Jump to content

Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, due to no consensus to move. The arguments either way are both strong, and are interpreted differently by different users in different scenarios. There are strong statistics to suggest a primary topic as pointed out by supporters, but as said by those opposing it is possible this usage is specific to one group of users, and thus such a move would not serve all readers well. The point about the usage of internal links by the supporting side is also strong, but at the same time is not so uniform that all usages of it refer to this topic. Finally, another good argument is that both the older series and newer series may be the primary topic, thus disambiguating is more beneficial to the reader. After some consideration and weighing up of the arguments, I would say there is no overall consensus in either direction, thus a move cannot go ahead. (Note: At time of closing, the page Top Gear is a disambiguation page, thus handling issues about what should be present at that page.) Taelus (Talk) 16:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Top Gear (2002 TV series) → Top Gear — Earlier today, I made a bold page move to "Top Gear", given that that destination was simply a redirect here, thus making the need for disambiguation unnecessary. However, I've been asked to move it back for discussion, so here we are. It seems that there was previously a disambiguation page at "Top Gear"; that was moved a few months back to "Top Gear (disambiguation)". As it currently stands, something needs to be moved to "Top Gear", either this page or "Top Gear (disambiguation)". I'd argue that this page is clearly the primary topic for "Top Gear" and is what will turn up in most searches, therefore is what should be at the "Top Gear" namespace. Statistics for page views based on last month reinforce this, showing that this page was viewed over 60,000 more times than the next highest viewed page on the disambiguation page:

--| Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Sabre (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Move of Top Gear (2002 TV Series) to Top Gear - The page title is clealy in line with the WP:MOS and needs to be distinguished from the previous version of Top Gear. The page use to contain information about the current and previous formats. While this may generate the most hits this disambiguation is necessary so as users are clear about which version of Top Gear they are viewing. Simply having the title Top Gear will give the impression that the article relates to both versions in the same article, which it does not. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Why can a hatnote saying "This article is about the current series as of 2002, for its 1977 predecessor see "Top Gear (1977 series)", for other uses see "Top Gear (disambiguation)" not do the same? That would be far more user friendly. Last month, there was a difference of 69,520 views between the two articles. When people type "Top Gear", they are after this page. We should provide it in as few clicks of a mouse as possible. -- Sabre (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move of Top Gear to Top Gear (disambiguation) Top Gear needs to redirect to the correct disambiguation page so users can corrrectly select the version of Top Gear they wish to view. Top Gear has many uses and while the 2002 page may generate most hits the page contains no information on the 1977 version and simply having the title Top Gear for the 2002 version will create confusion as user will think it conatins information on the 1977 version aswell. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Something should be in the "Top Gear" namespace other than a redirect. Either this page or the disambiguation page should be there. There is no sense in having nothing there, its just increasing the time it takes to load the appropriate page because the user is put through a needless redirect. -- Sabre (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just spent some time fixing double redirects from the Top Gear article, and it is clear to me that almost every link to that page is with regards to the current programme. This is overwhelmingly the primary topic for Top Gear, and what John Smith should get to when he puts Top Gear into Wikipedia. Therefore, I strongly support the move to Top Gear (and the dab page to remain at Top Gear (disambiguation)) DBD 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then why not lets go back to the version we had a 1800 tonight where Top Gear redirected here and there was a link to the disambiguation page at the very top of this article. That was working fine and wansn't broken so needed no fixing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • If most inbound links are intended for the 2002 series then that's what the primary topic is. End of story. We're not in the habit of titling articles by their most "correct" names, only the most convenient for the majority of our editors and readers. It is quite evident that the 2002 show, which is both current and vastly more widely known worldwide than its predecessor by virtue of successful export to the US, is what most readers are looking for. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move of Top Gear (2002 TV Series) to Top Gear There was an extensive discussion of this a year or so back, and the consensus at the time (see the archives for the discussion) was that the title in place was the best of a number of options. I see no need for a change. The title is clear, specific, and accurate. It is also, as suggested above, what readers are most likely to look for, but also the title that will get readers where they want to go with the greatest ease. Drmargi (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    Worth pointing out that it was eighteen months ago, and that while I was the one who requested that move I've actually firmly changed my mind and would rather it were moved back now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    The title that would get readers where they want to go with the greatest ease is the one that requires the least effort on their part. At the moment, when a reader who wants this page (which is most of them) types "Top Gear" (clearly the most obvious search term for trying to find the page on the show), they have to go through a redirect that takes them to a disambiguation page, then they have to select the correct link for this page. How is that easier than typing "Top Gear" and finding this article at that namespace?-- Sabre (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are many "Top Gear"s, such as the preceding and longer lasting TV series, the magazine, and the physical fact (top gear in a gear box). For someone who is not in the UK, it certainly is not this TV series. For someone in the UK, it could easily be the previous series. WP:RECENTISM 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is an iconic programme that has rapidly become a key feature of British television (rightly or wrongly). When anyone in the United Kingdom refers to Top Gear, they mean the television programme. There is the dictionary definition of course, but we don't have an article on that (it is covered as part of Gear ratio), and it can be dealt with by a hatnote, as can reference to the disambiguation page. As the page views show, nothing else even comes close. This is a very clear case of prime topic. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    Only the 2002 version is iconic, or is it the whole thing from 1977? --Closeapple (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Aye Support the move, the modern programme Top Gear is far away the most wanted article, not just in the UK but it is now shown across the world. People want this article more than any other. QueenCake (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose to removing "(2002 TV series)" from title: The nomination mentions that Top Gear was a redirect to Top Gear (2002 TV series) before a few days ago. How does stats.grok.se work? Do the the 80,000+ views attributed to Top Gear (2002 TV series) include or exclude all redirects from Top Gear (of which there were 45,124 in June)? A large number of the 45,124 will be people who were looking for something else. Also, outside the UK, Top Gear might very well mean one of the video games more often than one of the TV series, but then, users overall might not be looking for the video games nearly as often either. --Closeapple (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Smacks of WP:RECENTISM. The name Top Gear is also derived from previous uses of the term. The disambiguation page works perfectly fine and I see no reason to fix something that does not need fixing.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It did need fixing: the vast majority of inbound links to Top Gear are meant for this article. It's not recentism because the 2002 version is quantifiably more notable, having been exported very successfully to the United States. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It celarly did not need fixing. The redirect to this page with the other users at the top worked fine. It wasn't broken there were few if any complaints and this is the first time it has been discussed. In this case simply having the title Top Gear is misleading as the title is known in the uk for both formats and the magasine, not just this current format.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not a consideration that our naming guidelines take into account. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
          • In this case so what. The guidelines are just that guidelines. The overriding priniciple here must be to avoid confusion and the title Top Gear on its own does not acheieve that. The clarifer suffix is required to achieve that.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Actually, the overriding principle is simplicity and convenience. We have hatnotes to resolve confusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
              • In this case it is not convenaint to simply have the title Top Gear as has been demonstarted by users commenting above. Also more hits does not make it more conveniant as it is not clear if those hits listed above also include the redirect to this page when it was in use. It is also less simple if confusion as to the content of the article is caused by the title of the article, which simply having Top Gear as the title causes.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Top Gear redirected here until Lucy-marie changed the redirect. The stats provided above are conclusive on the subject. Jeni (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The previous system worked fine and avoided all confusion, it was only removed for the sake of this discussion. I am in favour of going back to that system we had with the redirect here and the other uses tag and the current title. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has already been done before and nothing significant has changed since. If someone could prove that the vast majority of people in the English speaking world (i.e. not just the UK) when asked what they think of by the words "top gear" said this TV show, I would change my mind on having "Top Gear" redirect here rather than the disambig page. Anyone who uses Wikipedia's search box can get straight to this article via the suggestion list anyway. Halsteadk (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    Inbound links. As far as redirect discussions go, that's as firm a proof as should be necessary. The majority of those links are intended to go to this article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I am terribly sorry buit I believe the link provided above is pointless and meaningless. I believe it is an attempt to bombard with statistics to further an argument. Statistics don't prove everything and just because some articles and some user pages link to this article does not mean the title of the article should be changed. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles with the Words "Top Gear" in the title appear in the list 35 times. The disambiguation page and redirects are also included in the list, creating an inflated list.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that your links only tell part of the story. It is of course viewed more. There is a PR department and recent airings so it is again RECENTISM. This reminds me of Orange which was brought Wikipedia some unwanted attention. Top Gear the name is derived from a long used term. There for it should be subordinate. However, Top Gear the show gets more hits so it provides some reasoning. Good thing we can simply use a disambig page since that meets the reader's needs. Even arguing over this seems silly unless we are slipping into editors trying to WIN.Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"Recentism" is a problem where there is reason to believe that a subject is being assigned undue weight simply because it's recent. In this case, that is plainly not the case: the old format for the show, while long-running, was always a niche production which eventually ran out of viewers. The present version is one of the BBC's flagship programs, is the primary contributor behind the successful careers of two of its co-hosts, and enjoys significant worldwide coverage through its very successful export to the United States. WP:RECENTISM largely doesn't address page titles, but the "ten year test" section is applicable here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Good call. The spirit of RECENTISM then!Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, can anyone address why we would potentially make confusion for the reader? I love Top Gear and think it should get the attention it deserves but there is no reason to introduce a change that is questionable like this. Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – the current series is the primary topic, so should be at simply Top Gear. There are also better ways to disambiguate than “2002 TV series”, which appears to mean the series ran only in 2002, so if that’s what the policy says it should be called, then the policy needs changing. Better disambiguators (if it needs disambiguating) would be “current TV series” or “current series”. MTC (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no primary topic. The original BBC series was the basis for several other uses, but that doesn't automatically make it the primary topic now, as evidenced by the claim in this move proposal that the current show, not the original one, is now the primary topic. The DAB page should stay at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A 5:1 ratio is strong but in this case I think this page's stats may be inflated because "Top Gear" redirects here. With the prominence and longevity of the predecessor version, I favor having Top Gear redirect to the disambiguation page. Powers T 20:51, 21 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Top Gear Dog / Top Gear Stuntman / Sabine Schmitz

