Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

1977

Would it not be worth a mention somewhere on this page that Top Gear (in both Current and Original formats) has run since 1977, 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.108.36 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Illegal Antics?

In the 2002 to present section there is a reference to producing an American edition of the show, but that "the illegal antics of the team would probably result in excessive legal spending." without citation this needs to go. Certainly taken at face value some of their antics seem illegal, but given that they often operate on closed roads etc (such as they showed in the Isle of Man) i suspect this is far from the case. If noone objects i shall remove it in a few days Ei2g 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I read that the reason the US version couldn't be produced was that the presenters wouldn't be allowed to say anything negative about a car, if that car/manufacturer was advertising on the channel it was being shown on. Which would make it a pointless TV programme (what's the point in a car programme that doesn't show you how good AND how bad a car is, or run a few against each other and pick a winner?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Americans ruin everything aye.. all about the money! that's why the BBCs policy of no plugs is so much better, allows them to be truly objective (the BBC not the Top Gear trio) as they dont have to bow to commercial pressure! 123.255.52.16 (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

What's with the renaming of the article. Now it looks like the series only ran in 2002 and 1973. What was wrong with current format and original format? AlexJ 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Current format" does not provide a name with longevity. When Top Gear is cancelled or changed again we will need to rename this article yet again. Top Gear (1971 Format) and Top Gear (2002 Format) logically implies that the format changed in 2002. This allows for future formats as well. If the format is changed again what will this article become? Top Gear (not original and not current format)

Current format and original format of what? This is a general encyclopedia, not the Top Gear encyclopedia, and the previous titles did not disambiguate properly that the articles are about two series of tv shows. There are also other properties named "Top Gear" that are unrelated to the shows. Also, it is common practice for multi-year series to be marked according to the year of first run. If it is confusing to you, it is only because you haven't dealt with this issue before. As an example, see the page Lost for examples of how to properly disambiguate article names. Ham Pastrami 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some fair points, but on the argument "If it is confusing to you, it is only because you haven't dealt with this issue before." - surely a regular reader of this encyclopaedia also won't have dealt with this issue before and could be confused. AlexJ 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral movement of the page should be avoided at all time the page should not have been moved the previous names were accepted as the least confusing . If there are new strong arguments to the contrary lets hear them but until then I shall revert the moves.--Lucy-marie 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the previous discussion and there was no consensus. You have unilaterally kept the page where it is, and done a fairly sloppy job of doing so, detailed below, and there was in fact a previous request to move the page to Top Gear (2002 TV programme) which is very similar to my proposal. Ham Pastrami 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed earlier that the Top Gear disambig page had been renamed by User:Anthony Appleyard to "Top gear" (with a small 'g'), I think along with all the related pages, in fact "Top Gear" redirected to "Top gear"! This was on the basis that it had been listed by someone on Wikipedia:Requested moves in the "Uncontroversial proposals" section. So there appears to be a Wiki process that means that anyone can go and request a page move there, list it as uncontroversial, carelessly type it, then someone with no previous input to the set of articles (as far as I can tell) will come along and blindly move it for them, with no intelligent thought on capitalisation based on the article content, and avoiding any sort of democratic discussion. Hmm. Halsteadk 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy. Foremost, it is governed by policies and guidelines, which my changes are in full compliance with. The full explanation can be found below. Ham Pastrami 01:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The uncontroversial moves process is based largely on Wikipedia:Assume good faith - most moves listed as uncontroversial really are uncontroversial. In the few cases where they aren't somebody tends to speak up sooner or later, and any problems are easy to fix. I wouldn't worry too much about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to check if there was a discussion about this, which I found when archiving this talk page (and this is why resident maintainers need to periodically archive the talk page -- allowing it to reach 40+ sections, many of which were quite lengthy, makes it too easy to skip over and miss pertinent discussions). When I got here, the disambig tag was wholly inadequate and it seemed like an uncontroversial move, and it is again, now. The disambig tag should tell readers what "Top Gear" is, instead of assuming knowledge, which at least somewhat defeats the purpose of disambig tags (see WP:TV-NAME). So let us discuss then, what is your proposal for a proper disambig title? The reason why the non-disambiguated page name was changed to "Top gear" with lowercase g is because it is a disambiguation page, and may include the phrase "top gear" as something other than a pronoun (see WP:Disambiguation#Generic topic). Seeing as to how my changes were fully within WP guidelines, I think the burden is on others to demonstrate why the previous/reverted page name is desirable. The way I see it, there are essentially two things you can do, conforming to WP guidelines, with regards to this page title and the disambiguation page:

• Keep it the way I had it, which was to place this article as Top Gear (2002 TV series) and allow Top gear (and the redirect Top Gear) to serve as disambig pages.
• If you desire this to be the primary topic, rename it to Top Gear, and provide a hatnote to Top gear (disambiguation) as the disambig page. But you still need to disambiguate the old series, as e.g. Top Gear (1977 TV series).

What appears to have consensus now -- using ambiguous disambiguation tags, and using a proper noun for the title of a disambig page, is not supported by any Wikipedia guideline. It is clear to me that this "consensus" was reached without any oversight or awareness of such guidelines. In other words, you reached a default (not a consensus) due to mutual ignorance and a lack of challenging editors. I don't think this would serve as justification if the matter were taken to arbitration. These article names need to change, and I hope that bringing these facts to light will help establish consensus for the change. I am not interested in a pissing match nor in doing things unilaterally, and I apologize if my haste has caused this impression. But what I am interested in is bringing these article names to be consistent with the encyclopedia as a whole. Ham Pastrami 23:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, unrelated to the discussion at hand, but were you folks aware that this talk page was desynchronized from the article? The article, which was named Top Gear (current format) when I got here, was redirecting the talk page to Talk:Top Gear (Current format), and all of the subpage links were similarly redirecting back to the original Talk:Top Gear. I had to request for the talk page and all subpages to be moved into synchronization with the article name. Basically, the people taking it upon themselves to maintain the article name have been negligent in making sure the talk page followed, which is another reason why I did not stop to ask when fixing the page names. If you are going to change the page names and make reverts to other peoples' changes, you need to also take the responsibility to make sure all links are also properly changed. For example, the To-Do list is broken again. But let's not change anything else until we have an agreement for a proper page name. As another example of the current maintainers' neglect of Wikipedia procedure, the page name was not actually reverted, but moved to yet another new name. Do I even need to ask if double redirects were fixed? If this was really so contentious as to require a revert before discussion, you should have asked an admin to move the page back to the original desired name, instead of continually making new names. Ham Pastrami 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I would suggest that this falls under this proviso and that there is no usage of "Top Gear" where the "g" would be lower case notable enough to justify an article - it would just be an arbitrary adjective and noun - hence the "g" should be upper case. Halsteadk 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, without nit-picking over my use of the word "democratic", my comment clearly pointed out that the procedure had bypassed discussion - and WP:DEMOCRACY clearly states that consensus is reached by discussion, and that is the basis of decision making. Did you use the required "caution" before going and adding a straw poll below, which may "impede discussion"?? Halsteadk 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the seemingly needless hyphenation of "Current Format" and "Original Format"? Davetibbs 10:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See here See here Stephenb (Talk) 10:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name vote

