the reader (especially given the interesting years and roles in this show). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Keeps with other pages and is a clearly listing of presenters - makes it very clear. Presenters not listed in any other table format on the page and so makes it less clear. We should follow format of other similar pages - like TG Original series page. Contributer111 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No

• No - Per the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, initiated by an editor after above discussions, years should be excluded. Instead, this information should be detailed in the prose. Infoboxes are only supposed to be a brief summary and can lack context, so we should limit content in the infobox. The prose section is meant to detail content. Contrary to this claim, "ALL wiki articles" do not list years. In fact, we try to avoid them. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - I originally thought it was useful information too, but there are problems with showing exactly when some presenters participated - years don't always correspond with series. And there's no general agreement on how to show "to present". I'm happy to go along with the conclusion at the Project Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - This was useful information to have prior to the current issues with the show, but it has become increasingly an issue of dispute. To relieve tension, for the time being (until we have official word from the BBC over who will be presenting the show) it makes sense to remove the dates. Aw16 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - Until the dispute has been settled via a source from the BBC stating who shall be presenting the show for the next series, I don't think the years should be included as of yet. The Doctor ^{ALL 13!!} 17:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - As I stated in the other discussion, we do not (or should not if there are pages like this) do this for any other area. Why would we do this for presenter? If we did it, we'd have to do it for everyone and the infobox would be overrun with "season x - y" type information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - Per AussieLegend. As a rule, we don't include the years part of a cast in an infobox; that was consigned to the prose. It wasn't a big deal here because of the small cast, but was an exception. However, given the recent events and the currently ambiguous status of two of the presenters, along with the potential for the addition of three new presenters, it's time for the dates to go. They've proven to be of minimal informational value, but rather, the source of edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• No - Though I don't watch the show, my arguments concur with those above me. The infobox is a summary of the show, and such information should be included in the main article itself. It is meant to provide a brief understanding, and adding the years does not extend such understanding. Much like how a television drama series doesn't include the seasons a main actor is included, or a movie where a main actor leaves the story halfway through - this isn't included. Alex|The|Whovian 02:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• "There is no harm in keeping information in an infobox, and it is helpful to the reader" - There actually is in this case, as at least some of the content is essentially original research and WP:CRYSTAL, as we have discussed above. We cannot categorically state with certainty that any of the presenters will not be presenters in the next series of Top Gear. While May has only said that he will not return without Clarkson, he has not said that he will not return at all, yet this is what the infobox says. BBC executives have said that Clarkson is not banned from Top Gear,[4][5] and have hinted that there is a possibility of return, so any claim that he is no longer a presenter is WP:CRYSTAL. It is certainly not helpful to keep such information prominently displayed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Keeps with other pages" - In fact it does not. We generally do not include season or year information in TV infoboxes.
• "Presenters not listed in any other table format on the page and so makes it less clear" - In fact WP:TVCAST recommends using prose for cast information. Use of tables has been discussed and gained no support.
• "We should follow format of other similar pages" - No, we should follow the MOS, and established consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How about we keep it as some other users have suggested, put dates in when final confirmation? I think ultimately dates need to be present, presenters usually are listed with dates.. Contributer111 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Presenters are treated no differently to "starring" cast and no, we don't usually list them with dates in the infobox. That's the purpose of the prose section. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm then, we shouldn't be listing years in the infobox for "Starring", "Presenters" accross Wikipedia? How about "Judges"? Contributer111 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say no to judges as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Presenters in Infobox

I was wondering should we have the presenter area in the infobox with just the present presenters, so once Chris Evans takes over it should look like:

Top Gear
Genre	Motoring Entertainment
Directed by	Brian Klein
Presented by	Chris Evans
Opening theme	"Jessica"
Composer	Dickey Betts (arr. by Christian Henson)
Country of origin	United Kingdom
Original language	English
No. of series	22
No. of episodes	175 (including 11 specials) (list of episodes)
Production
Executive producer	Andy Wilman (2002–15)
Producers	Maggie Gibson Kate Shiers-Ghellere Peter McCann Gary Broadhurst Pat Doyle Alex Renton Grant Wardrop Chris Hale Oison Tymon
Editors	Guy Savin Dan James
Running time	50–65 minutes
Production company	BBC
Original release
Network	BBC Two BBC HD (2009–13) BBC Two HD (2013–) BBC Knowledge (2013–)
Release	20 October 2002 (2002-10-20) – present
Related
Top Gear Top Gear Australia Top Gear Russia Top Gear (US) Top Gear Korea Stars in Fast Cars Top Gear of the Pops Top Ground Gear Force James May's Cars of the People

Obviously there will be more presenters when the show returns. As for the other presenters, we could make a section on the page for presenter history, which could look like this:

Presenter	Year	Series	Ref(s)
Jeremy Clarkson	2002-2015	1-22
Richard Hammond	2002-2015	1-22
Jason Dawe	2002	1
The Stig	2002-	1-22
James May	2003-2015	2-22
Chris Evans	2015-	23-

References

I'm aware this doesn't appear properly but I hope you get what I mean. CDRL102 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST applies to all starring cast whether they be presenters, judges, voice actors or narrators. Per WP:TVCAST, "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. After Evans has appeared in an episode he will be added to the infobox, at the bottom of the list. The other presenters cannot be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely they can be removed, imagine the length lists should be for other TV shows with loads of cast, I mean the X Factor and BGT ones always look ridiculous and confusing, I think that box should only be used for the 'current' presenters. CDRL102 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they're kept. It's been a long-standing affair, though admittedly it's often not followed. Personally I agree with you that it should just be current presenters/stars featured for ease of reading, but the manual of style for infoboxes states that all are listed and that's what we'll follow here. If you feel really strongly about it I'm sure there's a discussion page somewhere where you can begin a debate about changing the template structure, but that place is not here. Aw16 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) When lists get too long we remove all from the infobox and list them in the prose, not in a table. With the number we have in this article, even assuming it blows out to 9, the list is not long enough to remove all. Regardless of what you think, current consensus, which is reflected in the infobox instructions, is not to list only current presenters. If you'd like to change this, you need to take up the matter at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All of this strikes me as jumping the gun. We don't know when Evans will start or who his co-presenters will be. We don't have enough to go on to make an informed decision. To add a comment I find myself making more and more often, what's the rush? Right now, there's nothing to indicate the standing practice with infoboxes won't work. --Drmargi (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Evans in Infobox

Hi there - someone has added a note sayng that Evans shouldn't be listed until he has first appeared - is this correct? Certainly not the case with X Factor judges Ora and Grimshaw who have been confirmed. My personal view is that as he is confirmed he should appear. Discuss please. Contributer111 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He might die. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I too believe he should appear, but good luck getting it to pass here! CDRL102 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your like-minded colleague, Contributer111, doesn't have a particularly good record editing here, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you mean? All I did was make a suggestion. CDRL102 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who that was aimed at but lets keep this on topic and professional. Contributer111 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

