Talk:Top Gear test track

Infobox Harrier

In the infobox it says the fastest lap is the Renault f1. Shouldn't it be a BAE sea harrier? Anish9807 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be a car. Otherwise someone could go out with some mirrors and a laser and claim to have set a lap in a few microseconds. M0ffx (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes CLK 63 Black series

I added a time for Mercedes CLK 63 Black series. As Clarkson said in his 2008 film - Thriller, it took it 1 minute 26 seconds to get around the track.

Corner Names

I think the names of the corners on the diagram need updating, as it is missing a few. The names can be found here: Top Gear Test Track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.56.193 (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Enzo

There are two lap times for the Enzo (one of which was in the wet) but in series 5, episode 2, which was the only episode where a lap time was set, there was only only one lap and it was in the dry. Where is this wet Enzo lap coming from? Chaparral2J (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

F1 leader board separate?

Top Gear keep the F1 lap times on a separate board. Should we not? Mark83 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should really. They are Stars in a Reasonably Priced Car after all. We noted that Top Gear puts them on a separate list, that's enough. -mattbuck 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Track condition

The use of references (appearing as numbers) to describe wet tracks etc. is very unclear. Would symbols or just W or VW - i.e. Wet or Very Wet not be much clearer? Mark83 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial times

Now this page is about the track and not Top Gear as a programme would there be any objections if I included a section detaling times set without BBC sponsorship? Meio (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Mark83 (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=top+gear+track+record&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Caterham CSR 260 and Ultima GTR 720. Now I just need to sift through the thousands of Google hits to find the more reliable references. Meio (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, times such as the Ultima GTR shouldn't be included. The Stig didn't drive, so you aren't comparing like with like. See what others think. Mark83 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know 'The Stig' wasn't driving? That would require you to know who has driven a lap in the white suit and who was driving for Ultima. Ultima seem to imply that their driver might have performed Stig duties in the past. If you are suggesting that The Stig character wasn't driving then you'd be correct but this is irrelevant as this page is not about The Stig or Top Gear, it is about the track, and the Caterham and Ultima have set times around that track and so should be mentioned on this page.Meio (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in Power Laps though. -mattbuck 11:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As for knowing it wasn't The Stig.[1] I can't totally agree that "this page is not about The Stig or Top Gear" -- if there was no Top Gear there would be no track at Dunsfold! However I wouldn't have an objection to a new section as Meio suggests - similar to "non qualifying lap times." Mark83 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so a section under the "non-qualifying times" section describing how some (a couple so far), having a poor relationship with the BBC, have gone and set their own times will be included as soon as I can find good independant references. Oh, and like I suggested The Stig is a fictional character the rights to whom are presumably copyrighted by the BBC so no company setting times at Dunsfold without BBC sponsorship will use The Stig, but that is not to say that they couldn't have been using a driving consultant who has played the part of The Stig at some point in the past. If you read between the lines in Ultima's own promotional coverage of their lap they seem to be suggesting this. This is why I feel that you shouldn't automatically assume it is not a like for like comparison with the BBC sponsored laps. The Caterham lap has less coverage so it is difficult to tell if those that set the lap were striving for concordance with the BBC laps. Maybe I should indicate these thoughts in the section, but that smacks of original research.Meio (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your whole argument is based on original research!! Your above comment involves the lines "presumably" "that is not to say that they couldn't" "read between the lines." You'll have to explain yourself more clearly, because your 17:09, 23 January 2008 comment seems 0% fact, 100% opinion/original research. Mark83 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed another big POV/OR: "....having a poor relationship with the BBC" Mark83 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the perspective that Ultima were using a driver who has played The Stig in the past is original research (it was Phil Keen for all you Stig candidate spotters http://www.keenmotorsport.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=36), however the fact is that Ultima report having a poor relationship with the producers of Top Gear ["Ted Marlow, Managing Director of Ultima Sports Ltd commented: "We were forced into having to achieve this track record independently as despite repeated approaches by ourselves, customers and worldwide Ultima fans to Top Gear TV with a view to having the Ultima GTR720 timed around the Top Gear track and road test, no invites were forthcoming."] http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/laprecord.html. OK, so lets have a look at the facts before I make this new section. Ultima report a bad relationship with the Top Gear production team. The motive for the Dunlop Injection sponsored Caterham lap is unreported and unknown. The Stig is a fictional character. The driver of the Caterham was Rob Jenkinson http://www.injection.tv/site.php?domain=uk . The driver of the Ultima is not officially revealed. The Ultima factory are at pains to point out that their lap was independantly monitored and timed by a body called Plans Motorsport. Are these facts agreed?Meio (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with including the time in a new section as was agreed a while ago. However don't include comments about a "poor relationship" - because despite your quotes provided it is still OR. It seems likely from them that a poor relationship exists - but it is neither explained why or certain & verifiable. Mark83 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR to state that Ultima feel that their product is being ignored, because they carp on about it so much, the question then is to whether this carping should frame the unofficial status of the lap time in the article. Meio (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not OR to state that Ultima feel that their product is being ignored - that's not what I said. I said leave out the "poor relationship with the BBC" bit. Mark83 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say being ignored was a type of poor relationship, but I'll certainly be careful how I phrase it.Meio (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point - but just put in one of the quotes "despite repeated attempts...." -- don't analyse it because that's when we can very quickly veer into OR. Mark83 (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Comments? Meio (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. Mark83 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the BAE entry requires a little further comment or explanation, it is a kind of strange thing to have on a car test track. 203.129.39.88 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Prodrive P2 wasn't thrown off the board

