Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article Layout

In its current format, the article is getting quite long (about 32KB, which is the recommended limit). There are also a number of items that are only briefly covered or aren't even covered at all, such as the races, the competitions (like the porsche under GBP 1,500, etc), the track, etc. Also, some sections need a fair amount of expanding (Criticisms, Influence, and possibly Awards). Furthermore, some sections are starting to become quite lengthly (like the power laps and star lists). My suggestion is to create a separate, detailed article (Top Gear segments) which would include the full list of celebrity and power lap times, the history of the track, a brief bit about the stig, detailed info about the races and competitions, and then just have a summary about these things on the main Top Gear article. An example of this is The West Wing (television)#Presidential elections, but instead of having 3 separate articles like they do for this section, one would probably be enough to cover it. However, if needed, it could always be forked to more articles. Also, should an episode guide (List of Top Gear episodes) be made (and linked to)? Most other articles include one and I think it would be a good addition. -- PS2pcGAMER 06:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's getting a bit long. I disagree that it needs more detail and splitting. What it needs is a firm-handed editor to get rid of all the non-notable cruft that is here. Top Gear isn't all that important in the scheme of things - perhaps more focus on making this an encyclopedia article and less of a shrine for fans would be appropriate. I also feel that the 32K limit is becoming less relevant by the day - the limit is to meet the demands of operating systems that were cutting edge ten years ago. Most people can cope with >32K these days. If the article really can't be brought in under 32K, then the editing isn't tight enough. Graham 09:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely in that there is too much fan cruft in there. I'll work on eliminating some of that and then we can go from there. PS2pcGAMER 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. One thing I really can't see the point of here are the tables of lap times. There might be a case for moving these into a seperate article, but frankly I think they should be removed, that information is better provided by a link to the external Top Gear site (which presumably also has these tables posted). It's not as if the times achieved by a random collection of celebrities around a randomly laid-out arbitrary circuit on some unknown airfield in southern England has any importance in the world. Non encyclopedic. Graham 11:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the tables aren't complete on the Top Gear website, otherwise we could just link to them and be done with it. However, the tables comprise a large amount of the show in a fairly small space. Each episode spends 8-10 minutes on the celebrity. Also, a large portion of the show is devoted to the Power Laps. Should the tables stay? I don't know, but I haven't come across a full, accurate list on the internet that we could link to (then again, I haven't looked that hard). Also, a number of Featured Articles (see Dawson's Creek) devote extremely large sections to the plot, and with Top Gear the tables are essentially Top Gear's plot. Compared to the plot of that article, the segments aren't all that long. They originally had their own article's, but someone requested they be merged into the main article, so I did it and I also did my best to condense the data into as small of a space as possible. I haven't really made up my mind, but I think those are some points to consider.

I know I was against the split article for that section, and I still don't think we should have an article just for laptimes, but I think it's useful to have on here. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, just because the tables don't appear elsewhere on the 'net doesn't make it wikipedia's job to provide that service. And if the tables aren't available elsewhere, how can the data be verified as accurate? What is the source for the times? Also, comparison with equally bad articles where there is far too much devoted fancruft doesn't justify its presence here. All that needs to be considered is: is this a good summary of Top Gear as an encyclopedia article? At present the answer is no, since it strays into the minutiae which is the hallmark of a bloated fan-based article. This applies to huge swathes of wikipedia, but let's fix one problem at a time! Graham 13:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The source is the television show. While it may be harder to verify than a source on the internet, it is certainly more accurate and still acceptable. The BBC site has discrepancies between its lists and the times presented on the show so that is hard to list as a source. Furthermore, how am I comparing it to an equally bad article? I compared it to a Featured Article. The article I used as a comparison is nearly identical to when it was nominated as a featured article. Granted, guidelines have changed some since May 30, but I compared it to an article that "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". My case is that these tables are Top Gear's equivalent to a plot outline that exist on most TV show articles that have been nominated (and approved) as Featured Articles (See The West Wing (television) and Arrested Development). These tables give an outline of the celebrities on the show and the cars that have been reviewed by the presenters. As I said in my previous reply, each Star segment lasts 8-10 minutes (on average), which is a fairly large percentage of the show. How I understand your argument is that basically the two lists are making the article too detailed. There is nothing wrong with a lengthy article, as long as it covers every aspect within reason and I feel that these tables are within reason. Do they really hurt the article in any way? Not that I can see. Do they provide a summary of the show? In my opinion, yes. I feel that there are much bigger issues that need to be fixed in this article than deciding on if these two tables should be kept. Right now, it still appears as a vanity article because of the wording of the article, not because the two tables are there. We should be getting that fixed first. -- PS2pcGAMER 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess one of my problems with the tables is simply the amount of space they are taking up for the dull and uninteresting information they provide. I also disagree that they are of much importance, when taken in the context of Top Gear as a whole (i.e. Top Gear as a TV program going back 20+ years). I don't see them as "the plot" of Top Gear at all - that is your analogy, but it's also a matter of opinion. The SIARPC lap times are merely a contrived device to give some sort of structure to the chat-show segment of the show - the actual times achieved mean nothing, as the conditions vary so much (wet vs. dry for example). A 10-minute segment in a 1-hour show (of only the latest incarnation of the series) doesn't justify the amount of space given to them here. However, I can agree to disagree there - I definitely do agree with your sentiments about a 'vanity article', and perhaps fixating on the tables isn't the best way forward. Their deletion would, however, improve the quality of this article at a stroke, so I see it as 'low hanging fruit' in the quest to improve the article. If there is a discrepancy between the TV show and other sources for the tables I can't see how you can decide which is the more definitive - if even the BBC don't hold them in enough importance to bother to keep them accurate, then where does that leave us? They, as the program's makers, are obviously well-aware of the contrived and unimportant nature of these times - in fact they must be laughing at those who take it all so seriously, like a bunch of Star Trek nerds. Graham 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the show is not to be taken seriously, it is Top Gear after all. In any event, I (and a few others) have cleaned up the article a good deal, removing lots of the fancruft. There is still some more to go, but I think it is at least respectable now. I also added a link to wikiquote (there are only quotes about the stig as of yet) as there are a number of (in)famous quotes, "I am a driving god" (Hammond), etc. I also have removed a number of the expansion and cleanup tags from the article. I'd still like to see more opinions about leaving the tables in or out as three people isn't exactly a lot. And yes, I do see understand your point of view Graham. I've tried to compact the tables even more, but that doesn't really change the fact that they are still there. One more thing, I don't see much difference between the tables and the highlights section, but I do think the highlights section could be reworked some, although I am not really sure how. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

