Talk:Top Gear (American TV series)

Title is "Gear"

Shouldn't this article be called "Gear"? http://www.finalgear.com/news/2008/01/15/nbc-to-make-american-version-of-top-gear-called-gear/ --Viper007Bond (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this error. I have changed the page title accordingly. Andrewbr1988 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

So, is this show airing this fall (2008)? --24.63.18.184 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Andy Wilman wants it to start in January according to various people who talked to him at the filming. --Viper007Bond (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Top gear us has been 'canned'

as told by clarkson in a press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzAExC8iEFs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.70.29 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect or delete

It is stated that this show is not being made, so why is there a article about a show that does not exist? I think it should be redirected or deleted. 98.117.34.180 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New Information

Information has Surfaced from CarTalk signalling that Gear(Top Gear US) has been picked up by The History Channel and that they are interviewing New Hosts for the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owyn999 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

Why is there a continuing revert war placing the original cast with the current cast? There are citations verifying the current cast. Also the argument that the current cast hasn't yet aired holds no water. The original cast was never aired either. To say nothing of the fact we list cast changes all the time before air dates on TV shows on Wikipedia. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There isn't. The only existing cast is the one that filmed the pilot. Using the proposed cast before broadcast is WP:CRYSTAL. If they go in the infobox, you need to add them to the pilot cast. That's policy. Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The new cast IS an existing cast. They have been filming for several months, see [1], [2], [3]. That puts them on higher ground, IMO, since they've filmed more episodes (unaired) than the pilot cast (also unaired).

I also disagree that this cast is WP:CRYSTAL. Per that policy "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation", but this information is verifiable per an official blog posting by BBC. This post says, quote: "The first series of ten episodes will air on History next fall (an American-only season not dissimilar to ‘autumn’, we believe), though exact dates are yet to be finalised. It will be hosted by Tanner Foust, Adam Ferrara and Rutledge Wood." (emphasis mine). And remember, WP:NOTSTATUTE. Just because a policy implies something, we shouldn't take that as mandatory. I don't think keeping the old cast for a never aired TV pilot over the currently-filming new cast with a 10-episode season purchased is the intent of WP:CRYSTAL. Focus on intent of the policy, not the wording.

And as a last point, if we do use the old cast, we must replace Wood with Stromer. Your previous revert was to Foust (both versions), Wood (new cast), and Carolla (old cast). No mix-and-match, please. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bakkster. There are multiple verifiable sources stating that the current cast IS the cast for the show. They have been filming for several months and releasing test footage as well. The fact they've not aired yet is irrelevant, particularly since the cast previously slated to be on the show was also unaired. Also per what Bakkster said, it's not WP:CRYSTAL if it can be verified and is certain or near certain to happen which is the case here. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but perhaps a second, smaller infobox is in order for the original unaired NBC pilot? It could be attached to the history section, or even a new section for just the NBC pilot. The Carolla cast and the NBC information could go there while the Foust cast and the History Channel information would stay in the top infobox. Tekdude (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary since it doesn't appear to be what has been done with other shows in similar situations (ie: unaired pilot followed by an episodic show). For example, Star Trek: The Original Series has no infobox for the unaired original pilot starring Jeffery Hunter. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Show logo

The logo currently shown in the article is the wrong one. Its the Top Gear UK logo, and the US version has its own.

Here's what it looks like -- http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1905/topgearuslogo.jpg

This is verified, because the logo appears in the promotional clip History Channel distributed for the show (clip here - http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/history-top-gear-trailer-us.html ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.19.33 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was at one of the tapings of this show, the logo will remain the same as the UK version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.105.195.146 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, the red triangle is the History logo and not the Top Gear logo. Erick295 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably Priced Car

The NBC pilot for what would have been called "Gear" DID USE a Kia Rio as the reasonably priced car, as was reported on the UK Top Gear site and NBC at the time the pilot was produced (links are all dead now, and were removed a while back). The recent Jalopnik coverage is causing confusion because they considered the Kia as well, but chose a Suzuki instead. Please be careful not to confuse the two. Drmargi (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarities to BBC's Format