OK, it's about time this was resolved once and for all. Both TGD and TGSM were both introduced as new members of the team / presenters. Therefore, they deserve more of a mention than they currently get.

Also, Sabine Schmitz should also get a mention. Davesmith35 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the above user has been indefinately blocked (as a blatantly obvious sock puppet) this needs no further discussion. Looneyman (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness for the ban, although the wicked little elf in me is sort of sorry, too. I amused myself for hours while waiting for a flight to London in the American Airlines lounge at LAX by reading all the nonsense of 18 months ago, and was looking forward to a short epilogue! The first round had me chuckling all the way to my destination. Drmargi (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave him/her to you if there's a next time - I've already been accused of mis-using my "powers and influence" today (if only I had any). Halsteadk (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That's OK. I'm in the wrong time zone to mount a formidable defense. Besides, you misuse those powers of yours so effectively! I have a sneaking suspicion there is still a bit of bounce in our little friend's bungie and that he/she will be back. Drmargi (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
And we'll be waiting for him for when he does. Looneyman (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(Waiving a feminine hand) Ah, the testosterone! Drmargi (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, TGD and TGSM were introduced as "new presenters", SO WHY AREN'T THEY CREDITED AS SUCH? Jon Bentley gets a mention for much less, all this other rubbish is just fancruft. Get rid of it, and get the dog and stuntman IN.