The only problem is that the tables (like much of the article) falls into the problem of it all being original research. I still am not sure what the solution is, but I figured I'd add that issue into the equation. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the table of Celebrity and Car times are branched off into separate articles, and linked from the original page. Further details may then be added to describe these features without interrupting the flow of the main article. It will also improve the balance of content between the New and Old formats to reflect the period for which they were broadcast: the current article is very New-heavy.Emyr42 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See heading "Split" below. --Emyr42 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

English Standardisation

After Mooquackwooftweetmeow's recent edit I searched for Wikipedia's standards as far as British vs. American English are concerned. I came across Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English which leads me to believe that the page should be standardised in British English. I reviewed the article and didn't find any glaring problems, but I think it would be a good idea for a "native" to look it over and make any necessary changes. quadratic 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Suggestions

• Anyone got enough time to document the Cool Wall ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.72.85 (talk • contribs)

  There was a Cool Wall article, but it was deleted through the Article for deletion process, so it probably shouldn't be recreated. If people wish, I can dig up the vote for them. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• What? why would it be deleted? I think it would be very relevant to a page about top gear and readers of the page would be interested in reading it. Otherwise the cool wall would just be a list of cars. It's the reasons that's interesting.

2005 car of the year

Didn't they have the bugatti veyron and the toyota aygo as joint car of the year i seem to recall they said this in top gear magazine but was the same verdict reached on te show? Citizen erased 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, I don't remember anything about the Aygo in the awards on the show, but I certainly do remember the Veyron winning it - and I don't read the magazine. So no, I don't think the same exact verdict was reached on the show, and since the article represents the show, surely we should only include the Veyron? Perhaps in brackets, or whatever, mentioning that the Aygo also won in the magazine as well as the Veyron. M A Mason 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion about this before (see the archive at the top of the page) and the only thing I could find agreed with M A Mason's conclusion. However, if that is the case, I don't think that the Aygo should be mentioned in the show's article because I think the magazine should be kept separate. There is a Top Gear magazine article for that sort of thing. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Summer

"In the summer of 2005, an American television channel..." Presumably this means the northern hemisphere summer, but this is not clear. --ozzmosis 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It does refer to the Northern summer, and it doesn't need clarification for three reasons:

1. This article is Eurocentric.
2. 70% of the world's land mass is in the Northern hemisphere.
3. The segment is referring to America.

--DarrenBaker 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

None of those things matter. It's ambiguous, as simple as that. While you might think it's clear, I don't, and many other probably don't either. Should readers have to think about which hemisphere a certain topic applies to, before interpreting a "season of year" reference? I think not. Lets try to keep everything consistent and understandable for the majority of readers, whoever and where-ever they may be. Imroy 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed 4 separate instances of this to their respective months. I searched for each of the seasons and didn't find any other instances. I tend to agree with Imroy that the article should be more neutral in this aspect. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

International versions

To whomever changed it to summer 2005; it was early 2005, not summer.

Also, I don't recall the currencies being changed from pounds to dollars. If you have proof of that, please let me know here. Thanks! --DarrenBaker 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Top Gear version that showed in the US on the Discovery Channel did have british pounds converted over to american dollars. Xrarey 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Google Video links

There's a lot of Top Gear clips on Google Video. Is it legal to link to some of them from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.177.18 (talk • contribs)

I would say no. The official policy about Copyright states that linking to copyrighted works is ok as long as the site hosting the copyrighted works legally can do so. As far I understand BBC copyright and British law, (correct me if I am wrong) any clips on Google Video violate copyright law because they weren't put there by the BBC and the clips aren't in public domain. So by linking to these clips, it would violate Wikipedia policy. However, linking to any clips that may be on BBC.co.uk or topgear.com would be perfectly acceptable. -PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"List of episodes" page

I strongly support the idea mentioned above of making a page called List of Top Gear episodes, as has been pointed out above a lot of other shows have 1 page per episode, not necessary here I don't think, but I think we could record the airdate and detailed synposis of each episode of the current incarnation, either on one big page, or one page per series.