To be a presenter of a programme you need to have presented said programme. As yet, Evans hasn't presented Top Gear - so he doesn't count. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In theory yes I agree, however other pages use a model of once confirmed they add to infobox? Contributer111 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In theory? No, in practice. The job of "presenter" involves actually "presenting", which Evans has yet to do. If there was an agreed unified approach at {{infobox television}}, I'd be happy to go along with it. But I don't think there is. So aside from that, it's down to consensus at the individual article, which is certainly not in evidence here. This guy is going to be the King of England (allegedly). But that doesn't actually make him king, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"The job of "presenter" involves actually "presenting", which Evans has yet to do." - Indeed, this is the approach we use. Until such time as someone is actually credited as having presented, starred in or judged a TV programme, he or she can't be included. This is a practice that is fairly consistent. Reality TV series pretty much follow the "rules - we don't follow no stinkin' rules!" approach but they tend to be a small proportion of the TV series articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The theory of the suggestion that "The job of 'presenter' involves actually "presenting"" doesn't add up. In that case the people who no longer are presenting (remember they are no longer presenting) should be removed and huge space would be left empty. A far more sensible suggestion would be to remove the people who have left/been sacked and add those who are confirmed by the people that make the programme as and when that happens. Currently that is Evans and Sir Stiggy. In the highly unlikely event of Evans dying between now and the first episode he can be removed just as the other three should be.Torqueing (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is specious at best. WP:TVCAST says that articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors (and presenters etc) remain on the list even after their departure from the series. However, we don't add people to the infobox (or navboxes) until such time as they've actually been credited in an episode. This is the litmus test that we use, and it has wide WP:CONSENSUS. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And they are remaining, just as 'former' presenters. As Top Gear is a informational programme that has a series of six episodes and not a soap opera that is on every day the suitability of WP:TVCAST is tenuous at best. Certain people are no longer paid to be on the programme and certain people are already confirmed, working on and getting paid for the episodes. The fact that there hasn't been any episodes - which is what your whole argument is based upon - is immaterial. Evans has already quit his old programme to work on Top Gear.Torqueing (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Torqueing, you're being ridiculous. Of course the job "presenter" involves "presenting", that's why it's called being a "presenter". It's the primary description given on both Wikipedia's own page, and any number of dictionary sites you may choose to look at. To say the suggestion that The job of 'presenter' involves actually "presenting"" doesn't add up is bizarre, truly. I'm genuinely curious to know what you consider the primary role of a presenter to be, if it isn't presenting. Everybody in the list has at some time or other presented Top Gear, ergo they are applicable for the list, Chris Evans - as yet - has not presented the programme, therefore he is not applicable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Until he actually appears onscreen saying "Hello and welcome to Top Gear" there is no concrete evidence that he will actually present the show. He might die or contract some kind of restrictive illness that prevents him working. He might have a major fallout with the producers and resign. He might even do a Jeremy and get sacked. We simply cannot predict the future. Until he's definitively on screen he is not yet a presenter, and not a minute before. And the whole argument about a "presenter not having to present to be a presenter" is ridiculous. By that logic, a cyclist doesn't need to cycle, a writer doesn't need to write and an actor doesn't need to act. OK, that last one is open to interpretation, but you get my point. Of course a presenter has to present, to suggest otherwise is madness. Aw16 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so if an accountant doesn't start his new accounting job for 2 weeks he is no longer an accountant? Torqueing (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, but then, the two aren't analogous. He's an accountant, just not an accountant for the place where he has, as yet, begun to work -- and that's Chris Evans' situation. He'a s presenter, just not a presenter on Top Gear YET. We'll add him to the infobox when he is. What's the hurry anyway? --Drmargi (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You've just fallen into a the trap. Where the accountant isn't working for the firm (and possibly not being paid) yet Chris Evans is. He is working, being paid to work, and designing the next series with the producers by the BBC. Not only that, the vast majority of the programme is pre-recorded so they are presenting the programme a minimum of six months before it hits our screens. That's why this argument about "until he presents it" is so ridiculous... Torqueing (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He's not presenting it until he is seen on-screen. It could still be cancelled, for instance. Or he could die a horrible death before it appears and no-one sees it. Or all his bits could be cut out. He is not yet the presenter until there is on-screen evidence. (IMO) Stephenb (Talk) 10:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. Wikipedia works by consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) and the consensus is (both here and at WP:TVCAST) that until people appear on screen they are not credited in the infobox. I really don't understand how you find that so hard to grasp, Torqueing. By all means open up a discussion at WP:TVCAST to change it, but I assure you you'll find the result exactly the same. Besides, as Drmargi says, what's the hurry all of a sudden?Aw16 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He could "die a horrible death" when he starts presenting, of course. But that's something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Torqueing, nobody has fallen into a trap. You're using invalid analogies. Nobody can present a TV program until it is presented to an audience, it's as simple as that. The TV program is not a program until it's completed, it's simply a bunch of film clips until they're all joined together to create an episode. And what fiming is Evans supposedly doing? There is no confirmation of other presenters and there have been suggestions that a possible female Stig is in the mix. What could Evans be filming? As suggested, if you disagree with what everyone except you seems to think, take it up at WT:TV or at MOS:TV. We've been back and forth over the past months and I don't see the outcome of any discussion being in your favour. Ironically, I just found this article, which includes a video titled "Chris Evans reveals 'secret Top Gear film' on Channel 4's Sunday Brunch". In that Evans is asked "Have you done any rehearsals yet for Top Gear? Have you started presenting that yet?" Evans' response was "Not started presenting". --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. What about "unaired programmes"? Do they not have presenters if they are never broadcast? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That depends on the individual circumstances applicable to the program. This is really not the place for hypotheticals. --10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess Evans is still a hypothetical. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Evans has a contract but has not presented an episode so he is not yet a presenter of Top Gear. That is fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that Evans exists as a person. And that his BBC contract exists as a legal entity. But I guess his exact status depends on one's view of future events in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Back in March, I semi-protected the article upon an editor's request because of excessive amounts of speculation. I didn't set an expiration date because I wasn't sure when the Clarkson buzz would let up. Any admin that finds semi-protection to no longer be necessary has my permission to un-protect the article. Harej (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Now it's the "Evans buzz" and it doesn't look like letting up until 2016. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hrmph...

according to new info, Evans mentioned his "love of cars" which may change the format radically, as going back to the 1977 format. Hardly there will be any car thrashing or crazy experiments... still, i dunno if it is time for a new article... --176.104.110.11 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't time for a new article. That would come under speculation, as to create an article that would be substantial enough to pass as a half-decent entry we'd be speculating like mad that Series 23 will be radically different to the current format. That's not how it works. We don't have nearly enough facts about the new format, Evans and the BBC seem to be keeping their cards close to their chests. Heck, we don't even know the identity of Evans' co-presenters yet. We can reconsider once it's been on screen as to whether there is enough difference for it to merit a new article, but for now it's much better as an addendum to the current article. Aw16 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

The incident of Jeremy hitting the producer of Top Gear should me added to the bottom of the '==criticism==' part:

"In 2015 Jeremy Clarkson hit the producer of Top Gear after he found out that there was no hot meal available in the hotel where he was staying with Richard Hammond and James May. [14] Following the incident he was dismissed from Top Gear and James and Richard left with him. "

Furthermore, in the introduction I would like to add/change this:

On 25 March 2015, host Jeremy Clarkson was informed by the BBC that his contract would not be renewed.[8] Following Clarkson's departure, his co-hosts Richard Hammond and James May and executive producer Andy Wilman announced that they would not return to the show without him.[1][9][10] On 16 June 2015 Chris Evans was confirmed as one of the new hosts.[11] Whilst it was previously announced that open auditions would be held to cast his co-presenters,[12] on 6 October 2015 Evans announced that a new format could lead to him presenting the show alone.[13] At the same time it was also confirmed that the new series is planned to air in May 2016. The three former Top Gear hosts have signed a contract with Amazone to start a new carshow together with producer Andy Wilman. The Stig and the name Top Gear are not coming back to the new show. Appelsenperenenzo (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

References

 Not done - This content, even with all of the errors corrected, is unnecessary. The incident is already addressed in detail in the "History" section and does not need to be in the criticism section as well. The content regarding the new show by the former presenters is not relevant to this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously Rock & Roll: NZ Edition

If someone is interested and CAN edit the page, this rare compilation was released in this date: December 6th, 2010. bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.10.254.98 (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unmentioned episodes

There are currently two Top Gear specials that aren't mentioned in any way in the articles concerning this show. They are Top Gear: The Perfect Road Trip 1&2. Tvx1 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

They were in the series 22 article where they shouldn't have been, so another editor removed them. They're now at List of Top Gear episodes#Special episodes (2015). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No they aren't, --AussieLegend (✉). That are the Top Gear from A tot Z episodes. I'm talking about the Top Gear: The Perfect Road Trip episodes. Tvx1 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, silly me. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I doubt that they should be included in any episode listing as they were straight-to-DVD episodes. Irrespective of any later broadcast they were never supposed to be considered proper episodes. The same can be said of the 'Apocalypse', '...at the Movies' and 'Worst Car in the History of the World' specials. Aw16 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

the top gear presents chris and matt ar the main presents and the others presents will only be there when they need or to do filming in other places around the world if needed, so i should be change. 2A02:C7D:1FA4:F200:A01D:568E:F787:51E1 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This has already been added to the article.[6] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 15 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• Top Gear (2002 TV series) → Top Gear
• Top Gear → Top Gear (disambiguation)

– Primary topic by a million miles.[7] Unreal7 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:RECENTISM and this show (2002-2015) is the same show as the 1977-2001 show, we are missing an overview article about the entire show, just having two segments at the revamp cutpoint. Instead we should write an overview article about the franchise and make that the base use. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, the 2002-15 format is not the same show as the 1977-2001 show, as explained in the section above. If we were to create an article about the franchise, it would be at Top Gear (franchise). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please spare us another (franchise) article. I looked at a couple recently with precious little content and a collection of fancrufty tables that are anything but encyclopedic. --Drmargi (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Should another article be created for the "Evans era" TG (which I am still not convinced should happen), moving the article would make things rather complex. Would the Top Gear title always be linked to the Clarkson era, or would it move with the current incarnation of the show? Plus, another disambiguation or franchise page? We're overrun with them anyway, with most providing little to no encyclopedic content. Aw16 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Any decisions regarding articles should wait until the new series is underway, and we have a measure of it. I reiterate: what's the rush? --Drmargi (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rush on this. It would be difficult to start a new article because there is very little known about the new format. I personally can't see what info could be put in it at this stage and think only a stub can be created. Although if anyone can give an outline of what could be included that would be useful --LegereScire (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - As can be seen directly above the whole naming thing is confusing as it is so IMHO moving this at the moment would be a catastrophe, Personally I'd say wait until the "New" Top Gear starts and go from there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: As a gamer when I hear Top Gear, I immediately think of the unreleased video game series also bearing the name Top Gear. I also, as an American I also think of the magazine bearing the same name. In the UK the series may be synonymous with the phrase, but that's not true worldwide. --Deathawk (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure you don't mean the unrelated video game series? I'm pretty sure the series was released. Tvx1 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Top Gear (2002 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023170257/http://www.dunsfoldpark.co.uk/news/presspdf/179.pdf to http://www.dunsfoldpark.co.uk/news/presspdf/179.pdf
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22782602-29277,00.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23775464-7582,00.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/news-and-reviews/story/top_gear_live_review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016

During the above section saying This article... please add after for other uses, see Top Gear. Add For the upcoming series, see Top Gear (series 23).