Though there is already a "format" section, I believe a bit more explicit description is necessitated. An American viewer who has only seen a limited number of BBC episodes would not be aware that essentially every single moment of every episode is copied directly or directly "americanized" without any significant modification of the original British version's script. The set is nearly identical. They use the same v-12 cylinder block as the stand for the glass table, and use a front and rear seat (again, just like the BBC episode). The most recent episode was an exact copy of Series 10 Episode 7 in which the British presenters tested old British Leyland vehicles. IDENTICAL "proving" tests were performed: e-brake on grade, egg filled headliner over rumble strip, wet performance, and driving the car while filled with water. IDENTICAL. no change whatsoever (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_%28series_10%29#Episodes)

I am not criticizing the show itself, its premise, its production, etc. Indeed, I enjoy the show. I am criticizing THIS ARTICLE. It is extremely misleading and presents such an inaccurate representation of the show itself, that it borders on pure fallacy. there needs to be a more explicit description: "the format is extremely similar, often times with an identical premise and plot/script but simply modified with an American setting and American vehicles" also: "the set itself is designed, down to the last detail, to appear almost identical to the BBC's UK set, including details such as the V-12 engine block used as the base for the presenter's table, their use of rear car seats, and the audience format" and finally: "other similarities include the photography style and post production techniques"

now, you can claim that this is "original research" but does a viewer of a television show genuinely have to rely upon a journalist to simply point out the obvious in online or print media in order for it to be taken as "fact" by wikipedia overlords? anyone who has seen either show can spot the similarities in about 15 seconds.24.254.87.238 (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Find a blog entry that details the stuff (Jalopnik would be a good start, perhaps IMDB?), and use that as the reference. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Country of origin

A new editor as recently changed the country of origin from the US to;

UK (Top Gear)
US (adaptation)

This is inaccurate. The show originates in the US, is filmed in California, and is produced by and for a US network in collaboration with BBC Worldwide. By no stretch of the imagination does it originate in the UK simply because it adapts a UK show. I've reverted the edit for a second time, and left a message on the editor's talk page, but he/she is a new editor, and I'm concerned this will turn into an edit war. Equally problematic are the AUS and RUS versions, which also have their countries of origin identified as above. That may be accurate for them (although based on the narrative, it doesn't appear to be), but it's decidedly not accurate for the US version. Drmargi (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what narrative you refer to that makes this Tog Gear different from the others. As far as I can tell, they share the same writers and production company, the only difference is host country and presenters. I'll look for a source. The big question is what defines an 'adaptation', particularly with The Office (U.S. TV series) being labeled as originating in the US. What is the difference between here and there? The infobox seems to refer to the Tog Gear brand originating in the UK, and this adaptation of that brand originating in the US.

That said, unless we can find a citable reference that the US version has some additional autonomy not present in the other versions labeled an adaptation (did they simply license the name, for example?), I think it's best to follow the status quo for the time being and label this version an adaptation, or ensure we change ALL three spin-off shows simultaneously. As soon as we can reach a consensus on whether to mark as an adaptation, we can then make any change accross all three articles at the same time. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove Episode Guide From Main Article

As the title states, I think the episode guide should be removed from the main article. We already have an article for episodes List_of_Top_Gear_(U.S.)_Episodes and since the show is in its second season, there is just no point in keeping up with 2 list. What do you all think?

ChadH (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine if its already covered on the list page.--Dcheagle 23:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. SQGibbon (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.metacritic.com/tv/top-gear-us/season-1/critic-reviews. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you aren't going to be banning or blocking anyone, so don't threaten with that. You aren't an admin and there isn't a single admin that would ban for what's happening here. That is unless you decide to engage in an edit war which, in my opinion, reverting a couple editor's edits in favor of yours more than a handful of times is coming pretty close to doing so. Second, you haven't shown a policy or guideline that states why the quotes can't be used. You've pointed to some general articles that explain what copyright is, but nothing that say how I can or can't be used. That's ok, though, because I'm going to point to several why they can be used. Third, considering how much you are pointing towards policies and guidelines, I would have thought you'd not be assuming so much bad faith.