Finalgear.com contains synopses for most of the episodes and they're endlessly repeated so it wouldn't be hard to find the information, and it would be a great reference for anyone interested in the show and when things happened on it, as opposed to a description of the highlights of each series and then ranked tables of the fastest cars and celebrity laps. I'm not particularly skilled with these pages but how about something like this as a sample for one episode:

Screenshot	Episode	Original Airdate	Blank
<Image goes here>	Series 6 Episode 7	July 10, 2005	Blank
	Main review: TVR Sagaris. Power lap: 1:24.8 (17th out of 89 cars tested up to end of series 7) (Notable quotes from review also??) In the news: (Anything worth noting could go here) Challenge: Jeremy faces a rush-hour race in a Fiat Panda against a marathon runner. Greatest Driving song (3 of 5): Deep Purple- Highway Star Cool wall update (details of cars mentioned could go here) Tribute/Challenge: Richard celebrates 40 years of the Ford Transit van and challanges ""Queen of the Nürburgring" Sabine Schmitz to drive the circuit in a Transit van in under 9:59: the time Jeremy was proud to record in a Jaguar S-Type Diesel in series 5. Review: Richard/James takes such-and-such a car for a drive to XYZ (Where applicable any 'normal' reviews that don't have a power lap attached could be marked like this) Feature: (the same sort of thing, for things like side by side comparisons of cars with all the presenters) Star in a Reasonably Priced Car: Justin Hawkins. 1:48 (=6th/55 at the time (this info could be included if accurately available), =8th/65 by the end of most recent series)
<Image goes here>	Series 6 Episode 8	July 17, 2005	Blank
	Synopsis of the next episode goes here

Maybe people think that's too much information for one episode but I've kept each item brief: if you want to answer a "which episode was that?" question, you can with a complete version of this, if you want to see when/if they've ever mentioned a particular car, you could do easily using a page-search tool, and it would keep a lot of stuff out of the main article which is now very long.

There are 400+ words written about the Winter Olympics special in the main article, whether people like my idea or not, this must be too much for one single episode, special or not, episode coverage is inconsistent but some are lucky to get a couple of sentences. Also if the article stays as it is, the start and end dates for each series should be mentioned if we're going to refer to "the first episode of series 5". Jimbow25 16:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Most other episode lists are more like the following:

#	Airdate	Guests	Main Cars	Screen Shot
1	6 November 2001	Jamie Oliver, The Stig	Aston Martin DB9, Smart City Car, TVR Sagaris	<Image goes here>
Main review: TVR Sagaris. Power lap: 1:24.8 (17th out of 89 cars tested up to end of series 7) (Notable quotes from review also??) In the news: (Anything worth noting could go here) Challenge: Jeremy faces a rush-hour race in a Fiat Panda against a marathon runner. Greatest Driving song: Part 3 of 5 features Deep Purple- Highway Star Cool wall update (details of cars mentioned could go here??) Tribute/Challenge: Richard celebrates 40 years of the Ford Transit van and challanges ""Queen of the Nürburgring" Sabine Schmitz to drive the circuit in a Transit van in under 9:59: the time Jeremy was proud to record in a Jaguar S-Type in series 5.

-- Jbattersby 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I accidently submitted my attempt half-finished, which is what you replied to, I've attached your comment to my finished attempt. Jimbow25 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented. Certain sections of the article are way too detailed in my opinion. The "Highlights" section is completely subjective and is original research. By listing the content for each episode it would hopefully eliminate these problems as a lot of this content could be moved off of the Top Gear page. As long as there are as many sources as possible for an episode listing page, I would be all for it. However, I am not sure if using a screenshot from each episode would be breaking Wikipedia:Fair use or not, but it seems to me like that would be pusing it. A possible solution would be to use free images of cars instead of screenshots from the show, but that might not look in place. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about the highlights section being original research and needing a lot of sources: surely it's just a list of what happened in the episode, so the source can be "I watched the episode"?! I don't think other show's episode lists have worried about citing their sources since you're just reporting the facts of what happened. If you're going to include things like "this was a very unpopular episode" then that's another matter.

I agree the highlights list is completely subjective though as well as varying in detail: there were 20 episodes broadcast in 2004 and they get less attention than the 1 episode shown in 2006. Whether we go ahead with the list page or not, this section requires some trimming. I'm unsure about the screen captures- they're not essential anyway even if they can be sourced, but other shows happily quote "Fair use under copyright law" when using screen captures so perhaps we can? Jimbow25 01:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 2006 section needs trimming and I put a note in the section in case someone has time. A number of shows do use screenshots claiming they are "citing critical commentary" so I guess it is ok. Unfortunately most of the time these episode guides aren't sourced, but if possible I'd like to see it.

Instead of having quotes in the episode boxes, I am thinking they might be better suited for the wikiquote Top Gear entry (or its own) as I have a feeling the quotes would clutter up the page very quickly. --PS2pcGAMER 05:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the 2006 section to a list of the all the segments- it's still too long for an all-time highlights list, really, but it can go in the episode guide if we start one. Jimbow25 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited some of the summaries for inaccuracy, such as the "rocket engined" drag racer "blowing up" a car, when it was a jet, incinerating it -- and the bit about Clarkson "ruining his Starion by installing a turbo without an intercooler", which won't make a car boil its coolant at all (it'll just blow the headgasket or piston by 'pinking', not to mention the fact it had one in the first place, a sidemount) to the fact he installed a more powerful turbocharger, which the cooling system on a 15 year old car just wasn't ready for. Kinda made me realise how few car people are willing to edit here... Kajifox 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that in addition to FinalGear.com's episode descriptions (which I really should finish adding), there's also some VERY complete guides in our forum that you're welcome to use. This thread links to them all. Viper007Bond 11:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BBC linking to article

BBC (bottom right, "Wikipedia's contribution") linked to this article. I don't know if that counts for a Template:high-traffic, but it is still cool. I checked some of the other shows on the BBC website and they don't have a link to their respective Wikipedia entries, so I guess we must be doing a good job. Nice work everyone! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How do I reference?