There also needs to be a full and independent review of this whole debate because admins with vested interests are banning people not for doing anything wrong, but simply because they disagree with certain points of view. Davesmith36 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not to include these. You will have to establish a new consensus before attempting to add them. DP76764 (Talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I just notified the admin who handled the previous sockpuppet the other day that a new sock is in town. Not sure what else to do yet, and I don't care to engage in the above nonsense. Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And in (record?) time the new sock is blocked. The admin is going to see about blocking the IP this time, which should solve the problem. Drmargi (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I blinked and missed the entire event. Looneyman (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess who's back, using the ID User: Looneymann? I've already reverted one addition of Top Gear Dog, notified User:Looneyman and left a message for the admin who did the original blocks. I'm not sure what to do to reactivate a sockpuppet case. Help! Drmargi (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one gives a hoot about this, despite the repeated vandalism of the page. I've given him a level 2 warning. Drmargi (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think they are worth mentioning. Imo the article should be kept clean of "rubish" (no offence ment). --Ssavilam (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Car of the decade

Can someone proof this edit [1]? --Don Leut (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's mention of the Stig?

Don't let the BBC edit this article into oblivion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.89.5 (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

They haven't. As you haven't bothered to tell us what particular mention you think is lacking (it seems your edit history involves scatter-gunning non-constructive remarks on talk pages), I assume you mean what's more than adequately covered on The Stig's article. Halsteadk (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ending credits section

Seriously? An entire section regarding the joke that TG changes the credit names the odd time?!

I propose reducing this to just two sentences, e.g.

For special episodes Top Gear alters the first names on the end credits to something related to the theme of the programme. For example the end credits of the American Road Trip episode in series 9 named Clarkson as 'Cletus Clarkson', Hammond as 'Earl Hammond Jr.', May as 'Ellie May May', The Stig as 'Rosco P. Stig' and replaced the first names of all other crew members with 'Billy Bob.

Listing every occurrence and going so far as to discuss the nationality of a Scandinavian pop group is ridiculous - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a fansite. Mark83 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a great entry really

This is a bit of a mess I am afraid. Its biggest problem I coming here to find info on the episodes, why is the episodes link so hard to find? Every other TV show entry has a clear link to the episodes list often with it indexed too. This one takes forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.88.206 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

References

No 56 is fake. it is just a made up news story. german gov never commented any content of the show. especially in 2005. check this http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/DE/Homepage/home.html send them an email and ask for this comment, mentioned in the news.scotsman.com.

please check the references before you post.

217.187.6.61 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check what the reference is actually being used for in the article before you complain about it. It is just referencing that he ridiculed Germans to the extent of causing sufficient offence to be reported by the press. The article doesn't mention the German government. Therefore the reference stands. Halsteadk (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest racist comments made on the show

We need to add this [2] to the article. Qworty (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup if you ask me, better added to Criticism of Top Gear in any case Stephenb (Talk) 19:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Submission on frequency of downloads

User:134.174.140.200, apparently also editing as User:75.67.10.16 has added data regarding the frequency of illegal downloads of Top Gear in 2007. While interesting enough, this is hardly of sufficient significance to add to the article, much less the lead, where it was placed, the source is unreliable, and it deals with download patterns from four years ago that may have changed. It's been reverted twice, first by User:Ckatz, and now by me. I'm hoping this discussion will head off an edit war and address the suitability of such content. Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

awards - car of the year

there was no car of the year 2010, DS3 is car of the year for top gear magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.127.152 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

American Top Gear

American Top Gear was cancelled in early March of this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.204.139 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, no it wasn't. It was, in fact, renewed for a second season. Manning (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

north/south England

Someone seemed to think it weas important to stress that the current leaders of the cee'd fast laps are all from the *north* of England. I found this distracting and unnecessary - not being English (I'm Australian) it seemed to amplify a petty local issue for no reason. I altered it to reflect that they were all English and comedians. Manning (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's crap. Of course the person who added was from Northern England, so he's probably biased. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it was mentioned as a humorous coincidence on the show that the leaders were all Northern comedians. It's not important in any way, but is perhaps slightly interesting. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Dave

Verifiability

I took out a couple of sections which were unverifiable. Could anyone replacing them please make sure they are accompanied by valid third-party references, so they are verifiable? Thanks, --John (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Star in a reasonably priced car

Matt LeBlanc set the new fastest lap time of 1:42:1 on the February 5th 2012 edition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.178.127 (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Having trouble adding 'cites' and sources.

Hiya,

I just added that Top Gear was veiwed in 198 diffrent territories and that it was awarded with a major international Tv award for its sucess around the world. I have a source but i cant seem to add it as a cite. So if someone could do that for me please....

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/tv-airline-flop-lands-top-prize-151938735.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxerboi31 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture format

Can someone explain me what that "Andy Morrison Special 2007" is? I haven't found anything about that thing on the internet, is it not just some vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunocsi (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Assuming vandalism, have reinstated original text referring to Polar Special. No idea who Andy Morrison is supposed to be! Aw16 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the Article Be Locked?

There's been a lot of vandalism of the article recently, I was wondering if anyone else thought that we should begin proceedings to get it locked? (Not sure how that's done, I'll have to look into it if there's enough people agreeing with me) Aw16 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Top Gear controversial?

I don't think that the term "controversial" in the lede is POV, as the page itself contains a section relating to controversial aspects of the programme, and there is a wiki article dedicated to controversies - all of which are sourced.

Any programme that upsets an entire nation - as Top Gear has done on several occasions;