Please read carefully the discussion above on Renaming. If you have further comments you wish to add, discuss your points in that section. This section should be used only to make a vote, with an optional, short justification for why you are leaning that way. The vote is non-binding, as WP is not a democracy, but voting is useful to see how much or how little of a consensus there is. For simplicity, the voting options will be reduced to the following, unless there is demand for another option (you can also make up your own but this makes it harder to gauge your meaning objectively):

1. Non-disambiguated title, that is, Top Gear
2. Conforming disambiguated title, conforming to WP:TV-NAME, for example Top Gear (2002 TV series)
3. Non-conforming disambiguated title, for example Top Gear (Current format)

Add your vote to the list below, and sign your vote by adding ~~~~ to the end of your statement.

• Conforming or Non-disambiguated. Disambig tags, when used, should fully disambiguate the article's subject. Ham Pastrami 00:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Non-conforming or Non-disambiguated. "2002 TV series" sounds like it only ran in 2002, and if that's the convention then it needs changing. Top Gear (current format) (lowercase "c") or simply Top Gear would be better. - MTC 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Non-disambiguated as it should always have been, per WP:DISAMBIG. This will serve the vast majority of readers searching for "Top Gear", rather than sending them to a disambig page. Zunaid©® 08:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I say go back to Top Gear (current format) and Top Gear (original format). Also I say the non disambiguated version is much better.--Lucy-marie 13:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Non-conforming - I don't see why TV series has to be mentioned in the title - it isn't for the majority of TV programmes (that don't disambig) and they cope fine. At a push I'd accept "Original series" and "Current series" but that causes problems as series in the UK has the same meaning as season in the US. Format explains it as best as possible IMO. AlexJ 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question - does anybody support the current version, which has "Current" capitalized, and a questionable hyphen in place, or is that just a temporary measure while this gets sorted out? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no justification for either "current" being capitalised or there being a hyphen. Wiki titles should have all but their first letter in lower case, except as part of a programme (or whatever) title, where it would also be capitalised within the article. The word "current" isn't part of the programme title, and I would never expect it to be written as "Current-format" within a sentence in the article. "Series" should not be used in the title as there will shortly have been 10 series of the current format, "current series" would refer specifically to the one that is airing. This is an English encyclopedia, not an American or British one, so the title must not be ambiguous to any reader. "2002 TV series" refers to Season 1 of the current format only and is not appropriate. Halsteadk 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Ok, I find this survey confusing. Is there a general agreement that the articles should be at Top Gear (original format) and Top Gear (current format)? That's the impression I'm getting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly and a block on moving the page should be put in place if that is at all possible.--Lucy-marie 21:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I vote Non-disambiguated, I also think that the article should be merged with the article on the 1971 version of Top Gear. Michaeldouglas26 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• I vote conforming and thusly, as it has won the vote, and no-one else has voted for a long time will rename both pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.22.182 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Wikipedia decides by consensus not vote, and in anycase where did "Top Gear (2002- TV Series)" get mentioned above? As GTBacchus mentioned, the general consensus seemed to be heading towards Original/Current format. Please revert all your changes. AlexJ (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion would lead me to believe the agreed-upon name would be non-disambiguated. (I'd lend me support to that, as well.) Can I propose that the move actually take place? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Triumph Herald

The Triumph Herald is not a sports car, James May used a "soft top" / "converable" version of it to convert into his yacht.

The Triumph Herald should have its own artical, it was famouse for having a very small turning circle and a bonnet / hood that opened the wrong way to normal, it was available in saloon, estate, convertable, and a van version called the Triumph Courier, reference http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?lcvcdvf.htm "Triumph panelled-in the rear side windows of its Herald estate to produce the Courier. However, after a moderately successful first year, sales fell sharply, as potential customers realised that many rival vans offered more loadspace for rather less money. In fact, in the last two years of production, fewer than 100 Couriers were built."

Typicaly the Triumph Herald had a 1360cc engine. 172.202.205.96 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Triumph Herald does have its own article at Triumph Herald! Halsteadk 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I've reorganized the criticism more or less by date (some criticism is on-going, of course) and put in sub-headings. It's too long not to have sub-heads, I think, but now there are a lot of subheads. Maybe someone else can think of a way to group them. I don't think the section is overdone overall, since the format and presentation really do invite controversy. Clarkson doesn't call people names and insult whole countries without a little method in his madness. As an American, I for one find his anti-Americanism hilarious.--Tysto 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear on GT5

Proposal to add information about the availability of old episodes, as well as the Test Track itself, within Gran Turismo 5. Bolmedias 09:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been added, would be nice to see a reference to support this --58.84.145.17 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a reference from TopGear.com, would this be alright? Bolmedias 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Hey Bolmedias, don't wait for permission from an anon ip address to insert a reference. just do it, and then the world will decide if it's ok. Autodidactyl 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New reference added to section. Bolmedias 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have there been any complaints?