**The episode ended with a ski jump on a snowmobile driven by Dan Lang, a Swedish snowmobile driver, dressed as the Stig. [1]

Noticed this was edited recently, and when I went to do the <ref> tags, I can't read Swedish. Anyone with knowledge of this language willing to give a try?--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Give what a try? The article is an interview with Dan Lang where he says that he was contacted by a British TV programme and asked if he thought he could make the jump. Apparently he jumped at the chance 203.144.143.4 11:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ford Transit Van

It says that Sabine Schmitz managed to go round the Nürburgring in an unmodified Ford Tansit Van, but in the episode they make changes to save weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.25.155 (talk • contribs)

Modified could be construed as to add parts to the car, such as a turbocharger or a nitrous kit to the engine. What they did in a sense was to strip the car to cut excess weight. Not exactly modifying in the literal sense.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC

Well, technically they did add to the car; tape was applied over the gaps between body panels in a (probably useless) effort to improve aerodynamics. But you're right, the weight-saving was apparently just removing all the loose articles from inside the car (spare tire, etc). They did the "modifications" on site, presumably without tools or prior planning, so I doubt anything was done that would constitue modifying the vehicle itself. --71.146.92.159 08:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of another sentance?

In the Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car section, the second paragraph seems to start without explaning what the paragraph actually entails. I think another sentance should be added to help introduce the paragraph to explain what it entails. Something along the lines of:

The Liana has endured it's fair share of abuse from the stars when undertaking their laps, often to the delight and amusement of the hosts and the audiance. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and add it. :-) --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Write and walk away. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Influence section

Hopefully this message will draw attention to a problem I see. Not one claim in the influence section has any references. I have added ({fact}} tags. If anyone can dig up any references, please add them. It is ok if you aren't sure how to correctly list a reference, just list the source and someone will add the reference. Without the references, the entire section should probably be deleted, which is a shame since mentioning any influence Top Gear has is a great thing to include in this article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week with no changes. I am moving the entire text of the section here until there are sources (then feel free to move this text back into the article once there are sources).

===Influence===

''Top Gear has had a history of playing a role in factoring the sales of some cars. If a car is disliked by the presenters, such as in the case of the Vauxhall Vectra, it can have a tendency to adversely affect sales. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Top Gear, through its magazine, also conducts an annual survey (website), in order for people to make recommendations of cars based on their own experiences.

''Top Gear was cited in the media as partly to blame for the closure of British car maker Rover,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  suggesting the programme claimed that the Rover 75 was not a good car. When Jimmy Carr appeared as a guest with David Walliams, host Jeremy Clarkson said that Carr had unprecedentedly gone backwards from a Rover 75 after buying a Mini. However, James May's first 1999 report on the car was complimentary of many aspects, and even Clarkson gave a good report to the 75-based MG ZT. In the news segment of the 22 May 2005 episode of Top Gear, James May announced that "Rover is over" after the company closed down, saying that it was Jeremy's fault. May ended that piece of news saying "...buy a Rover! Now that they've gone bust.", referring to the leftover Rovers on sale after the closure of the company.

The show appears to have had another less distinct effect on petrolhead culture - Clarkson is now regarded as one of the new gurus of the art of the automobile. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Alfa Romeo's have become a more interesting manufacturer as a result of his fanaticsm for them, and it is suspected that part of the company's recent resurgence has been partly to do with his influence and positive opinions. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Further, motoring journalism since Top Gear has become very objective, as have petrolheads about a car's functional characteristics rather than styling or 'gimmick' technology, which is a diametrically opposite view of both writers and petrolheads when Top Gear first rose to prominence in the late 1990's.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good Article Candidate

I removed this article from the Good Article Candidate list. Before I'd consider it to be a good article, I feel that we need to address a few issues first.

Namely, we need to remove the fancruft. There is still a considerable amount of it in the article. Second, we need to do something about the influences section. I posted a message on this talk page (directly above) with my concerns. Hopefully this will be addressed soon by either removing the section (hopefully it won't come to that) or finding the appropriate sources. Finally, I still think that we need to figure out what to do with the highlights section. That section is entirely subjective which violates WP:NPOV. An alternative has been proposed above, an episode guide, which I think would be a good solution. I think once these main issues are addressed, the article could be considered a Good Article and I think this could happen in the very near future. I still have hopes that one day this article will become a Featured Article, but I think we still have a way to go. Any comments and/or suggestions are welcome. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think the episode guide is a excellent idea but I haven't got much experience with the table-drawing and such (what I posted above was an edited copy of another article's box), plus I've only been watching the show for about a year and don't have an episode archive. We could try and find the information in other episode guides online if that's fair (I'm not sure episode guides need their sources citing since they could be written up as soon as they've been on).

I don't know the usual procedure for starting something like that but I guess we could have a concensus vote on whether it's a good idea (though no-one has objected so far), then we can start the page and thrash out the exact format of the box on the talk page there?