is by definition controversial - perhaps not all the time, but often enough, and by enough margin to be mentioned in the lede of an artcicle, which is supposed to sum up the content of the given subject. There are plenty of sources in both the subsection, and the main page itself to support this. I have also added some newer and previously unused controversy articles from the BBC website.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Concur, it's not POV. I can even recall the hosts mocking some of the controversies they've stirred up. Hot StopUTC 14:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether it's created controversy at times, although upsetting a nation isn't the definition of controversial. It's whether it's frequently controversial; had you read either edit summary with care you'd see that was my point. Frequently is a POV evaluation. It stirs up controversy at times, yes. But frequently? That's your opinion, and that's POV. --Drmargi (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The other user seems content to drop frequently, which makes it a moot point then. Do you have other objections? Hot StopUTC 14:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that offer coming from the other editor, but were it, I would say no. The statement needs rephrasing, not to just removal of a problem word which would leave behind the implication that the show is controversial all the time. That's worse. --Drmargi (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Well he only re-added "controversial" in his last revert of you [7]. I'm going to go ahead and switch it to "sometimes controversial" Hot StopUTC 15:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Controversial depends on the opinion of the viewer (or in many cases non-viewers) - to some it will be controversial, others not. However, I would suggest a more appropriate word may be "provocative" as stronger views are expressed (in general) than in the first format, which are hence likely to be controversial to some. Hot Stop, "sometimes controversial" is just a weasel-worded compromise that says pretty much nothing. The News is "sometimes controversial", Teletubbies is probably "sometimes controversial". Can I suggest people stop changing it until a consensus is reached - "I'm going to go ahead and switch it" is not helpful, you wouldn't do that if we were mid-discussion in real life so don't do it here. Halsteadk (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with Hot Stop's seeming to have declared him/herself arbiter of what is consensus, although at least his/her wording is marginally more acceptable. I requested a rewording, so I agree that he/she does not have consensus to make the change that was made. Halstead, you nailed the rest of issue. I chose to take a stand on the larger problem, the POV/weasel-word use of frequently, but controversial is problematic as well. I think we could reasonably say that the show has at times created controversy or generated controversy, then cite specific issues, but the phrasing the "the show is (insert adjective)" is problematic, whether we choose controversial or provocative. That's why I took the phrase out. We're never going to get it to a place where it doesn't resonate of someone's opinion of the show. --Drmargi (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it quirky? Is it humorous? Just wondering. There are plenty of sources to say that it's controversial - can't find any to say that it's quirky. However, any show that offends entire nations - on multiple occasions surely qualifies as being controversial. If not, please define wohat would be necessary to be controversial? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. We can assume concensus that those terms are acceptable. We're discussing the use of controversial, particularly with a weasel-word attached. --Drmargi (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
My point is that there are plenty of sources available to show that the show generates controversy. You say above "We're never going to get it to a place where it doesn't resonate of someone's opinion of the show." - which is probably true, but if there are reliable 3rd party sources to support a statement regarding controversy, then that's the way to go. I'm repeating myself here, but just for the hell of it, I'll do so again: There are multiple sources available to support the statement in the lede that the show generates controversy. That the show is sometimes controversial. Just because you don't like the statement is unfortunate, but it is a matter of easily supported fact that the show is occasionally controversial - not always, nut occasionally, and when it is, it does so on a large scale, hence is worth mentioning in the lede as a defining aspect of the shows style. Also, the use of "occasionally" is not a weasel word when used in this context. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been bold, and removed the uncited term 'quirky' from the lead.  To be quirky seems to imply some deviation from the norm, hardly applicable to a routine and comfortable staple of the nation's primary broadcaster.
I've also gone ahead and added the qualifier 'sometimes' to the word humourous.  Sure, the show tries to be funny some of the time, but could you say it was constantly, 100% of the time?  That'd be an extremely personal and subjective claim to make.  86.170.114.248 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite takign issue with the term "quirky" previously, I think it is in fact a good term to use. I've reverted your change as not only does quirky sum up the show style better, but it also avoids duplication of the term "sometimes" Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Quirky, to my mind, seems to suggest something at a tangent to the mainstream, whereas Top Gear is about as mainstream it is possible to imagine.  If I say I've just come out of a 'quirky' film, I haven't just been to see Batman Begins; if I tell you all about the latest 'quirky' comedian, it's unlikely I'm talking about Michael McIntyre.
As for 'sometimes', I quite enjoyed that little repetition, but just so you feel absolutely comfortable with the change I've now used 'occasionally' instead.  86.170.114.248 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ownership survey

I'm just wondering of the relevance of this section - it's 6 years old now, and none of the specific versions of the cars in the list are produced anymore. At the very least the tense needs changing to the past, as it currently uses the present, which is inaccurate. Oponions? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of UK English when referring to foreign TV in a UK English article. - series/season etc.

I have come across this before, and enquired at the helpdesk over what format should be used, or if ti was acceptable to use a mix.

This was the answer, so I see no reason not to apply it here as well.

(Apologies for the method of showing the link.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That applies as a general rule, yes. But when another country uses a different, and especially a non-equivalent, term, the correct term takes precedence. For example, the U.S. Top Gear is organized by seasons, not series, and the two terms are not synonymous, so treating them as such, which is what Engvar is about, would be incorrect. Engvar handles variations in countries' terms for the same thing (truck v. lorry). A TV series, as the UK uses it, and a TV season, the way the U.S. uses it, are not necessarily the same and thereby, not equivalent terms. So we'd conceivably talk about the broadcast of Series 3 of UK Top Gear in the US, but in the same article, describe Season 3 of U.S. Top Gear. Do you see the difference? That's why I reverted the Korean change, until we know the terms are equivalent and equally accurate, Engvar doesn't apply. --Drmargi (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC) (BTW, once you open a discussion, the article stays at status quo per BRD; starting a discussion is not license to revert again.)
Please describe the differences between the US term season, and the UK term series? Given that my initial question was in fact answered by an American. Season and series - especially when referring to a show that has been specifically based on a UK format - are the same. I am quite familiar with Engvar, and BRD, however, I did not consider the change to be B. I am also familiar with status quo, but there is a precedence here - as I showed in the link - that even when talking about foreign programmes, the UK term takes precedence for consistency. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
PS: Instead of just blindly reverting - you could have (subsequently) corrected the poor use of English in the paragraph. I'm pretty sure that doesn't come under engvar exclusion, or suspension while BRD is ongoing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the Korean Top Gear page. They can't make up their mind there either - multiple uses of both "series" and "season", although the infobox uses "series". Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that for a discussion, this has been pretty one-sided so far. Is it unreasonable to consider 48 hours of no input as consent to the acceptability of the term series? Drmargi has made plenty of edits since the above post, so she can't say she's been offline and unable to comment.
I can't find any specific info to say that series is significantly any different to season. There is, of course, Wikipedia itself, which states in Television programs ....however, the terms "series" and "season" are the same.
Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm attempting to verify. Is a bit of patience too much to ask? --Drmargi (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
48 hours with a multitude of edits inbetween is plenty patient. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It's been 11 days now, and nothing at all on the subject from Drmargi. I'd say that's patient enough in anybody's book. I'm making the change from season to series, as per my previous arguments - and correcting the poor English at the same time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs a tidy!