evident by/from BBC America viewers who watch "Top Gear" based on the antics of the American-themed show (season 9, ep 3, according to the in-house episode guide) that aired on BBCA this past Monday? I'd missed out on it on the first airing and was planning on catching it when it was rerun on Sunday afternoon, but it looks as though it's offensive to Americans to the point where many Americans -- who would have been catching this show based on the premise that it was supposed to be entertaining -- would be outraged, stop watching, and issue many complaints about the show. Or has that show been heavily edited for American audiences? 69.152.136.151 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Any Americans dumb enough to be offended apparently don't watch BBC America. --Tysto 05:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'll have to watch this episode and be the final arbiter of that. Also, you have to admit, Jeremy Clarkson can tend to be quite offensive. Richard Hammond is much wittier and more subtle about things. 69.152.136.151 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've read that most of the apparently off-the-cuff banter between the hosts is actually very carefully scripted. And scripted by Clarkson. Don't forget he's playing a character (albeit one based to a degree on his own personality), and he's very clever about how he uses that character. 78.86.33.152 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I had a look on the BBCA forum (http://discussion.bbcamerica.com/jiveforums/forum.jspa?forumID=31). A few people seem pissed off, a few others think 'fair enough'... no raging tempers, really. Not important enough to add to the article IMHO. Chev 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

350 million viewers

? surely that can't be right... It has no citation. Possibly *available* to 350m, as in 50m in UK, 50m in US on BBCA etc etc. Chev 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Indestructible pickup

Worth adding a brief section on their indestructible pickup which continued operating no matter what they did to destroy it and is a fixture of the studio now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.138.141 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The pick-up's story is rather well documented on the pick-up's own page, which can be found here: Toyota Hilux. I think there is no real need to go into all the details, though it (the Toyota Hilux) is an absolutely amazing machine as it survived all the torture it was subjected to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayantan.z28 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ending Credits

Dennywuh has already contributed much by rewording this section and adding references. Can people look for other episodes in which this occurs? I threw in my two cents in the form of two examples. Luigi6138 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to clarify that Björn, Benny, Agnetha and Anni-Frid are ABBA, or can we assume readers who don't know won't care? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that sort of interpretation might verge on original research - that aside, this is really too much detail for the general article, would be more appropriate in the episode list. Halsteadk (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept your point on excess information, but original research? Can you think of any other two-men, two-women entity from Norway with those exact names that middle-aged British men (Clarkson & Co) would be familiar with? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely NOT original research. Clarkson and co. know who ABBA is. Even when putting the original Koenigsegg CCX time on the board, they wrote a garbage statement containing "ABBA" and I believe also "Sweden" when putting it on the board, followed by the time. Luigi6138 (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Car of the Year 2007

Didn't I just hear the award being given to both the Mondeo and the Subaru Legacy Outback? 78.86.33.152 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The award ould be only given to one car. Azzstar (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But they gave it to both on the show, surely it's up to them?194.3.130.128 (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Power Laps Renault F1 car wrong Reference?

Part which tells about record has wrong reference "^ Series 10 - Episode 9. Top Gear Episode Archive. bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-12-12." On show this happend at season 5 episode 8 and not at 10th season, there is no info about this exept one picture on Episode Archive, but it happens at end of episode. --82.203.181.189 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear is no more than a comedy show

This is not trolling. This is the start of a debate on how the show has changed since its first inception. There are valid points that many disaffected viewers of the show have pointed out. It should be addressed. Just because fans of the show do not like what is written is no excuse for deleting this.

Three somewhat juvenile gentlemen playing around in cars that 99% of people can never own. The original show contained useful consumer information.

The OB challenges are scripted and staged. The confrontation with the Alabama hicks at the filling station is an example of a staged incident.

The show is just a series of stunts and is not a serious automotive show, unlike other shows like Fifth Gear that have since sprung up. 213.162.125.117 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view (and POVs should not be imposed on Wikipedia articles), but what changes do you think out to be made to the article in respect of this, and can you justify them by citing appropriate sources? This page is for discussing the article content, not the show. Stephenb (Talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the talk page is not a forum. If you want to talk about the article, fine, but your post had no indication of doing anything like that. -mattbuck 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with an ounce of media experience can see that all Top Gear OBs are heavily scripted. I am sure this change from the original Top Gear show would provide the reader with an understanding of the differences between the New and Old show articles. The new show is not just a change in line-up, it is a complete editorial change. The show is a parody of its former self. Informing readers that Top Gear is no longer a consumer programme but an entertainment programme would be important. 213.162.125.117 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't suggest that it is a "consumer programme". I think it describes the show quite accurately. It doesn't actually say that the OBs are scripted but, to do so, would require a reference. Bluewave (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To the OP, what would you rather? Jeremy Clarkson hooning a Bugatti Veyron, or Chris Goffey in a knitted jumper talking in a nasal voice about the Skoda Favorit's boot space? Davetibbs (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I know a number of people who'd prefer the latter... that aside, it is blatently clear that the oBs are scripted, so it surely can't be too difficult to find a valid reference for this (which of course is needed for it's inclusion). _TalkIslander 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Seperation of Segments

Sorry no idea how wikipedia really works (bit of a first timer) i just thought to make the suggestion that the segments section should have a page of its own as it seems far too long in its current form and in fact off putting (purely because it is several pages of A4 in itself)

seperating it would make the main article shorter and provide scope for expansion in description of tasks etc.

just a sugegstion though - what do i know

-D

no idea how to date/sign this sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.170.115 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Reviews

The "supercar/superbridge" is listed as one, but there's nothing unusual about this. I am going to delete this entry unless someone has a reason for it to remain. CGameProgrammer (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

US Version of Top Gear

The entry for the recently commissioned NBC (US) version of Top Gear indicates the show will be called "Gear." This does not appear in the NBC/Universal Press release announcing the show, and is not referenced, so I've removed it. Unfortunately, NBC has taken down the press release from the NBCUMV site where it first appeared. Text below:

START YOUR ENGINES! NBC ORDERS PILOT FOR INTERNATIONAL HIT SERIES 'TOP GEAR' FROM BBC WORLDWIDE AMERICA Published: January 15, 2008

BURBANK, Calif. - January 15, 2008 - NBC has ordered a pilot for the international hit series "Top Gear" from BBC Worldwide America it was announced today by Ben Silverman, Co-Chairman, NBC Entertainment and Universal Media Studios. The world's leading car series franchise features unique celebrity guest participation and high-adrenaline action entertainment.

" 'Top Gear' is a proven international hit which fits perfectly into NBC's line-up of programming with male appeal, including 'Sunday Night Football' and 'American Gladiators,'" said Silverman. "We're always looking for innovative ways to partner with our advertisers and this show offers a great platform for the latest in car culture."