If this is a possible candidate for a good article then I would strongly suggest cutting down the "regular segments" to a summary and then having a link to Main Article: Regular Top Gear segments with all the lap times and further details on. The section is very large at the moment, and there's no reason why all of Top Gear's info needs to be all on one massive page. Jimbow25 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the solution, but I agree entirely that the section for each segment is much too long. It should be noted though that there were originally separate articles for the Cool Wall, the Power Laps, and the Celebrity Laps, but have since been merged back in to do some object. However, having all the segments on one article might work much better than the previous method. In any event, I do agree that something needs to be done. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Show comment

What though is the point of having a motoring programme which is so obviously aimed at persons too young to drive and presented by somebody with a mental age of 12? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetalkinguy (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 April 2006.

When I was 12, just because I couldn't drive didn't mean I didn't think cars were interesting.--71.146.92.159 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Whilst the show is esentially pointless, a similar view may be taken for most non-factual, or partly opinionated programmes. I maintain that the target of the show is the 12-45 male of the ABCD social category. A 12 year old is unlikely to appreciate the achievements in engineering represented by some of the cars, whilst some of the older viewers may not enjoy some of the more "fun" or playful sections od the programme. Your opinion of a presenter is of no consequence, and should not influence the maintenance of an article with a substansial regular audience and following. The fact that Jeremy Clarkson writes for The Times, a newspaper whose average reader is aged above 30, should demonstrate that his mental age is above that of the average 12 year old. --Emyr42 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The show should be renamed "Top Laugh", because that is all it is. (I watch it as well.) It´s presented by a ´bully´; meaning an opinionated, aggresive and over-bearing person, whose cohorts were picked to fill-out other points of life: the small working class one, and the floppy-haired upper-class one. It is entertainment of a somewhat dubious kind, but that is what people seem to like. Who am I to argue?

andreasegde 12:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Motorsports?

The article states that Top Gear is partly about motorsports and in the 'factfile' thing at the top of the page the format of the show is described as motorsports. In reality there is very little mention of motorsports such as Formula 1, Ralley, nascar or any other kind of motorsport in the show. Yes from time to time motorsport stars feature on the show, but more in their celebrity role than anything else. The show is about cars, driving cars fast, and having races in cars, but the show is definitely not about motorsports. Perhaps the references to motorsport need to be changed. 84.66.247.52 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Historically, motorsports were a much bigger part of Top Gear than they are now. The comment refers to the show as a whole, over its entire existence. At one time, Top Gear was the way that the BBC covered the WRC, with special Top Gear shows dedicated to the rally events, presented by Top Gear presenters, such as William Woolard and Tony Mason. This was separate from the Formula 1 coverage though, which was handled as part of Grandstand or other more sports oriented programming. Graham 05:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Power lap or Star In A Reasonably Priced Car.

I noticed there is no mention of the Stig's time around the track in the Suzuki Liana. In some early episodes it has his tag on the celebrity board at 1:48 However, where should it be put? He was driving the Liana so it could be put with the other celebrities for comparison, but then it is the Stig so maybe it should be with the power cars so you can see how a reasonably priced car could go.

I think it should be with all the other racing professionals who drove it. However, as several non-racer celebrities have beaten that time, as have all the racing drivers, I'm not sure it is much of an illustration. It's interesting that the Suzuki Liana was quite a bit faster than cars like an MG ZT and an Aston Martin DB5!Halsteadk 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Series 8 format (new SIARPC vehicle and format)

I included information regarding this change to the show within the main descriptive block of the SIARPC section. Whilst I was adding this section (or before, and I didnt notice. whatever), another annonymous editor added a short sentence to the end of the SIARPC section, stating the change of vehicle, and the date of the first airing of the show. I removed this short sentence, and incorporated the first airing date into the main block. The short sentence has been added again (as of 23:40 BST), by annonymous user (the same?)

Why? Emyr42 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

History Entries

1. See Help:Edit_summary. "Always fill in the summary field"

2. Consider whether your edit is "minor". see Wikipedia:Minor_edit

Split

Is it worth splitting this into two articles, to address the differences between the early series and everything post-2002? This article has become almost solely related to the modern format, to the extent that 24 years under the old style might as well not have happened. Kinitawowi 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is worth considering Jimbow25 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. What really needs to happen is that the post-2002 stuff is edited back firmly to put it in a proper proportion historically. Most of the stuff in there right now is cruft, written by people who are fans of the newer series without necessarily having known the evolution of the program over time. What appears to have been forgotten is that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for Top Gear. On the other hand, given that Top Gear is really just a brand name for a BBC motoring show, and that brand name has now been applied to something very different from what is started out as, I suppose I could be persuaded. Graham 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Graham. I feel that once the cruft from the newer series is filterd out, the article will be a lot more balanced. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Scratch my previous statement. I am ok with splitting it and also am ok with keeping it as is. Anyone else have any opinions? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I see pre- and post-2002 TopGear as two very different programmes: whilst the subject matter may have been similar, the format of the whole program has changed. The only common element between the two is the broadcaster and Jeremy Clarkson. I say slplit to "TopGear(date-2002)" and "TopGear(2002-present)" with "TopGear" as a disambig page Emyr42 20:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

List of episodes (again)

Since the new series I've finally started the List of Top Gear episodes page, please feel free contribute to it and discuss the layout for each episode that I've done, on the talk page over there. The list of highlights would be miles long by the time this series is over, judging by how much was written about the first episode, so hopefully this will work better. Jimbow25 18:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Howabout trying a format similar to what was done to the Mythbusters seasons?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism - BMW etc