Now we can discuss the guidelines and, unlike the articles (not policies or guidelines) you posted above, these talk very specifically about the issues we are dealing with here. The Wikipedia Quotation Guidelines clearly states the following items.

• Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia.
• ...quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.
• Quotations are a good tool to comply with the No Original Research policy...
• Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source...

Those are just some of the highlights, but I encourage you to read all of the guidelines. As a whole, I think they clearly established quotes can be used. Any long term editor here knows this and any editor who has dabbled in any entertainment article such as a book, game, TV show, or movie where critical feedback or reception is talked about knows quotes are very much used all the time. So why not here?

I think the bigger problem I have with removing these edits is the complete imbalance it brings to the section. The reception is very clearly mixed for this show. Some people love it. Some people hate it. So why is that not represented in the section? I'm counting about six different sources for reception in the section as it stands now. The fast majority of them are negative with a couple having mixed reactions. With the bias towards the negative, the section does not convey a mixed reception as it states.

Now it sounds like there are a couple of editors here that are understanding this isn't a copyright problem at the very least. The quotes clearly stay within the Wikipedia Quotation Guidelines and they completely follow the Quotation Manual of Style.

Would love to hear editor's thoughts on this. Is need be, we can put in requests for admin's and advanced editor's help on this if we can't come to consensus on our own. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Episodes Dead Link

I had changed the list of episodes link as it had linked to List of TopGear (U.S.) episodes, when the page is actually called List of Top Gear (U.S.) episodes. (someone went removed all the spaces in Top Gear) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.210.186 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone had gone through the article, seemingly with an automatic find-and-replace, and changed every reference to "Top Gear" to "TopGear," apparently because they leave the space out of the logo. The official title of every version of the show has it as two words, so I went back through and fixed it. rdfox 76 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It was done by IP 98.248.90.151, who clearly doesn't know the difference between a compound word and stylized text. It might not be a bad idea to leave a note on his/her talk page explaining the MOS formatting practices. Drmargi (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

May I start a Criticism section and put in an ORRES that Rutledge's constant gagging on TV is REALLY getting on my nerves. I'm actually sure I can find quite a few prooflinks for that. If the show is going to be discontinued, it'll be because of that! Nomad (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, and I think you know that -- however distasteful it might be. --Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How about copycatting (is that a word?) from the original (ONE AND ONLY) TopGear? Limos episode was the most outrageous example. Seriously, I don't understand why they need to do that. They made a WONDERFUL episode about dangerous cars - means there are brains there somewhere. Nomad (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that BBC Worldwide produces the show in collaboration with History, right? How does the BBC copy itself? --Drmargi (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I just realized you're right - this travesty IS BBC Worldwide production. You've got to be joking! Where are all the BBC trademarks! Impecable camera work, clever themes, deep thought, charismatic hosts - none of that is in that show. Geez... BadaBoom (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Keep on topic of improving the article. See WP:NOT#FORUM ChadH (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we also keep some FUN in Wikipedia? I don't know about you, but I'm not paid for this and only do this as long as it's FUN. Thank you for understanding. BadaBoom (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If that be the case then please stop sucking the fun from it with your constant complaining. You're ruining it for everyone else. --23.28.32.140 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

2012

There's no update for 2012. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I mean that literally, I do not understand what you mean about an "update for 2012". ChadH (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Power Lap Times

An abandoned user draft had an expanded list of Power Lap Times and Star Lap Times.[4] Please would an interested editor assess whether this data should be incorporated into the live article, and leave a note here? – Fayenatic London 12:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)