TheDestroyer31 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Series 23 will not commence until 22 May. Until then, there is no current series. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit

At the end of 'History', please add;

Clarkson, Hammond and May have signed an agreement to appear in a new as-yet-unnamed motoring show, which will be broadcast exclusively on Amazon's video-on-demand, commencing in 2017.<ref>http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/30/top-gear-clarkson-hammond-may-amazon-deal-bbc</ref> Clarkson poked fun at the BBC in a TV advert for the service.<ref>http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/oct/30/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-amazon-fire-tv-ad-top-gear<ref>

81.108.18.234 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Information about the new program is not directly relevant to this article and the fun poking is non-notable trivia. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So you think a new motoring-show, starring Clarkson, Hammond, and May, is absolutely unrelated to the topic "Top Gear"? Well, OK then. I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.18.234 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What the ex-hosts of a program do after they leave it is not relevant to an article. If they were to start a cooking program would we mention it here? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that when the presenters of a show go and do a very similar show together, that is noteworthy. The poking fun is not. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Top Gear. It's not about Clarkson, Hammond or May. Information on the new program is certainly relevant to their bios, but not Top Gear. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is relevant to Top Gear because the three of them in many ways were Top Gear. The BBC show goes on, but saying that "following Clarkson's fracas the three presenters left to do a different motoring show together" is at least worth a mention. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

They didn't leave specifically to do a motoring show so that would not be accurate. The actual fact is that they left because their contracts expired. Clarkson's wasn't picked up by the BBC and Hammond and May didn't sign theirs. Without current contracts they were no longer part of the series and therefore their relationship with the series ended. Once the relationship ends, any new work by ex-hosts is irrelevant. The details of their departure are already in the lead and the history section. There's no need to add anything more. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Top Gear (2002 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071121150728/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,22782602-29277,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22782602-29277,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080530073159/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,23775464-7582,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23775464-7582,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090415222947/http://carsguide.news.com.au:80/site/news-and-reviews/story/top_gear_live_review to http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/news-and-reviews/story/top_gear_live_review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

Top gear to also air on Netflix the same time as the UK BBC Two airing 2A02:C7D:1FA4:F200:D460:A4FA:E59A:26AB (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The infobox field is for the original network and this series has not yet commenced airing on Netflix. The intention to air it on Netflix is in the series 23 article and can be added here when it actually does. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I'm not sure whether Netflix should be mentioned at all in the infobox. Even when programmes are simulcast (I'm thinking mainly of Game of Thrones here, but others have done it too, e.g. Doctor Who) then the only network listed in the infobox is the "home" network, i.e. the network it was originally made for. In this case, BBC Two. Aw16 (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeats on BBC Three

I saw the top gear 2002 series page and it seems to me that nobody has bothered to notice that BBC Three used to air top gear repeats for ten years from 2006 to 2016. So somebody needs to edit the page saying about bbc three used to air that series. User:82.19.95.171User Talk:82.19.95.171Special:Contributions/82.19.95.171 09:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Update. I checked the top gear page and im very angry that nobody bothered to edit the bbc three repeats on there. I would like somebody to edit it as soon as possible.User:82.19.95.171User Talk:82.19.95.171Special:Contributions/82.19.95.171 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source confirming this? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your hands aren't set in concrete. As Aussie says, find a reliable source and add it yourself. We don't work for you. Oh, and before you do edit, learn how to capitalize proper nouns. --Drmargi (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't plan on making the edit myself, nor do I have time to find sources, but BBC Three broadcasts repeats of the last aired series, while Dave broadcasts older episodes (up to and including the second-to-last series aired). BBC Three, of course, is now online only, so repeats are no longer shown. They do appear on BBC Two from time to time instead. --Unframboise (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking to the initial poster here before it gets incredibly confusing! If you can't be bothered to make the change, then - and forgive my bluntness here - why on earth should we do it? You are the one that wants the change, it is up to you to do the research necessary and edit the page accordingly. As Drmargi says, we don't work for you. If you don't make the changes you want then why should the rest of us have to pick up the buck? Especially when it's over such a trivial issue. Aw16 (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected so the OP, who is not a registered user, can't make the changes himself. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Very true, I was forgetting that. The point still stands, however, that if they think something needs changing it is up to them to provide the evidence and not get angry when others have not done their job for them.Aw16 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra Gear

On 27th April 2016 the BBC announced that there would be a spin off series titled Extra Gear, which will bring lots of behind-the scenes content to your screen for the first time. Filmed each week at the Top Gear studio immediately after the main show, and presented by TGTV’s Rory Reid, Extra Gear will bring you half an hour of exclusive new footage, interviews, and specially recorded films. Extra Gear will be broadcast on BBC Three - via the live page or BBC iPlayer - right after Top Gear has aired on BBC Two. Over to Rory: “The Top Gear fans are some of the keenest in the world and with this show I’m giving them a chance to really get a peek behind the curtain. “I’m looking forward to showing them how the show is made and what goes on behind the scenes, giving viewers a different perspective on some of the coolest cars on the planet.” Overseas viewers, fear not: you’ll be able to watch Extra Gear alongside the new series of TG on BBC America and BBC Brit. Check local listings for details.