I can't help feeling that this article is less balanced in its criticism of Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson's "anti-BMW" stance, than his Times Online article that it references, in which he explains in a very balanced manner why he is not impressed with the comoany's products currently. I feel the programme rightly criticises "lazy design", whether it is from Porsche for launching cars that are virtually indistinguishable from their predecessors, or mass-market manufacturers launching rubbish that they know people who don't know better or are blindy loyal to the brand will buy anyway. I think this has been demonstrated with the show's praise for the latest Vauxhall Astra and Honda Accord (the predecessors of which would have been described as "dull" and "reliable but dull" respectively), for being different both from the models they supersede and their competitors. --Halsteadk 12:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, although the Top Gear Magazine website reviewed the same model and awarded it 4 stars out of 5. Clarkson may quite rightly have an issue with the build quality and design of the vehicles, but the criticism is that he's taking this out on individual models rather than just having a rant at the manufacturer. Examples: Clarkson's review of the BMW M5 - good review and overall very positive, but he spent a large section of his article criticising very trivial aspects of the iDrive and Satellite Navigation systems which are common on all high-end BMW vehicles. Same again for the BMW M6 review - Richard Hammond gave it a good review, then Clarkson stepped in and ditched it for the same reasons as he put the M5 down. --Garethpeate 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

question

why were the 2006 season highlights deleted? if it's due to the article getting too long, i would propose to delete the other season highlights as well and write them properly, again in a more resumptive manner. I think making an episode guide on a different page would be a good idea. this article would benefit a lot of such an addition. one possible example of how this could be achieved could be; list of south park episodes

There already is such an article: List of Top Gear episodes. (Presumably the intention is to move the 2003+2004 highlights into this article, once the episode they relate to is confirmed.) Halsteadk 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that is where they are being moved to. Halsteadk is right on the money with while I haven't moved the rest over yet. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I deleted the 2006 highlights section because those episodes were on the new list of episodes page, you can see a note about it in hidden text at the bottom of that section. I would have moved the whole lot and re-written everything nicely in the episode guide but it took a while just to do that, I'm sure everyone can be helpful and contribute to the episode guide. Jimbow25 08:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Stig in reasonable priced car.

He did the lap in the Liana. Why do you keep reverting it?James Barlow 20:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When? Today's episode? Someone added the Ramsey lap time and I reverted it to add it to a separate leader board. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah today. Ramsay did it in the new car, but Stig did it in the liana as a send off so to speak, 1:44.4 .James Barlow 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I missed that. I already have readded it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To add, initially I was trying to revert the change that said it was the 1st season. I didn't even see your edit. Sorry about that. Everything should be back to normal now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That Lacetti leader board looks a bit empty, haven't we got the other times from last week somewhere? Plus shouldn't there be a note to state the Stig isn't really a 'Star' in a reasonably priced car and his experience with cars and specifically cars on that track is far superior to that of any of the other people in that list?Peteb16) 21:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC+1)

I also note that Gordon Ramsay's original Liana lap time is missing. I will rectify. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for reverting your edit. It was a knee jerk reaction, although I can't remember his previous appearance or it being mentioned within Sunday's new episode. But you are of course correct. Peteb16) 18:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC+1)

No problem. The full official list can be found here. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Koenigsegg CCX with spoiler.

I think it's better to have both the old time and the new time in the power lap list without the footnote.

Top Gear Episode 08X04 2006.05.28

Jeremy Clarkson: "This, 1:24.0, the old Koenigsegg lap, we don't need it anymore." *Throws the time magnet away*

Needs the footnote AND strikethru to indicate it's dumped status.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also other cars that have been removed from the board though, like the Murceilago from 01x01. I'm almost certain there have been a couple of others too. Probably not really necessary to have a strikethrough AND a footnote, I think just the strikethrough would be sufficient. Sean K 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But visually, the strike-though is nasty. And while I don't suggest putting form before function, I think a solution has both is preferable. IMO there's no need to the list here to exactly mirror the one shown on the show - the two lists are created with different motivations: wikipedia's aim is to achive as much knowledge as possible, Topgear's aim to to do what is manageable on a tv screen. IMO to remove it would decrease the amount of (valid & correct) knowledge contained within the page and would thus be a retrograde step. I would personally ditch the strikethough and have a footnote to denote that it was trimmed from the 'official' list. - random Anon.

The Strikethru is meant to indicate it's "removed" status. It's not "visually ugly." --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as they say, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', and my personal POV is that visually strikethrough is a mess and it's use should be avoided. It's meant to mark out lesser or outdated information, yet because it introduced such an 'unclean' line to the page, it draws the eye towards it before all else. However, we are obviously free to disagree and in the spirit of wikipedia cooperation, I'm not going to swap the ‹s› tags for a different visual indication.