"We've had our eye on 'Top Gear' for a while now and think this show can really click with viewers," added Craig Plestis, Executive Vice President, Alternative Programming, Development and Specials, NBC Entertainment. "The concept taps into America's obsession with cars and is unlike anything else on television."

"Since its revival over five years ago, the UK show has been a phenomenal success. The bar has been set so high, that replicating it will be the challenge - one we truly relish," said Paul Telegdy, Executive Vice President Content and Production for BBC Worldwide Americas. "Casting is well underway and we are confident that Americans will fall in love with the attitude and irreverent spirit of 'Top Gear.'"

One of the UK's most popular all-time television franchises, "Top Gear" will feature super-cars, extreme stunts and challenges, time trials and road tests, and assess the performance of some of the most ordinary and extraordinary cars on the planet.

The series, which premiered in the UK in 1977, is consistently BBC TWO's most-watched program in the UK. "Top Gear" also reaches over 150 million households globally and made its stateside debut on BBC America in 2007.

"Top Gear" has been the recipient of various awards including National Television Awards, BAFTAs, Broadcast Award, Royal Television Society Awards and an International Emmy Award. Top celebrity guests have included Helen Mirren, Hugh Grant, Simon Cowell, Ewan McGregor and Gordon Ramsay. Drmargi (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

NBC did not buy the US Top Gear for its Fall, 2008 schedule, per a press release from NBC also posted on the Futon Critic. At present, they are holding the program as a possible mid-season (usually February/March) replacement for a failed show or a show going on hiatus. The article has been edited accordingly. Drmargi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC-in-America channel has just started a "new series" of the UK version of Top Gear - but (wierdly) they went back to an earlier series than the one they most recently aired. This means we're seeing the episodes totally out of order - it's very strange. At the start of the "new" series, the fastest track time was the Ferrari Enzo - and at the end of that episode, the Maserati just beats it's time - yet in the previous episode they'd aired, the Enzo and Maserati were well down the list beneath the Koenigsburg and a bunch of others. We were also shown the soccer match between two teams of small cars (I forget what they were) - when we'd already seen the sequel to it about two series ago! It's all very confusing! I hope they didn't sell their right to broadcast new UK episodes in the US when they sold the rights to a US-specific version to NBC that may never air. Urgh! SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, it's so annoying. When they started showing the promos for new episodes of Top Gear, I thought they were talking about Series 11, yet it appears they are airing Series 6. Ergh! But I can finally see Series 6 in it's entirerty. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The US version of Top Gear was developed for sale to NBC by BBC Worldwide, which also owns BBCAmerica, so I doubt there's any conflict. It doesn't sound like the pilot was a huge success if it didn't make the fall schedule, so I'm not holding my breath.

I think we'll continue to see TG on BBCA for the foreseeable future. I just read BBCW had its most profitable year ever, and one of the biggest reasons is the success of TG on BBCA. I don't think they anticipated TG's ratings on BBCA when they bought just Series 8 and Series 9 then later Series 10, so they backtracked to purchase Series 6 and presumably 7, and they didn't exactly make a secret of which series they were purchasing. These episodes are have the last that weren't repackaged for Discovery back in 2005-2006, and "new" to the US, so I'm not sure what the fuss is anyway. We are, in effect, getting a new, if out-of-order, season - and in widescreen at long last!! Once they finish, we should get Series 11. I'd rather BBCA didn't rush it to air, but took the time to get the music clearances so we don't get the packaged copycat music used in Series 10 but rather get the original clips used in Britain. Drmargi (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it too long?

Currently, the article is 57 kilobytes. Suggested Wikipedia guidelines note a size of 32 kilobytes to ensure readability. I'm kinda leaning towards the possibility that we need to pare down the Segments section, as it has approached violating Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:NOT#DIR. I can see arguements for say, Power Laps and SIARPC seeing they are a staple fixture of the show, appearing in every episode, but Cars against Athletes? It would be abit more appropriate to convert them into paragraphs and give examples instead of listing every single instance. Plus I need to call Top Gear challenges into question as well. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than paring it down, some of the material (significant cars, challenges, etc.) could go on their own pages as is the case with most TV shows. It is a lot to wade through, and this would enhance readability. --Drmargi 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well one has to ask "Is it relevant to say, a non-Top Gear fan?" Plus let's not also forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear races where two of the articles had to be combined and put into another article, and the others got made as redirects. I really don't want to go thru that mess again.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, one should ask: who is the article's primary audience, and what would they want? --Drmargi (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, why doesn't the article list the number of times that Jeremy has worn denim, both on set and in the reviews? I would like to know that info. Howabout IDing the gun he brought on the Caravan Holiday? Oh I know, how many times has Hammond been jabbed about his teeth? Same concept. We don't need to list every little detail about the series. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the primary audience of this article on Wikipedia consists of people who are looking for general knowledge about the show. Big-time fans will most likely visit a Top Gear fansite for all the trivia information. --clpo13_(talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, I could see for say, the infamous Toyota Hilux test, the Ariel Atom review, etc. But...okay, for example, Big Races. We have one in Season 4, then 5, then 6, then 7, and then a big jump to 10. Seriously, I think a paragraph would suffice. Frankly speaking, I think we need to uphold to a Power Laps and SIARPC standard: if the compliment of events doesn't have at least one representative in each season, it's not worth it to include every single nuance it appears in Top Gear. Even Top Gear challenges is strongly looking like we either got to gut the article or nominate it for deletion.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Drmargi. I think a separate Segments page should be created and the bulk of the segments content moved there. The argument of 'oh, it's just another list' doesn't hold much weight. Consider 2008_Formula_One_season, which is 74kb and ~70% of its onscreen footprint (excluding the TOC and references) is taken up with lists and tables. User:Jonathonbarton sums things up very well from from Talk:Top_Gear_(Current-format)/Archive_2#Article_Layout (which is also on the subject of article length):