References

2A02:C7D:1FA4:F200:EDD8:BEA3:8B6A:B25 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The article already mentions Extra Gear, and while some expansion may be appropriate, it should not be quoted directly from a press release like that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear (2002 TV series?

Makes it sound like it was a show that only aired in 2002. Needs a name change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.106.175 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is correctly titled in accordance with the naming convention for TV related articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

remove Jeremy Clarkson and producer Andy Wilman successfully pitched a new format for Top Gear to the BBC, reversing a previous decision to cancel the programme in 2001. The new series was first broadcast in 2002. Instead of using a conventional TV studio, Top Gear is located at Dunsfold Aerodrome, an airport and business park in Waverley, Surrey. The programme uses a temporary racing circuit which was designed for the programme by Lotus and is laid out on parts of Dunsfold's runways and taxiways. A large aircraft hangar is used for studio recording with a standing audience.

replace with In 2001 Jane Root the Controller of BBC2 was considering axing the long running show, but was motivated by the return of Jeremy Clarkson to completely re-format it. A complete over hall launched in 2002 with Gary Hunter as Executive Producer and Andy Wilman Series producer. Instead of using a conventional TV studio, Top Gear is located at Dunsfold Aerodrome, an airport and business park in Waverley, Surrey. The programme uses a temporary racing circuit which was designed for the programme by Lotus and is laid out on parts of Dunsfold's runways and taxiways. A large aircraft hangar is used for studio recording with a standing audience.

also production credit should read

Production Executive Producer(s) Gary Hunter series 1-4 Andy Wilman series 5 - 22

sources - BBC TV or BAFTA (the nominations for the 2003 Features BAFTA is for 'Gary Hunter, Jeremy Clarkson and Andy Wilman' or actual end roller credits on broadcast programmes series

Garygenarohunter (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Please provide additional sources for the changes you wish to be made. Though you have provided some, these do not cover all the changes you have suggested and have no URL hyperlinks for others to check up on their validity. Aw16 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Minor Edit needed (article seems locked to me): Boris Johnson should be referred to as former mayor of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.203.247.131 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done 73.203.247.131: thank you for the suggestion, hopefully done in Special:Diff/721928343. —Sladen (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Article size limit

This article is presently at 36kB of main-body prose (6200 words). Any significant expansion of the body text to reflect new circumstances (even by 10%) is going to take this article into WP:SIZE territory for recommended splitting. Studio audience filming took place at Dunsfold Aerodrome with Chris Evans (presenter), Matt LeBlanc and members of the public on 19 May 2016. The Radio Times reports[8] that "Top Gear's Star In A Reasonably Priced Car renamed Star in a Rallycross Car". Another Radio Times piece[9] states that the guests were Gordon Ramsay and Jesse Eisenberg: if the format is regarded as straight continuation then the necessity to cover new segments, and a large number of new presenters will likely lead to a substantial increase in size.

Possibilities for splitting the article could be to either split across subject area, or splitting chronologically.

1. When splitting by subject area it will be necessary to frame most segments with a contextual timeframe. (Likely further increase in duplicated word count to frame each subject area in the timeframe it relates to and then interlinking between the subject-area articles).
2. When splitting by chronological time it may be necessary to reference forward or backwards for comparison, probably on a global basis. (Likely small increase in non-duplicated word count).

Based on the proposition that the article will need to be split soonish, I would appreciate input. —Sladen (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

36kB is still below WP:SIZERULEs "Length alone does not justify division", 40kB boundary. 10% expansion is 39.6kB, which is still below that boundary. The next boundary is >50kB, which says "May need to be divided". There is plenty of room between the 40 and 50kB levels for expansion of this article. Of course, even reaching 50kB doesn't guarantee the need for a split. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry my wording was not as clear as could be: When this article needs to be split, how should it be done? —Sladen (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's if this article needs to be split rather than when. Tvx1 23:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, that is not the question I'm trying to explore. —Sladen (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that it's just not worth discussing this at the moment. Per the guideline, >60kB is when an article should probably be divided. That's the point at which we should discuss whether a split is needed and if needed how it should be done. We're not even close to that right now so this discussion is currently pointless. We have no idea what the article will look like if it reaches 60kB (and I'm not certain it ever will) so we cannot possible determine an appropriate split right now. Tvx1 03:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, I think that point-of-view is clearly recognisable. It has resulted in a deadlock where this article has ended up on long-term indefinite semi-protect for two months now; because there is no obvious structure to channel creativity into. Editors without skills and background are not in a position to progress the situation; but worse still, where those potentially with the skills and background to try and unjam the situation try to take sensible action, these appear to that hit up against a a wall of revert in Article: space, and filibustering/avoidance of concrete replies in Talk: space. —Sladen (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Off-topic: no, the amount of prose involved is not great—the prose in this sub-heading would be enough to take the article to 40kB…