I notice there is quite a lot of uncited fannish material in this aricle. Shall we get rid of it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Music compilations

There is a section in this article about music compilations, five of them published before 2002. How can that be, when this series started in 2002? Shouldn't they be in the 1977 Top Gear article? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while actually that the whole section doesn't really fit into the article. Not only for the reason you've mentioned, but also because (aside from the Top Gear brand name) they aren't really connected to the TV series in any way. I don't think they've ever been plugged on the show itself, or even mentioned in passing for that matter. If we can get together some more information about each release, maybe the solution would be to create a new article that covers them because I don't think they'd fit in the article for the original version of Top Gear either. Anyway, that's just a suggestion. Aw16 (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no additional information on it, I just learned a few days ago that they exist... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

German version

We've known since Season 6 there is a German version. Can someone who knows what they're doing add to the international section? Thanks 71.171.89.90 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The German show is "D Motor" (see DMAX (TV channel) and Sabine Schmitz). I don't believe this is a Top Gear-derived show (despite how it may have been referred to on UK Top Gear - I forget), so I don't think it belongs here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Most watched TV programme in the world?

It's not mentioned in the article but I have heard several people mention that Top Gear is the most popular TV programme in the world. It can be found on channels in so many countries I've been to and if you ask people to name a foreign programme Top Gear is often top of the list above American crime dramas, British costume dramas and Scandinavian political dramas. If it isn't considered to be the most watched programme then does anybody know what is?--37.159.88.198 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Staged events

Doesn't there need to be some comment on how much of it is faked/staged?

I'm referring to the debate you get about whether it's factual events you're seeing, or staged, acted entertainment? As in, are they presenters or actors?

I think it's perfectly obvious to most viewers that most of the challenges are acted, staged, events. Sort of like a sitcom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.4 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable, third party sources discussing this? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Part of the idea of the show is you don't know where reality ends and fiction begins, so naturally they try to blend the boundaries as much as possible. This makes definitively noting what is staged and what is real very difficult indeed. As AussieLegend states, you'll need concrete evidence to back up whatever you claim is fake and what is reality. A simple statement along the lines of "Whilst the show is known for staging some of its material..." with a little referenced elaboration is all that's needed (if anything is needed at all) in my view. Aw16 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the article but I have heard several people mention that Top Gear is the most popular TV programme in the world. It can be found on channels in so many countries I've been to and if you ask people to name a foreign programme Top Gear is often top of the list above American crime dramas, British costume dramas and Scandinavian political dramas. If it isn't considered to be the most watched programme then does anybody know what is?--37.159.88.198 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Found an MSN report on a faked scene from the Hover van episode. MSN cars and a news paper report The Mirror. The revelation is attributed to the actor Michael Bott. In an article in the Mail on Sunday, A senior programme source said: ‘Top Gear is an entertainment programme and I don’t think viewers would have been taken in.’ Unfortunately the actor has removed the post from his blog. A copy is available on the Wayback Machine. I also found this post by the actor on Google+

Further links The Independent The Telegraph Leeraven172 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclear meaning of sued

I tagged the sentence in Criticsm beginning "In March 2014, Indian-born actress Somi Guha sued" with {{Clarify}} with this reason "sources unclear about what happened: was there a court case, or was there a threat of legal action later withdrawn? Use of "usedsued" implies a complete action. Should we clarify with "in progress", or "threatened to sue"?" -84user (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, do you mean "sued" not "used"? I'm guessing it's a typo? The source is a bit vague - in one part it says that there is a threat of legal action,and in another it says that legal action has been brought to bear. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes it's my typo, I meant "sued" not used! I have edited my post above. -84user (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Car of the year

it is either here mistake for year 2002 (Range Rover) or there is mistake on page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Z3" where it state it is 2002 car of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjuresic (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Range Rover was named as Car of the Year by the TV programme and the BMW by Top Gear magazine. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I came across List of Top Gear Live performances, and was in fact baffled by it. Not a clue what is the reason behind this article. In a wave of positivism, I have put a merge proposal up. But I agree with as simple redirect too. The Banner talk 18:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As explained at the beginning of the list, Top Gear Live is a live format version of the series. It has been conducted in several countries since 2008. In Australia it has been replaced by Top Gear Festival Sydney. I don't really see a need for the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
A merger with the episode list page might be more useful. Both do not contain information needed in the main article. Cobol86 (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Last Aired

I believe it is worth noting in the infobox that the show is on a break/suspended/paused/on hiatus to give the most accurate information as concisely as possible. On discussion at the infobox talk page the suggested language was Present (currently suspended) I have no firm preference for that version over and above any other but the info should be there. SPACKlick (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The episodes have been postponed (the correct term), and that's already noted in narrative. That's sufficient. --Drmargi (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources don't say postponed in general. "cancelled", "postponed", "not be broadcast", "not be shown", "hiatus", "axed", "scrapped" and "dropped" are all used. The general impression I get from the sources is that the decision has been taken to not show them in their scheduled slot and no decision has been made as to if or when they will be aired again. The program is suspended, paused, on hiatus, in flux. That should be noted, in the infobox, because they have announced it. I wish the old Status parameter still existed for this. SPACKlick (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A google comparison (I know not a great test" shows about 75% more sources using Cancelled than Postponed. SPACKlick (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
By using Present (currently suspended), you'd be getting around removal of the old |status= parameter, which was removed specifically because it wasn't supported. We've had a lot of discussion about what to do with |last_aired= and the current consensus is that we use "present" while the series is airing. If a series has a confirmed cancellation date then that is added when the series has (note past tense) ended. In a situation like this, where cancellation is not confirmed and we just have a lot of speculation, "present" stays until 12 months after the last episode aired and then we add a date. At the moment all we have is word that the next two episodes will not air and the third may also not air. That's actually a fairly common occurrence. There is no word on the series as a whole and, most importantly, Clarkson is only suspended at this point. All things taken into account, mention in the prose is all that is needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Current phrases from the BBC "confirmed Sunday's episode of Top Gear will not be shown...the two final episodes in the series will also be dropped." BBC That said with the producer tweeting Big day tomorrow and I promise all the #BringBackClarkson fans I will tell the enquiry team that Jeremy did not hit me and this will be okTwitter It may blow over. SPACKlick (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent tweets would seem to support that.[8] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

"The remaining ten episodes began airing from Sunday 25 January, but broadcast of the eighth and subsequent episodes have been delayed as host Clarkson was suspended by the BBC on 10 March 2015; the continuing status of the show has not been announced."