Clearly this is not the only time that culled lap times is going to crop up. As the board fills up, there's a good chance Top gear will start to prune the list back so it's manageable on-screen. If this starts to happen, should the article try to closely match the 'official' list, or, without the same space constraints, should the wikipedia article try to include every time ever set? If it's to include all times, how much weight should be given the information that it's no longer shown on the shown in relation to the information of the actual time achieved? A strikethrough appears to me to give more importance to the former fact (by nature of obscuring the time and making it less easy to read), whereas I'd give far more weighting to the latter. Interesting to note that the official BBC website has no qualms about leaving the first time on the list. 192.102.214.6 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So when does "being accurate" go out the window when you disregard the actions of Jeremy Clarkson? He clearly threw the first lap time off the board on the show, so the list should reflect this. A strikethru is appropiate and it's going back in.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be noted that it was taken off the magnetic board. It's just that my personally opinion is that the ⁵ is enough to achieve that, and that strikethrough results in text with poor readability. 192.102.214.6 17:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense the way it's done now - why does the CCX have a strikethrough, but other cars that were taken off the board don't? If the strikethrough is staying, then the other removed lap times need to also have it. 210.84.14.118 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Power laps

The Power Laps section starts with a lot of information about The Stig which can be found in The Stig's own article. Any objections to removing that part of the section to help trim the article slightly? --Scot^t 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep the color differences intact,and purge the rest. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Top Gear into 2 articles

What do people think about splitting Old Format Top Gear and New Format Top Gear into 2 articles? IMO, the current paragraph for the old format doesn't do it justice. It ran for far longer than the current format has so far and yet there's so little of the article dedicated to it. The two shows, despite sharing the name are effectively different programmes. Alexj2002 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is tracking down enough information to create a decent sized article, i'm not sure much information is freely available, though it does sound like a good idea. -Benbread 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good in principel but hard to implment in practice.--Lucy-marie 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Supports so I've given it a shot. The article about 'old' Top Gear I've written can be found at Top Gear (original format) and I've linked it from the history section of this main article. Alexj2002 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool Wall section

The list of cars in the Cool Wall section is ugly. Perhaps someone could rearrage the list into multi columned table to get rid of all the white space. I will have a go, but will take me a while.

Nominate into a sub-article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to make a small note that there previously was a cool wall article but it was deleted. However, that doesn't mean it can't be recreated, but it should address the issues raised previously so that the new article doesn't meet the same fate.. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about we have four columns in a similar design to the power lap times with diffrent headings representing each section.--Lucy-marie 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot better now, but what I was thinking was having the section with a column for each level of coolness. Just like in the show. That should also make better use of the space.

Mark Webber's Time

Can someone put a 3 next to Mark Webber's time, as he did it in extremely wet conditions. I would do it myself, but I don't know how to make the 3 higher.. :) (star in a reasonably-priced car)

Done, and it's using sup (for superscript) tags Jastein 06:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler not wing

Cars have spoliers not wings Formla one cars have wings not spolers. Spoilers are not adjustable wings are.--Lucy-marie 22:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Formula 1 cars also have fixed wings, and a number of high end production sports cars have adjustable spoilers. The terms aren't fixed. --Kiand 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

thumb|right|200px| Please see thumbnail. They wrote it as a Wing, so i'm going with Clarkson's writing. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that for once a t.v show got the facts wrong--Lucy-marie 11:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And do not re-edit the listing to reflect this. Unless you can prove otherwise (other than the whole "F1 cars have Wings, cars have Spoilers" mentality) that Top Gear wrote it as with the Top Gear Spoiler, then i'll support that edit. Otherwise, it's dangerously clsoe to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the modifaction made to the rear of the car was adjustable and the definition of a wing is an adjustable piece of equipment that can provide varying amounts of downforce. A spoiler ifs a fixed piece of equipment to provide an un adjusable amount of downforce.--Lucy-marie 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a wing is just that, a reverse aerofoil designed to generate downforce just like aeroplane wings generate lift, whereas a spoiler merely creates drag - both can be fixed or adjustable, and the type of car the aerodynamic device is fixed to doesn't matter. Jastein 23:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I could also argue you are close to the tree reverts rule as well.--Lucy-marie 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not been reverting within a 24 hour period.--Lucy-marie 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that those involved please keep in mind that this is a minor note simply meant to differentiate the original CCX time with its second time. You could call it "a piece of carbon fiber stuck on the rear" as long as it gets that point across. - Blah3 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we have modified and no refrence to wing or spoiler.--Lucy-marie 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather strive for accuracy than commit to no mention at all. After all, it was The Stig's unfortunate crash and both Clarksons notation about it's scaryness in the segment and The Stigs suggestion to add that wing for downforce that prompted Koenigsegg to get the wing on. Heck, Clarkson even noted on the Take two lap; "We're not just reviewing cars, we're designing them!!"

And Lucy-marie, don't edit the article when there is a dispute. Your edit isn't accurate according to the thumbnail above.--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Top Gear Magazine's August 2006 edition has run an article on the CCX, stating that now on the Koeinsegg options list for £4,600 is "Carbon rear wing (Top Gear Special Edition)". The manufacturer have called it a wing and we can verify that fact (using TG Magazine), therefore it should be called a wing. Alexj2002 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can note the episode where Jeremy Clarkson mentions the magnet writing, plus the screenshot above. And according to the Official CCX website they list it as a Carbon Rear Wing. It more than satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

If there are no more disputes to the sources of info, i'll redit it within a few days.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Top Gear's verity and scriptedness

I think it would be interesting to know to what degree is Top Gear scripted and what is the verity of the various segments - especially the Challenges. I believe that Clarkson once commented that the show had won an award for an "unscripted show" and he couldn't attend the ceremony because he was too busy writing the script for the next episode. It seems obvious that many parts of the show (e.g. the parts filmed in the studio, the reviews) are scripted to some degree at least. Otherwise it might be impossible to maintain continuity.