My point is that it's just not worth discussing this at the moment - In fact it's a complete waste of time. When we split episode list articles from a main series article we know how to do it, because there is a pre-defined format. There is nothing like that for general splitting of the article. We have no idea how this article is going to be expanded so we have no idea what, if anything, will need to be split out. It's entirely possible that very little expansion will be needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, what do you feel would be worth discussing? —Sladen (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of things worth discussing but, at this time, there is not a lot to discuss about this article. There are a lot of things to actually do. For example, Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters still has 200 articles in it that need to be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend: in a little over 100 hours a new episode of a programme entitled Top Gear will be broadcast. Which means we have about 100 hours to work out what to do. Trying a WP:BOLD approach hasn't worked, because somebody using your account reverted but has not so-far showed willingness to follow-up with the required two-way discussion phase (viz. "there is not a lot to discuss about this article.". Please could you decide if you wish to take part in useful discussion. —Sladen (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. The world will not explode if we do what we do with every other TV program and wait until the episode airs. Once the episode airs we can work out how best to add content related to the episode. Right now we don't have anything to work with so we can't do anything. You'll note that Tvx1 has said pretty much the same. It's not just me saying it, so please don't continually target me. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And just why would we have to work something out by sunday evening? There's no guarantee that the article expand so much by then that a split is needed. I'll repeat that >60kb and not 40 is the point at which a split becomes worth discussing (but still not mandatory). Yes some content might need to be added after the next episode, but that's not certain. On the other hand content can be removed once the season is underway. The diary-like section we currently have on the replacement of the hosts in-between series 22-23 can be trimmed down considerably then. Tvx1 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems this is it... the format change indeed happened! The show has essentially reverted to its basics, with the few remaining regular features of the 2002 version altered.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Presenters

Shouldn't we remove Clarkson, May and Hammond as presenters, as they no longer do the show? They are now doing a motoring show for Amazon Prime. Jimbob2014 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimbob2014, the inclusion of these three names appears to be accurate for the show/incarnation/series/$whatever that started broadcasting c.2002. If you would like to add content and aren't sure where to put it, you could try contributing at Draft:Top Gear (2016 TV series). Depending on how much material turns up, that may become suitable for migration, or merging depending on consensus. —Sladen (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TVCAST, they remain on the list as articles are supposed to present the entire history of the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Split?

This may seem a strange question but would it be a good idea to split the article into Top Gear (2002-2015) and Top Gear (2016-) as much of the article is about the previous trio of presenters and from what I can see the new series will be vastly different and probably enough to warrant its own article similar to the way that the 1977-2001 Top Gear has its own article. C. 22468 Talk to me 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this above. The current series is series 23 of Top Gear (2002 TV series). The format and presenter changes can easily be accommodated in this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, your account's last contribution to that sub-section was in Special:Diff/710330669, made on 16 March 2016 ("As has been explained previously, we don't have enough information about the new series to create a new page."). In those 10+ weeks the situation has moved on massively, the first episode has been filmed, broadcast, and reviewed, the second episode has been trailed; the corresponding Extra Gear has been shown; format and ratings information has become available. The proposal of stalling discussion pending more information is moot. Is is perfectly appropriate that Coolguy22468 and various other editors are free to open discussion, and you are welcome to contribute usefully to such discussion with arguments based on current information now available. —Sladen (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The new Top Gear is actually a combination of the 1977 format (the focus on the cars and not the presenters) and the 2002 format (the stunts, Star in A Reasonably Priced Rallycross Car....)--176.104.110.11 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

your account's last contribution - irrelevant. I'm an active contributor to the article and the page.

In those 10+ weeks the situation has moved on massively - Not really. We now have a single episode aired and Tvx1 has summarised the changes quite well.[10] The only things that have changed are the presenters and the test track has expanded. Cast changes occur all the time on TV series. We don't create a completely new article when that happens. Information on the rallycross changes has been added to the article and can be expanded upon in the test track article. You've already tried to justify a new article based on article size limits and it has been explained that we don't need to create a new article for those reasons. We still have plenty of expansion room in the article. As of yet I haven't seen a single justification for splitting this article or creating a new one. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely with AussieLegend. In fact I even forgot a similarity in my summary. They retained the Power Lap leaderbord with all the previous 22 series' lap times still on it. Concerning the "new" test track. They didn't overhaul it. They justed added an optional offroad section. The original layout is still intact and in use, as shown when The Stig drove the Corvette around it. Tvx1 16:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2016

In end date, replace present with 28 June 2015, then move the page Draft:Top Gear (2016 TV series) to Top Gear (2016 TV series).