In English, we cannot have "broadcast ... have" because "broadcast" is singular. English uses subject-verb agreement and so we would say "broadcast ... has" --John (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this is going back and forth and as yet there is no talk page discussion I thought I'd bring it. A clause has had its verb repeatedly modified between the below;
  • broadcast of the eighth and subsequent episodes has been delayed
  • broadcast of the eighth and subsequent episodes have been delayed
The dispute seems to stem from what the nounphrase of the sentence is whether the eighth or the eighth and subsequent episodes. I believe in this case, as the import is on all three rather than the eigth with subsequents mentioned only as supplementals that have is the correct grammar as the longer nounphrase is appropriate.SPACKlick (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I retract the above. Somehow I was missing that the noun was genetive to the original noun "broadcast". SPACKlick (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's fair enough - I have no objections to you making the change in accordance with Bold -> revert -> Discuss. Oh wait, you already have. You may know your grammar, but you don't know your etiquette. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really sure what you mean there @Chaheel Riens:. Since you last made the change, I've changed once (to have) and that was reverted, I then came here to discuss. Not sure why you think that's bad etiqutte but remember to have good faith in other editors. SPACKlick (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to John reverting prior to any kind of discussion. He made the change here at 1311h with the comment of "See talk" - but didn't actually indulge in any talk page discussion himself until here at 1338h - 25 minutes later.
There was absolutely no intent to cast aspersions on your own editing or commentary, and reading back I can see how you'd think that was the case, so I apologise that my comments directed at one editor may have been taken to be directed at you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
No offence but we do not normally need a long discussion before correcting a simple grammatical error. --John (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Too late, offence taken. Discussion obviously was needed for clarity, as I wasn't the only person to originally misunderstand. You know, this may be why we have such a thing as BRD. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2015

I propose that the show be listed as "On Hiatus" only disputes regarding Jeremy Clarkson's Position on the show are solved with his hearing at the BBC. Christhecoolboy (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There may be an argument for changing Original run: 20 October 2002 – present in the infobox to Original run: 20 October 2002 – 8 March 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Per infobox instructions, |last_aired= remains as "present" until the series has finished airing. At this time all we have is an announcement that episodes from this season, not that the series is cancelled. Changing "present" to "8 March 2015" requires a citation from a reliable source that the series has been cancelled. As for "On Hiatus"", 99.999% of TV programs go on hiatus at least once per year. In itself it's not notable. We used to have a parameter called "status", in which we reported hiatus, but the community decided it wasn't worth mentioning and that parameter was removed from the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You're quite right, there is no official cancellation yet. But in the UK, compared with US, I think the commissioning process is very different (especially for BBC), and the status of "on hiatus" is more unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Practically though, it's the same thing, although UK programmes seem to have much shorter seasons and are on hiatus for much longer periods. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. I'd call that "between series". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah you've said this before AL, Between Seasons isn't on Hiatus. but this position is. Episodes scheduled have been "not broadcast" and episodes made have been removed from scheduling. That is the very definition of on hiatus. The series, as made and intended to be broadcast is in a position of uncertainty. It's worth noting that somewhere and I would say in the infobox as well as the text. SPACKlick (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That's funny, Hiatus (television) says A hiatus of a television series is a break of at least several weeks in the normal schedule of broadcast programming. It can occur during a season of a television program, or can be between television seasons. There is no place in the infobox to say "on hiatus". That was one of the puposes of |status=, and that was removed with wide support. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So, since Hiatus (television) can include "a mid-season break", just adding "hiatus", anywhere, will not add any value, as far as I can see. What is needed is something that reflects the very unusual circumstances here. Have any other BBC programmes been affected like this before? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Odd, I've never heard hiatus used to describe the Mid-Season break/Interseries break. Hiatus, IME, is used for when a series takes an unscheduled break from broadcasting, filming or production for any reason. Scheduled breaks wouldn't be included. I can see there was consensus to remove the status parameter and I won't re-instate against consensus here but I don't agree with the consensus. TV shows fall into a relatively small number of statuses that can be well defined. SPACKlick (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"Hiatus" means "opening", so it applies to "a gap in a series". The break with Top Gear is similar to Two and a Half Men, when Charlie Sheen first entered rehab and then was fired. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Similar wording could be added to this article, if that really adds anything. But I think we have agreed that the infobox should not be amended. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. "hiatus" doesn't mean "opening" - it's derived from the Latin word for opening.

The new logo is really hard to read on the infobox grey background, is it possible to change the colour of that panel of the infobox to black to make it more readable? Or put on a logo over black? SPACKlick (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see an issue with it. The logo was deliberately uploaded (not by me) with a transparent background. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
White writing, Pale blue sprocket with White reflection. It's almost impossible to see/read. It's an accesibility issue. It needs something darker behind it. SPACKlick (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Source confirming Clarkson Sacking