I vote for leaving them in. Whether it's in this article, or a linked article doesn't matter so much to me, but the point that this article is the first Non-BBC, non Fansite hit (being 6th overall) on Google is significant. Also, Graham, I believe that a distinction needs to be made between the Intent of Wikipedia, and it's actual, real-world use. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also an encyclopedia that's not limited by the amount of space it takes up on the bookshelf, or how much it weighs when it comes time to move it to the new apartment. So long as the content is "editorially neutral", I see no problem with including as much detail as possible. Why? Well, anyone have any idea what Top Gear was like in 1977 when they perhaps did a bit about a Ford Cortina? I didn't think so. Me neither, though I'd LOVE to be able to come here and find out...I also believe that being able to come here in 20 years and learn about what Top Gear was like in the year 2002 will be equally fascinating (and, if you had your way) equally hard to find. --Jonathonbarton 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

121.45.40.90 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree, but I don't trust anonymous users. Other dissenters?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You autocratic wikinerds already messed up the TG list of episodes page, don't screw up this one as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.149.51 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is why sometimes I like Communism or Totalitarianism.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

List of car reviews

I think it would be great if this article had a list of cars they have reviewed and what episode(s) they were shown in. Basically it would be a separate page with a wiki table that contains the make of the car, the model, what episode it was shown in, and who reviewed the car. NRG753 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like we have a new column in the episode list which I've been contributing to, it does the trick, not as cool as my idea though! NRG753 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of series?

How many series has top gear had? The introduction states 11, the information box says 10 and the top gear web site says 10 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/). I was under the impression, however, that there are 11, with a 12th this summer. Wheatleya (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been ten series, and the eleventh will start this summer. I've changed the main page so it says as much. LicenseFee (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Viewing Figures?

The article suggests that the typical viewing figures for the show are 8 million in the UK. Following the reference to the BBC news article suggests that this was the *peak* figure for the last show in the 2007 series. The actual typical figures are likely to be much lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.87.117 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New team member

Does anyone know who the new team member for the 11th series is or if a news article has been published stating his/her name? Or are we waiting for the first episode of the new series to air before the new member's name is put up? Looneyman (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I think her/his/its identity is being closely guarded until Sunday. LicenseFee (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the episode has aired. The new member of the team is a stuntman, just called Top Gear Stuntman. Looneyman (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If Top Gear Stuntman can have a mention, why can't Top Gear Dog? - They are both team members. Emma368 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good point, but we don't know whether Top Gear dog is still alive or not. To my knowledge, he hasn't appeared in an episode for a while. Looneyman (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Still no reason for it not to be mentioned, there appears to have been a witch-hunt against TGD from the very beginning. Dr French is one such person who will no doubt be along shortly to give his two penneth worth on why it shouldn't be included. TGD was introduced as a new team member in the same way Top Gear Stuntman was last night. They should both have equal status. Emma368 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do try to leave the personal commentary out of this. The dog was introduced as a dog, not a presenter. It's been done to death here. I have one question to ask Emma368. Are you the same person who used to edit as Davesmith33? There's a remarkable similarity in your editing pattern, including; a) the single purpose to get the dog mentioned as a presenter b) labelling edits by anyone who disagrees with you as 'vandalism', c) the personal insults slipped into talk pages/edit summaries and d) the removal of warning notices from your talk page. Bearing in mind Wikipedia's WP:SOCKPUPPET policy - I thought I'd give you a chance to tell us know if you are the same person... before this goes any further. DrFrench (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted this to User talk:Emma368 earlier, but rather than respond Emma368 deleted the contents of the talk page again. I thought I'd post it here as a matter of public record to see if Emma368 will respond.

"In this diff you have accused me of using Dp76764 as an alias. If you look at the edit history of me and Dp76764, you'll notice quite a difference in style and topic. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I'd like to give you a chance to apologise and withdraw your comment before this matter escalates. If you still honestly believe that Dp76764 is an alias used by me, then please a) provide evidence for your assertion and b) post a report in the appropriate place - WP:SSP."

DrFrench (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I havn't been involved in this dispute - and I've looked at User:DrFrench and User:Dp76764 and it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that they are the same person. Take a look at the edit histories for (picking a day more or less at random here) June 22nd - both accounts were used at exactly 14:41 to edit wildly different things. Sure, it's not impossible that someone would have two windows open with different socks logged into each - but this isn't a common pattern for sock-puppeteers. Also, the two accounts edit wildly different kinds of articles - they don't seem to share a single common interest except for this article. Nope - there are no grounds whatever for assuming that they are the same person. But in any case, the thing they 'teamed up' for (reverting User:Emma368's additions to this article) were PERFECTLY well justified. That edit could have been taken as a mistake the first time ("Oops! I edited the article instead of the talk page!") - but by about the third reversion, it's clear that Emma368 was determined to try to ram through a point that had already been discussed in talk by repeatedly putting a non-encyclopeadic question directly into the article. That's a HUGE no-no. No matter how heated the debate gets, you never, EVER, leave the article in a screwed up state for our readership. Well, Emma368 is coming back from a 24 hour block. I think we should all try to lower the heat, cease accusations and complaints and either work on some other articles for a while or at the very least keep the debate about the article and keep it on the talk page until we come to some kind of a consensus on what should be written. If no consensus is reached - keep talking because edit wars are never good. SteveBaker (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the accusations and coming back to the point if I may, there would seem to be a simple solution to the "Is Top Gear Dog a presenter?" issue, ditto how the new team member should be listed. The credits are clear. Top Gear is:

Presented by: Jeremy, Richard, James, Stig in that order

Stunt by: Top Gear Stuntman Jim Dowdall

and no listing for the dog. Even if we accept that the issue of crediting a dog as a presenter, given she cannot talk and thereby cannot present merits discussion, the credits seems to say all that needs be said. No witch hunts, no lack of respect or any other specious argument, just Richard's new dog along for the ride once in a while, not a presenter needing equal billing or status with the four human presenters. --Drmargi (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. When they called the dog "the new presenter" they were clearly joking. SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact (as was discussed over a year ago and demonstrated in this diff) the dog wasn't even introduced as a presenter anyway.

This article is already very long and it's very easy to stray from encyclopaedic into the realms of fancruft. Far from having 'something against' the dog, it's just that I don't feel the dog is a) a presenter (as discussed above), b) significant in the development of the show or c) notable enough in its own right to deserve a separate article. There's an episode list and a detailed episode guide for each series e.g. series 11. That's the place to mention the dog's appearances, not in the main article.