References

SpongeAhoy (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The source you've provided is dated 14 March 2015 and is about Jeremy Clarkson accepting that he wouldn't be returning to Top Gear. It in no way confirms the series was cancelled and we know that it wasn't. Series 23, with new hosts, is now airing. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2016

The link to Rory Reid is the wrong person. It should be to Rory Reid not Rory Reid CBJamo (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Done --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2016

Remove years, remove Eddie Jordan, Rory Reid and Chris Harris from infobox. Put Sabine Schmitz in the bottom of the presenters list SpongeAhoy (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Jordan, Reid and Harris weren't credited in the episode, so they don't belong in the infobox. Schmitz didn't actually present, but neither does the Stig, and she was listed before him, so it seems reasonable to include her in presenters with the Stig. Years should never have been added to the infobox at all, so they have been removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Stig, however, has always been credited as a presenter by Top Gear themselves (just look at the end credits of every episode), whereas Sabine Schmitz hasn't. Tvx1 21:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but "with" is usually used to denote some special status, apart from normal starring or presenter status. For example, in NCIS: Los Angeles, the credits are Chris O'Donnell, Peter Cambor, Daniela Ruah, Adam Jamal Craig with LL Cool J and Linda Hunt. This doesn't mean that LL Cool J and Linda Hunt aren't starring. They are, but the "with" acknowledges some extra status. For Schmitz, the "Presenters: Evans, LeBlanc with Schmitz, Stig", normally denotes that Scmitz and Stig are presenters but with some different status to the "normal" presenters. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

See also - The Grand Tour

With regard to this edit, and the edit summary of "If we're going to add the grand tour, then we have to add every other unrelated motoring series" - I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but rather than reverting will discuss, as I'm willing to be persuaded. The Grand Tour is not an "unrelated" show in the true sense of the word, in that it has all three of the TG presenters in it, and so it can be assumed (OR notwithstanding) that it will be a close approximation of the previous incarnation of TG. A spiritual successor perhaps?

However, all this is potentially moot anyway as The Grand Tour is mentioned in the lede, and previous mention in the article often excludes mention in "See Also". Anybody else got any thoughts? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been numerous attempts to add The Grand Tour in various forms, even though it is unrelated. That it is a product of former presenters is really irrelevant. If you believe the opposite, then every programme by Top Gear presenters should be in the "See also" section, as they were actually products of current Top Gear presenters. I'd argue that Brainiac: Science Abuse is more related by virtue of the fact that once Richard Hammond left, the show went to hell because it was being presented by somebody who thought he was funny but wasn't, and the Evans Top Gear is certainly heading that way. However, as you've said, this is moot. Per WP:NOTSEEALSO, "the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". Until such time as episodes of The Grand Tour air, any assumption that "it will be a close approximation of the previous incarnation of TG" is most definitely original research and we cant add content based on OR. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's OR, or unrelated due to the fact that all three previous presenters are presenting another motoring programme. Based on this rationale, I would say that Fifth Gear could also be included - but Vroom Vroom could not. One is arguably related due to the circumstances that brought it about, whereas the other is just a car programme - of which there are many.

I'm not advocating the insertion into "See Also", as my editing history will show that I'm a big advocate of removing See Also items when they're mentioned in the article proper - rather I'm querying the assertation that The Grand Tour is not related in any way to Top Gear. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2016

On 4th July 2016 Chris Evans announced that he had quit the BBC Two show.

2A02:C7D:1FA4:F200:44A7:94EE:8F01:5CD2 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Done --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: an alternative source to the Daily Mirror has been used in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate headings for current and former presenters

For clarity, it might make sense to split the "Presented by" column into two separate headings: one for current presenters and one for former presenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhitoyourmomforme (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

we cdon't split cast into "current" and "former". --AussieLegend (✉) 02:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask why not? Top Gear is not currently "Presented by" Chris Evans, Jeremy Clarkson, James May, Richard Hammond or Jason Dawe. Someone viewing this page who has no familiarity with Top gear could very well believe that all of those are current presenters, based on the way the page is currently arranged. Perhaps their start and end years of their presentership could be placed next to their names instead of splitting the column in two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayhitoyourmomforme (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sayhitoyourmomforme, Of course you can ask. And I hope AussieLegend will discuss (not dictate). —Sladen (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not really a case of discussing or dictating - more following the Manual of Style, which states "Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list". It's bad faith to assume that just because another editor is following the MoS and you are not (even if you're unaware) that the other editor is dictating to you.

However, there is a precedent where TV programmes have had many presenters Blue Peter and Top of the Pops are examples - only the current presenters are listed and all other presenters have an article dedicated to them. To follow this route though the article for former presenters would need to be created first - until then, we list all presenters in broadcast order. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

We even had a long discussion about listing main cast in the body of the article and there was strong consensus that presenters are treated as main cast, cast are listed in the prose as they are in the infobox. i.e. per WP:TVCAST, and that we don't use tables in the main series article. That is why we don't split them up. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)