But the Challenges seem to be implied that they are unscripted events. As a particular example, see the Series 8 Episode 6 challenge on caravan holidays. When Clarkson set a caravan on fire, and during the fracas, another caravan was also burned down, it is perhaps difficult to believe that such an unlikely event would occur purely by chance.

Perhaps we can ask, is anything on the show not scripted? Sbwoodside 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To me the series has been getting more and more scripted over the years since the re-launch. The challenges and situations that occur are just becoming too over-the-top or unlikely. I always thought there were a few dodgy moments where things were done on purpose and that didn't make obvious sense, often so that Clarkson won but I forgave it due to their entertainment value. But now many examples are not even that subtle. The caravaning one a few weeks back looked like the majority of it was scripted: for example that second caravan they 'accidentally' burnt down was obviously staged (was old, no sign of owners, no complaint after reversing onto it etc). I really love Top Gear and love it for entertainment value but IMHO this last series has become a bit too scripted and planned which just removes some of the funnyness. Obviously items are edited to make them the most interesting to watch but the amount of pre-planning now is too much. --Achmelvic 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out the following article which was noted as a reference on The Stig. They have a script, but end up doing it on the fly. http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750-2270385_3,00.html --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Names on the SIARPC board

I reverted the reverts by Lucy-marie on some of the names on the board. I read through the MOS pages regarding names and naming conventions beforehand and correct me if I'm wrong, but the correct way to display the names is the format they are more commonly known as, especially as this is the format used for the individual biog pages. For example, Jordans page is Jordan (model) not Katie Price (yes I know that it does acts as a redirect though). Likewise it's the same for all of those changed. Jastein 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of wher the manual of style says this if you can point out where this is I will stand corrected. The way the names are written are there full names and not either media created names or nicknames so it removes ambiguity of the names.--Lucy-marie 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to indicate using the name they would commonly be known as is the correct form. - Blah3 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removes the ambiguity? WHAT Ambiguity? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody is going to see "Katrina Price" and know who you mean. Similary, "Raymond Winstone" or "Christopher Evans" aren't going to connect for most people. If anyone is making this ambigious, its you, by using versions of names that the people themselves don't use, versions that virtually nobody is going to know. --Kiand 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, most people know them as Ray Winstone, Kate Price aka Jordan, and Christopher Ecclestone, or scince 2005, Doctor Who --Joshuarooney2006 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cars removed from power lap board

Why was this note added to the power lap section?

< !--Warning do not add that cars were removed from the board unless it can be referenced in the same way as the Koenigsegg-->

I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic behind that. The 1:29 Murceilago lap time WAS removed from the power lap board, because it was replaced by a newer, faster time. The listing in this article is supposed to reflect the board on the show, why would you have times on here that do not exist on the board? Doing so would only serve to confuse people who are looking out outdated lap times.

I will be adding the '5' footnote back to the 1:29 Murceilago lap time unless someone has a good reason not to. 203.214.46.84 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

it needs a refrence or it is classed as original research.--Lucy-marie 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The TV show itself is a reference. --Kiand 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Look at episode 5x01 when they put the Porsche 911 time on the board - you can clearly see that the 1:29 Murcielago time is not on the board anymore. Why does there need to be a specific quote that PROVES the time was removed? 203.214.46.84 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is how it should be refrenced the koenigsegg was refrenced in that was so it is an acceptable form of refrenceing.--Lucy-marie 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrence Lamborghini Murciélago

The Lamborghini Murciélago requires a refrence as to when It was removed for the board to bring It In to line with the other cars removed form the board.--Lucy-marie 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing the exact quotes from Top Gear

Two reference notes don't have verifiable items. One is lacking it's quote, and the other is a lackluster overview of the events in the episode itself. Please re-edit and add the appropiate quotes to the references please. Thank You. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

DB9 section

Since there is apparently some confusion, I was wondering why the DB9 Fridge has been merged in with the Sub Zero section. The previous inline comment said to see the talk page but I see no discussion of it here, and the current comment doesn't clear it up any. - Blah3 01:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This was a misrepresentation by myself what i meant to say was that a previous warning about the fridge section had been ignored. I foolishly saud that ther had been a discussion assuming there had been but i was wrong so I am just reinforcing a pevious warning hat was removed and ignored by an unregistered user.--Lucy-marie 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but it still doesn't answer the question as to why it is merged.  :) It's not a huge thing thing to me as I can see points for it being separate or merged, but it would be nice to have a documented reason why, as there seems to be some contention on it. Blah3 22:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fridge sectionfall under the umbrella of fancruft so for that reason it should not be mentioned as a seperat section on the cool wall section.--Lucy-marie 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Though, by the same sentiment,they're not on the wall at all then. As they weren't actually applied to the wall, do they deserve to be listed at all if we do away with the fridge? There's no real reason why they shouldn't be listed separately, seeing as they're held on the cool wall separately. M0RHI 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuous part of the show with the four original section being the only pars included. This is similar to the power lap board here the show has a speerat baord for formula one drivers but the article dose not.--Lucy-marie 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But the fridge appears alongside the wall in quite a few of the episodes with the cool wall. Surely this is manifestation enough that they're recognised in this area. M0RHI 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid not if we were to allow the fridge we would have to also allow the rock or crock wall only ever seen once and have a seperat setion just for formula one drivers. If it was a large a section as the other four then there may be some justification but as it is as small there is little justification too add the section--Lucy-marie 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)