The same goes for the Top Gear Stuntman. At the moment, it's too early to be clear if he's notable in the context of the devlopment of Top Gear as a whole, so probably deserves to be restricted to the episode guides for now. Similarly I don't think he's sufficiently notable enough (at this time) to merit a separate article. (FWIW, I don't think he qualifies as a presenter either.)

What do others think? Is there any consensus for creating more sub-articles for the various programme segments and moving most of the info to the sub-articles? DrFrench (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The Stuntman should be removed from the list of presenters given he does not present, appears to be the latest novelty more than a significant member of the team, and isn't credited as a presenter. I think it's particularly important we be consistent with this, given the TGD drama of late. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Previous discussions/arguments on whether TGD and the Stig were "presenters" cited the closing credits. The Stig has always been listed; TGD was never listed (and never referred to as); TGSM is not listed as and was introduced as a "new member of the team" and is therefore not a presenter following the logic of the previous consensus of editors who did not just blatantly lie (ie DaveSmith33). Halsteadk (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please can we stop Wheel waring

Emma368, can we please stop undoing each other's edits. It may turn into something similar to a Wheel war Looneyman (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not me, it's Dr French. He's always had something against TGD, for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma368 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Emma368: The text you are repeatedly inserting into the article is: WHY IS TOP GEAR STUNTMAN MENTIONED HERE, BUT NOT TOP GEAR DOG? - THEY WERE BOTH INTRODUCED AS "NEW TEAM MEMBERS/PRESENTERS". This is a perfectly valid question to ask here on the talk page - but very definitely not something you should be sticking in bloody great boldfaced caps into the actual article. You are vandalizing the page - and the WP:3RR does not apply to those who are removing vandalization. If you continue to try to insert this (or other) junk text into the article, you'll get into trouble with the Wikipedia admins - and you won't enjoy the consequences. If you would truly like to discuss why TGD doesn't get enough coverage in the article, please do it here on the talk page. I for one happen to agree that TGD deserves some coverage - but I cannot condone the way you are trying to get this message across! So please stop that IMMEDIATELY.

User:Looneyman: Feel free to continue to remove Emma368's attempts to insert this rubbish into article space. However, this is a "Revert War" not a "Wheel War" (a wheel war is when two or more administrators use their extended powers to 'war' against each other).

SteveBaker (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for correcting me on the terminology. Wheel war was the first thing that I could think of to describe what was going on. Looneyman (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wheel war & WP:Revert war explain the differences fairly lucidly. You wouldn't want to get involved in a Wheel war - when the admins wield their +4 staff's of power in anger, us mere mortals can easily get scorched! SteveBaker (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL- split section Races to Top Gear Races

(Apologies for reformatting, this is to ake the split template work. DrFrench (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Suggestion for shortening the Article

Just an idea on how to shorten the article. The Races section is a substantial bulk of the article. Maybe they could be given their own article, or moved to the Top Gear challenges article. Looneyman (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I reckon that it should have its own page because it really is very long, and a lot of other pages on TV shows do something similar.203.192.85.33 (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to the Challenges, but we need to extensively reedit it to make sure it doesn't get deleted.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this change seems to be uncontentious, so I'll action it this evening. DrFrench (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL- (Re)introduction of seperate Top Gear Dog and new Top Gear Stuntman articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There used to be an exceptionally good Top Gear Dog article before Dr French started his one man crusade against any mention of TGD on this site. I propose it be reintroduced alongside a new Tog Gear Stuntman article both linked to from the main TG article. That way anybody wanting more information on these team members/presenters can find it and those who don't want any mention of it in the main article can also be happy. Emma368 (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Top Gear Dog, as stated above, has been done to death, if you look through the archives. It was never introuced as a presenter and plays such a small role it probaly doesn't deserve its own article. If a section on minor characters was made, it could be mentioned there, but ONLY if everyone else thinks it's a good idea, since the article's long enough already.
• Top Gear Stuntman has only just joined the team. So far, we don't know how big his part is going to be in the show, this series and the future. We should wait and see how the stuntman develops before making a decision. Looneyman (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - TGD disappeared after featuring in maybe 4 episodes, the sole info about it being it's a dog which doesn't like cars. TGSM hasn't been around long enough yet, and is nonnotable anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: This reminds me of the old adage about the definition of madness. Defense of and respect for animals is laudable, but this is an absurd exercise, using TGS as a distracting factor. Sorry. Consensus re: TGD, her role on the show, and the notability of a separate article has long been reached. It's time to learn the meaning of futility, and transfer your energies elsewhere. I might also add, Emma, that framing a proposal with an insult to another user, particularly the latest of many such insults based on your inaccurate perception of events, is hardly the way to gain support for your position. --Drmargi (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose and For: Top Gear Stunt Man is going to be used, it seems, in every TG episode this series, and that would create a large paragraph of information which this already crowded article does not need. Surely it seems logical to have a page for him, as there will be at least enough information for an article eventually? A Top Gear Dog article, on the other hand, would probably never have enough information for a subtantial page. LicenseFee (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I couldn't agree with Drmargi more. Besides, Top Gear Stuntman already has an article, but there are proposals to merge it with the main Top Gear article. It all hinges on the stuntman's contributions to the show, and it does seem that he's going to be a regular. I agree that Top Gear Dog is far too minor to warrant her own article. Looneyman (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: I oppose the recommendation and in particular agree with Looneyman and Drmargi's comments. I think it appropriate that TGD is mentioned, and the fact that she is Hammond's own dog (with a ref), but little more. The veiled personal attacks within the proposal and methodology of editing of the proposer (ie inserting arguments into article space) remove any remaining credit from the proposal. Halsteadk (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose:An article on TGD would be unlikely to survive a WP:AfD - and for sure it's gonna get nominated. It sounds like TGSM is a "wait and see" thing - there is no hurry to do anything about that, so let's wait until the first series incorporating TGSM passes and we can judge notability. TGD deserves a paragraph in this article - not much more. SteveBaker (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Stig is a presenter, who cares if he doesn't talk? Top Gear dog was shown in a couple of episodes, and TGSM is as his name states a stunt man. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's a dog, for crying out loud. It was a joke for a couple of shows, it's most definitely not notable enough for an article. _TalkIslander 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stig is listed as a presenter, yet he doesn't talk - the same excuse used for not listing TGD under the presenter section, despite being introduced as a new team member (the same as TGSM). This is a one-man crusade by DrFrench for not allowing the inclusion of TGD anywhere in the article, using consensus as an excuse. There are many less minor issues addressed in the article, that dead cow for example which has nothing to do with TG. The dog and stuntman should have more of a mention, perhaps under a TG Co-stars section, of which The Stig should be included, and not as a presenter. Emma368 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's make this simple. In the credits to Top Gear, The Stig is noted under the heading of PRESENTED BY. Ergo, he is a PRESENTER. Top Gear Stunt Man is listed under STUNT. Ergo, he is not a PRESENTER but comes under the heading STUNTS. Vocal ability has nothing to do with whether the being can be considered a presenter, it is simply where he/she/it is listed as such on the Top Gear credits. I hope you are being purposely obtuse, otherwise I fear for humanity. LicenseFee (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, LicenseFee. TGSM's status as stunt man, and not a presenter, is not under dispute. The Stig's status as presenter is not under dispute. The Stig-can't-talk argument is so weak it doesn't pass the laugh test. The end credits make clear what we must do in terms of listing each of them. What we have is one editor's tantrum, nothing more. Emma, we all know what this is really about: the dog, period The rest is just smoke and mirrors from someone determined to take away from other team members what the dog can't have. It's petty and it's silly, and it diminishes both your credibility and any support for your edits you might find among editors wishing to be unbiased about the point. Worse, you continue to attribute the opposition to TGD as presenter to DrFrench alone when clearly there is no one sharing your point of view, and all the willful blindness in the world won't change that point. Face it. You've lost. Please, let it go. --Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Emma368, stop the personal attacks against DrFrench or you will be blocked again. Comment on the content, not the contributors. You're using the good doctor as a scapegoat because people disagree with your views. It's been done to death, TGD is Richard's pet dog, not a presenter. As stated above, The Stig is listed in the credits as a presenter, so he is a presenter. Plus which the Stig has appeared in every episode I can think of. Top Gear Dog has not appeared in every episode, in fact she never appeared last series (to my knowledge) and it yet to appear in the current series. And don't bring the dead cow incident inot this, that is relevant to the article as it is criticism aimed at the show because of a stunt, the same as the tree damage and the railcrossing stunt. I'm putting this notice here because of your habbit of blanking your talk page, like you have don recently. Looneyman (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• On a similar note, why is there a template saying that The Stig's status as a presenter is disputed on the page? This discussion has made it clear that he is so the template doesn't really need to be there. Looneyman (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is there because The Stig's position as a presenter is disputed, as is the neutrality of the article due to the views expressed above. TGD was introduced as a new member of the team - THE SAME AS TOP GEAR STUNTMAN Yet, there is not mention at all in the article about the dog. The main reason given by DrFrench (mainly, though not exclusively) was that he can't be a presenter because 'he can't talk'. Nonsense. Just because it isn't mentioned in the end credits is irrelevent, it was introduced as a 'team member' - therefore it is on the same level of payscale as Top Gear Stuntman, and should be included in the article.