The telegraph has a story saying Jeremy Clarkson is to be sacked as Top Gear presenter after a BBC investigation concluded he did attack a producer on the programme....Lord Hall, the Director General of the BBC, is expected to announce his decision on Wednesday after considering the findings of an internal investigation. Do we wait for a wednesday source? SPACKlick (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to wait - that's a very reliable source. ".. 20 minutes verbally abusing producer Oisin Tymon, before launching a 30 second physical assault on him" seems pretty fact-based to me. The report uses the word "attack", not the "slap" that we've heard of elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The BBC are such fools. They could have made it a feature - a different cut of steak every week!!
We wait. We don't post speculation, and the Telegraph is depending on supposed insider knowledge. --Drmargi (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like SPACKlick has already made a unilateral decision. I don't think we can say "he's sacked" yet, only that sources have very strongly suggested he will be. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The reliable source doesn't speculate on whether or not he'll be sacked just who, when and what contents the announcement will comprise. We don't ignore RS's just because you don't believe they contain the truth. It wasn't unilateral, i did some digging on policy like crystal ball and this seemed to be sourced well enough. I haven't said he is sacked I've said what's in the source, the BBC have decided to sack him.SPACKlick (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems fair. He might die first, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Undone the edit regarding Clarkson being sacked, we don't post specualtion on wikipedia. Wait for a source to post on the decision that will be made on Wednesday. 13thDoctor93 (δ³Σx²) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe your edit summary The source states that the Lords decision will be made Wednesday (tomorrow) - leave as it was until the source actually states he has been sacked misreads the source.
  • Jeremy Clarkson to be sacked by the BBC
  • Jeremy Clarkson is to be sacked as Top Gear presenter after a BBC investigation found he did assault a producer in a row over steak and chips
  • Jeremy Clarkson is to be sacked as Top Gear presenter after a BBC investigation concluded he did attack a producer on the programme.
  • Clarkson, 54, will be thanked for his work on the hugely popular motoring show, but will be told such behaviour cannot be tolerated at the Corporation.
  • despite finally deciding to axe the show's star presenter
  • left with no alternative but to sack Clarkson
The source clearly states the decision has been made and only leaves doubt about the announcement. I won't edit war over it but you're plain wrong there. SPACKlick (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But they're all picking up the Telegraph story, which has juuuuuust enough qualified language to avoid stating the whole thing as an absolute. We wait. Besides, what's the hurry? They still may make changes in light of the leaked story, and we're only looking at a matter of a few hours. It will keep. --Drmargi (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it'll keep and that's why I'm not pressing the issue, but you're flat out wrong about the source. ALL the above quotes are from the telegraph and there's no hedging. They state, repeatedly, without caveat, that the BBC has decided to sack Clarkson. All the "we understand" "It is believed" "is expected" "Accoriding to well placed sources" "it is not clear" etc. is about the announcement, Chris bloody Evans and the future of the show, none of which I'd used it as a source for. The source is clear, plain and direct and more than adequate for the additions to the article. SPACKlick (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's take a deep breath now and remember WP:CIVIL. Discuss the content, not the editors, and that begins with NOT telling us that we're "all bloody wrong." This isn't a competition. --Drmargi (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say "all bloody wrong" I said "misread source" "still wrong" and "flat-out wrong" and calling you wrong is commenting on your content not you as an editor. You have misread, misrepresented or misunderstood the source. The information you have written about the source is incorrect. There is an error in the content you have provided and the source of that error is as yet undetermined. The source is unequivocal. SPACKlick (talk)

BBC: 'No decision made on Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear future' - Digital Spy -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Digital spy is a trashy gossip tabloid which I'd be amazed to see meeting RSN given their propensity for posting stories based on poor sources with many errors. Please note they say "A spokesperson for the BBC told Digital Spy" and "a BBC representative said." never putting the no sacking in DS's voice. That's some hedging of your claim there. SPACKlick (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, there is direct attribution to the BBC, versus the Telegraph's unattributed story. We need confirmation before we can add anything. Even the most reliable source can be unreliable at times. See the case of NPR and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting: [9]. Say what you will about Digital Spy, in this instance, they are the more reliable source.--Drmargi (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
To that I first say WP:VNT, I second say that it is DS who attribute the story to an unnamed BBC source whereas Telegraph reports it like any other fact they've verified to their editorial satisfaction and put it in both the BBC's and Telegraph's voice. The source is good, says exactly what a reliable source would say if the position I believe it sources is true and your objection smacks of not liking the conclusion SPACKlick (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another source, this time The Guardian Jeremy Clarkson’s contract will not be renewed after the Top Gear presenter was involved in a 30-second physical assault on a producer, the BBC’s internal inquiry will report on Wednesday....a source close to the inquiry said: “There can’t be one rule for talent and one rule for ordinary human beings.”...The BBC will look to “reconstruct” the motoring show without Clarkson. So for technical detail it sounds like a non-renewed contract which while it can be conveyed as sacking should probably have more specifics in Wikipedia's voice. SPACKlick (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So technically it will depend on when his contract expires? End of March has been suggested? But great to see confirmation that Clarkson is "not an ordinary human being" (- this might affect the article Categories! lol). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
All of which makes clear we have nothing definitive. Meanwhile the Corporation says: [10]. The Guardian and Telegraph remain unattributed reports, and thereby unreliable speculation. The Independent reported he'll be rehired with a minder a couple days ago. Digital Spy, the only attributed report, is consistent with the BBC. Bottom line: no one actually knows what's happening. Moreover, this is WP:BLP issue, which demands additional care and caution. 'Nuff said. We wait until we have something definitive. --Drmargi (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Years in info box