The Stig does not present because he doesn't talk going on the above logic. The Stig should be placed under a Co-star / Also Starring type section along with TGD & TGSM. Emma368 (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added '{POV-check}', as it is obvious from the comments above that you are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. Dog & Stuntman are both as important as The Stig is to the programme. This has been going on for months now and it's time it was eventually sorted. Emma368 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

TGD is not at all important. She appeared in one series only, and not in any meaningful manner, other than being sick once. TGSM it has yet to be determined, but he's certainly not a presenter (and nor is the dog). Stig is a presenter because the program lists him as one, he has been in EVERY episode apart from the Polar Challenge and he plays a major role in the program. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We ARE looking at this from a neutral point of view Emma. The stig is listed in the credits as a presenter, and always has been. What more proof do you need? Besides, if you look at The Stig article, stig HAS talked, albeit outside of the show. There is more to the logic Emma, TGD does't present because she is not listed as a presenter at all. She is nothing more than Richard Hammond's pet dog who comes along to the show every once in a while. TGSM appears in the credits, but not as a presentr. This means that he is not a presenter of the show. Why don't you admit defeat for a change, every argument you've made has beem defeated. Looneyman (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Dog & Stuntman are both as important as The Stig is to the programme". Emma368, have you ever watched the show or are you just here for a laugh and a wind up? As far as I can tell this issue WAS sorted before you came along and stirred it all up again. You have a point that TGD should be mentioned in the article but to say either is on the same standing as the Stig is beyond comprehension and shows total ignorance of the show. And it IS significant that TG refers to the Stig as a presenter, and has ALWAYS done so. Halsteadk (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is just ridiculous. According to you Emma, this issue needs to be sorted out. To everyone else's minds, it was, long ago! The only person continually stirring the pot is you, I'm guessing because your idea of settled is limited to getting what you want. And for whatever it's worth, it was me who first (and sarcastically) raised the point that the dog can't talk much less present. If you must take a comment out of context in order to strengthen your baseless arguments, at least get your attributions correct rather than falling back on blaming DrFrench yet again. Moreover, the argument that The Stig can't talk isn't parallel, much less valid. The Stig can talk - we know that from the conversations during the "Star in the Reasonably Priced Car" segments and the numerous references made to his opinions about various cars he tests. He simply chooses not to on camera. Big difference, disingenuous argument.

This isn't about opinion. This is about accuracy. The credits list The Stig as a presenter, TGSM as the person attempting the stunt, and don't list the dog at all. It's obvious to anyone who's spent any time at all watching the show that The Stig's contribution is regular, major and substantial, that TGSM's is limited and specialized and the dog is decorative and has made no contribution. (I'd go so far as to speculate she's only there because Richard wanted to bring his new dog to the set occasionally.) The credits support this. This doesn't demand any neutrality, just a small measure of common sense. But hey. In order to be fair and neutral, can you cite one solid piece of evidence that TGD presented anything? --Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM ABOVE - "if you look at The Stig article, stig HAS talked, albeit outside of the show"
So from that logic, we are talking albeit outside of the show, so we can all be presenters?

QUOTE - "The Stig can talk - we know that from the conversations during the "Star in the Reasonably Priced Car" segments and the numerous references made to his opinions about various cars he tests. He simply chooses not to on camera. Big difference, disingenuous argument."
So he isn't presenting then. I accept he is a star of the programme, and should therefore be listed as a Co-Star. He does not present. A co-starring section solves the problem, it gives all 3 co-stars the respect they deserve alongside the 3 presenters. Emma368 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Emma, you're just making a mountain out of a molehill. We weren't using logic, we were stating facts. And the simple fact is this: Stig is listed in the show credirs as a prsenter, so he is a presenter. TGSM is listed as a stuntman, so he is a stuntman, and not a presenter. TGD is not on the credits, so she is not part of the show. Looneyman (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabine Schmidt was included in the credits and yet again doesn't even get a mention in the article. Neutrality? Emma368 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We have eight votes against and only one person arguing "for" - I doubt we'll get any more votes so there is little point in prolonging this. We have a clear consensus - with one disruptive voter. We need to call this "over". TGD doesn't get to be called a "presenter" - period. If Emma368 wants to create a separate TGD article - fine, go ahead - but note that I will immediately raise a WP:AfD because TGD doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and there is insufficient material to make a worthwhile article. Emma368 might therefore consider it not worth the effort we're all going to be put through...but whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(I've stayed out of this particular discussion thread to reduce the possibility of accusations of a 'one-man vendetta' against the dog.) FWIW, the TGD article has been through an AfD already, recreating it would qualify it for speedy deletion unless notability could be demonstrated. DrFrench (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And to that end, I've removed the dispute tag from the article. Clearly, we have consensus regarding The Stig, and always did. --Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we've reached a consensus, how do we lock this part of the discussion so nobody can edit it again? Just in case Emma tries to reignit the discussion again. Looneyman (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, you need an Admin for that. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:03, 1 July 2008 (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.

Jeremy Clarkson says TG is scripted

Just been watching an old episode on Dave. The episode where they road and track test the Bowler off-roader and use a jet powered drag car to destroy a caravan.

After getting a lap time for the Bowler and putting it on the lap time board, Clarkson say, It is in the script for me to argue about the slow lap time but I won't bother. 213.162.125.117 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a major revelation - Clarkson has said in his columns that while the films are not "scripted", the studio sections ARE tightly scripted. (In particular reference to the races not being planned to achieve a particular result, but some like the caravan holiday fire are obviously well planned and have been "revealed" to be so - maybe only a surprise to someone with no concept of how TV programmes are produced.) This is also not any surprise as out-takes from studio segments also show repeated attempts to say the same thing and photos on TG's website regularly show them leafing through a script. Also, on winning an award for "best non-scripted factual programme" a couple of years ago, Clarkson was apparently unable to attend as "he was busy writing the script". Need I say more to say just how unremarkable your statement is! However, I think the vast majority of viewers could really not care less how much or little of it is scripted - the point for most is that it is just a darn good hour of entertainment at the end of the weekend. Halsteadk (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He also mentioned this "fact" when he revealed the show won an Emmy. "Oh yeah, we won an emmy for the non-scripted catergory, but I couldn't go because I was writing the script for this episode." --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That really doesn't prove anything though - Clarkson could just as easily have said it for comedic effect. It's likely that the Emmy awards committee would have checked that show was unscripted before they made the award - they wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake. It's more likely that the show has planning for the main sequences and that the presenters more or less ad-lib the dialog. This is backed up by the fact that there is no scriptwriter credits at the end of the show. When you look at other BBC shows of that kind, the "scripts" are very lightweight - they describe what's going to happen in sufficiently broad-brush terms that everyone knows what's happening when - but without producing a word-by-word description of the lines that the presenters would learn in advance. I actually own a script from the Blue Peter show that I appeared in - and it more or less says "presenter A explains how this works, presenter B listens then comments on how clever it is"...it doesn't have lines for the presenters to learn and regurgitate - but it is kinda scripted in that the presenters aren't free to go off and talk about something completely unplanned. The presenters on Blue Peter certainly make up the dialog as they go along during rehearsal - although they'll often stop and comment to each other that "maybe it would be better if we did it like this" - and they'll switch around who talks about what and tweak the details of how they'll present something. Blue Peter is presented live (or at least it was back then) but it was pretty clear that when they were rehearsing the show, the presenters figured out what they were going to say - and what they actually said in front of the cameras was pretty similar. Hence, if Top Gear is done similarly (and I'm pretty sure it is) then it wouldn't surprise me if outtakes had very similar - perhaps even identical - wording to what went out on-air. But that doesn't make it "scripted" as such. I don't think anything that's been said here so far convinces me that the show is LITERALLY "scripted". From a Wikipedia perspective, we have as "evidence" that they won an award for an unscripted show - and unless there is strong referencable evidence to the contrary - that's about all we can say. SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear "Best of Series ..." episodes

Do they need to be included in the episode list and series pages? I mean Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and those episodes are nothing but replays of the best moments of the current (just aired) series. What makes them any different than just the original episodes themselves? In essence they are nothing but clipshows. None of the online episode guides I've seen even list them, and Top Gear's website doesn't include them at all? So, back to the original question, should they just be removed from the list of top gear episodes and series 1 and so forth article pages? _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to remove them... I mean, they take up a line or maybe two on the episode pages, and they 'complete' the episode sections in some way. If someone watched Top Gear (probably on a Dave repeat) and saw a clip show, then they might want to know which series the clip show belonged to and so forth and the episode guide may help them do that. And, anyway, for most shows (Such as the Mock the Week episode list) the clipshows are still included. LicenseFee (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some of these deletions on the basis that they are airings of new and unique Top Gear shows, even if pieced from prior footage. They certainly do deserve inclusion... provided that we can find sources for their airdate and content.

However, El Greco does have a point. Top Gear makes no mention of them. I can't seem to find a consistent mention of the "best of series" episodes in any episode guide. The Top Gear episodes are all numbered (91 to date, and several specials). Episode World does not count the difference between episodes and specials, and it counts 106 total, including some (but not all) of the "best of series" episodes. IMDb seems to make no mention of the "best of series" episodes at all. If there are any of these for which sources cannot be found to verify or correct them, then mention of them should be deleted. Chaparral2J (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)