I'm not particularly bothered if dates are show or not. But shouldn't this use of years be consistent? And doesn't the article say that The Stig, like May, joined for the second series in 2003? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. and in what way is The Stig a "presenter"? - his article says his occupation is "Test driver and trainer for celebrity guests." So he shouldn't be listed as "a presenter" in the box. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the BBC Credits Stig as a presenter, certainly he gets a presenter credit on IMDB. Although I find it odd that "Stig" is credited even though that is a character rather than the drivers who "Play" him. Ben Collins, Perry McCarthy and the current one. On the topic at hand, I prefer the years in the infobox but displayed as (2002-Present), (2002) and (2003-Present)SPACKlick (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess we should follow BBC for credits. I agree with you about the years. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The |starring= parameter of {{infobox television}} is populated according to WP:TVCAST which says Please keep in mind that "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. The series producers credit "The Stig" as a presenter along with Clarkson, Hammond and May, which is why he's credited in the infobox. It is not necessary to include years for people who have starred for the entire life of a series, which is why this edit was reverted here. It's optional as to whether dates are used at all, but if used they should reflect when a person starred, which is why this edit was reverted here. However, after going back through episodes I found that Stig was not credited in series 1, so this edit was actually correct. Use of years has the unfortunate effect of confusing the reader when a person who has been present in a non-starring role is subsequently promoted to a starring role, which is the case of the Stig, so a note is needed in the infobox, or dates should be removed completely. For now, I've restored the year and added a note. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes fine, if you can call an anonymous mute robotic driver, with a high-school inspired nickname, a "star". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good catch on the Stig Credits, however please note this isn't |starring= but |presenter= which isn't mentioned in TV cast. SPACKlick (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no difference between presenters on a show like this and people who star in programs like, for example The Big Bang Theory. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well there clearly is. That's why we have different words, different parameters and some shows have both. SPACKlick (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't as far as populating the infobox is concerned. The difference here is that the series has presenters instead of a starring cast. The presenters here are the starring cast. If you want, you can open a discussion at WT:TV to gain a wider perspective. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
".. we don't include years for people who have always been in a starring (or presenter) role.. " Just to clarify, the template description gives no advice on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said, this is optional, which is why it's not mentioned. When you have somebody who has been in a series for the whole run there is no need to specify years, as their presence is implied as part of their status as main cast/presenters. We don't say, and this is widely accepted, "Joe Blow has been present in all episodes". Instead we announce when he wasn't present because a main cast member is assumed to be in all episodes unless otherwise stated. This is contrasted to guests and recurring cast, who are mentioned when they appear because they are not expected to appear in all episodes. If you want to get wider opinion on this, please open a discussion at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that it's unnecessary, not that it's improper. If you have evidence of counter consensus find it and show it, otherwise remember you don't own the page and the consistent style of showing years for all 5 presenters violates no policy known and presents full information. SPACKlick (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting adding ""Joe Blow has been present in all episodes". The suggestion is that adding dates for all presenters in the infobox adds clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Side note. Wikipedia as a whole seems to favour (2003—) rather than (2003—Present) so that should probably be conserved, although my preference would go the other way. SPACKlick (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: Actually, since you're the one wishing to change the status quo, the onus is on you to gain consensus for your edits. I tried to compromise by accepting most of the formatting changes and the addition of "present" (although I corrected the capitalisation), but you chose to edit-war and reverted me. There are hundreds of articles where changes that I've described have been made by the community. I'd have to go through thousands of my edits to find a sizable sample, and it would be far easier to open that discussion at WT:TV where you could get an answer pretty quickly.
@Martinevans123: As I've explained, it's not necessary to add dates for presenters who have been in all episodes because their status implies that they've been in all episodes. We don't include redundant content if we can avoid it. Again, this is something you can get clarified quickly at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd strongly argue that it's not redundant. It can be worked out and presumed from no date given that the presenter is original and current but the information is more easily accessible to the reader, when there are dates for several presenters, if every presenter has their dates. If there are hundreds of articles where the community has reached this conclusion AL it should be trivial to find one. You are arguing as if you have some great weight of consensus behind you but you are one voice claiming to speak for a whole community. SPACKlick (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It's confusing when there are dates for everyone. When there are many such people in a TV series we usually exclude dates from the infobox completely as it just bloats it. We had to do that at Two and a Half Men. (Please see the hidden notes in the infobox). When there are only dates for people who haven't been "original and current", dates immediately highlight those people, rather than hiding them. Looking for examples is not as easy as you think. I have to go through the edit histories of articles and it's damn near impossible. I've made nearly 115,000 edits to Wikipedia and to hundreds of TV articles; exactly which articles I need to check are somewhere in a long edit history. I have to ask, my edit history shows that, in addition to TV articles I've been active at {{Infobox television}}, MOS:TV and WT:TV. Why exactly do you think I'm speaking through my arse? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the point of adding the dates to the infoboxes. As Aussie noted, it's not standard practice, moreover, given the limited real estate in an infobox, it's clutter. One only has to scan the use of TV info boxes across enWP to see that dates are only added selectively, then only for cast/stars/presenters who have not run the entire length of a broadcast when they are used. Moreover, the use of the word "present" is the worst clutter of all; an open dash (i.e. 2003- ) implies current cast, making present redundant. I don't see a case made above for adding them, with the exception of May and Dawe, which helps make clear that change of host. The tenure of each presenter is addressed in narrative. It's not needed in the infobox as well. If, as has been indicated, that WP:TV is silent on the issue (and I'm inclined to trust Aussie's judgment on this, given the edits he's put in on TV articles), this conversation probably should be had there, not here. Regardless, the burden to gain consensus is on those who want to add the dates, and I don't see consensus thus far. --Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There were dates in the box over five years ago? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The dates have been absent since December 2011 so, yes, "adding" is correct. We do things differently now to the way we used to do things. Wikipedia has evolved. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Where is that guideline recorded? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not everything we do is in a guideline somewhere. Some of it is just standard practice. That doesn't make it any less of a guideline. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, it's your personal guideline. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As I have said, if you wish to get greater input on this, please feel free to open a discussion at WT:TV. That would be far more productive than arguing. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing. I'm seeking clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And I've clarified, if you want to see what the community thinks, ask at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly getting swamped with responses over there yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to wait a while for a response. Be patient. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should only add the years back in when we know for sure who's left and who hasn't. Also, apologies for jumping the gun, I assumed that if one newspaper was reporting that Hammond/May had left, then they all would. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to open a new thread about Hammond and May. I’ll be very quiet if there’s only The Stig left to present it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, someone's messing around with the dates as we speak. I don't want to break 3RR, as I've done lots of reversions of questionable material, so can someone else revert it back please (referencing this chat)? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The consensus over at WikiProject Television seems to be NO DATES. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That's what i was expecting to see. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015


82.32.138.3 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Copypaste of entire article removed

As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. .... If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Top_Gear_(2002_TV_series)/Archive_9&oldid=1137260855"