I was of the understanding that the Non-Qualifying Board was for "cars" that were tested, then unceremoniously thrown off for reasons stated by the presenters (and the two "cars" that were tested "unofficially" by other parties not related to Top Gear). So when I saw the Prodrive P2 there, I re-checked the episode in particular (Series 8 Episode 5; 4 June 2006) and nowhere did either Jeremy or Richard state that the can did not qualify to be on the board. Only that Jeremy lamenting that Prodrive can't be bothered to produce it. So tell me, unless I missed it somewhere in the show, where the car was taken off and a reason stated.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can anyone show me undeniable proof that Clarkson removed the P2 from the board or mention whether or not the P2 did not qualify for the board? I reviewed the episode, and he does state that Prodrive will not make the car, however, he did not throw the magnet off the board, which the show usually does for non-qualifying cars and never said it was disqualified from the board. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The original time of the Prodrive P2 (Series 8 Episode 5; 4 June 2006) was set on the board between Koneigggggg....zeg and Sagaris.In the second episode of Series 10 when the Audi R8 time was set between Koneigggggg....zeg and Sagaris the Prodrive P2 wasn't there. You can check that using the following link with the two screen-shots http://ge.tt/8xy5ef7. 12:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC+2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al3x3 (talk • contribs)

GT-R semi-protection

Given today's rash of anons adding the unsourced lap time for the car (and even external reporting/linkage from Autoblog), I've semi-protected the article for 48 hours. When the block expires, the actual power lap should have been aired on the show. --Madchester (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting stupid....

Clarkson clearly says in the episode concerning the Koenigsegg CCX magnet time whatever is written with "Top Gear Wing." The fact that this is not reflected in the article is stupid and smacks of revisionism. Yes technically it's a Spoiler, but considering that the Episode came before the website, the Episode trumps any "revision" of the correct terminology. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a piped link to spoiler (automotive) would help? Ged UK (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

293.xx.xxx.xx, not quite sure why a big deal is being made about this. It's technically a spoiler and a primary source has been found that verifies how Top Gear calls it. Although I will agree Clarkson's comment is a reliably cited source, it's just a primary source and Wikipedia has very strict policies on how to handle primary source info. Please read WP:PSTS for more info, but to sum it up, reliable secondary sources are what Wikipedia should always be built on. A primary and (way more importantly) many secondary sources are found using the proper terminology, therefore, it should be called as such. So the whole "Episode trumps the Website," may or may not be true, but, in your terms, secondary sources trump everything else as per WP:PSTS, period. I'll add in more secondary source citations right now. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, it is extremely insulting and offensive.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RIGHT: i have corrected it as that is how it is on the power laps bord and that is how it should be represented on heer. 86.168.10.71 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just changed this slightly - the modified CCX is listed as "top gear wing" but the original is listed as "without spoiler". To keep consistency, I've changed the sans-spoiler entry to read "without top gear wing", as the primary source (Jezzer) refers to the modification as "The Top Gear Wing". a_man_alone (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Flags

I'm going to add national flags to the list of times. There's no particular reason for this; I just wanted to. It won't hurt, so there's no problem. This may prove controversial with some cars, but I'll use what wikipedia says as a guideline, assuming our fellow users have already done the legwork. Alex Holowczak (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen this now... Isn't that a overuse of the flags? Moreover it isn't accurate. I propose to took them out. Asendoh (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lotus Exige - wrong lap time

The Lotus Exige (taken round the track in season 4 episode 1) has the wrong time posted on the Power Lap board.

The time Jeremy Clarkson says the car recorded is 1:26.9, but because of sloppy writing appears on the board as 1:26.4. To verify this information please review season 4 episode 1 at the 58min 48sec mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.76.233 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to power board section

Removed flags per MOS:FLAG, changed times for SL55 AMG and Esprit V8 to time on website (time given in the episodes lacked decimals), changed time for Vauxhall VXR8 to the correct time of 1.31.3., moved some wrongly placed cars, removed the (I assume) tractors, and times for cars driven by Clarkson, Hammond and May as they shouldn't be part of the power board, slapped a {{cn}} on times not on the website so we know which cars should have footnotes on where they appeared, and completed <li>-tags. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, you expect a ton of reference marks for cars presented on the show? I'm all for references, but what your asking is too much. You might as well cite every car listed on the website!!--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have references for cars not on the website for verifiability. Besides, why don't they appear on the website if they're supposed to be part of the power board in the first place? People keep adding times to the board and if they're supposed to be part of it then a footnote mentioning where it appeared shouldn't be a problem... --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aktsu, unless we can cite a source they should not be there, most of them are easy enough, we just have to cite the episode they appeared in, the rest are on the top gear website itself so that is cited for all the rest. --Lemming64 22:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a few, but was unable to find the times for the Ferrari F430 Spider, Ariel Atom 1 220, Ford GT40, Mercedes CLK63 AMG Black Series, Mitsubishi Evo VIII MR FQ320 and the Ferrari 575M Maranello HGTC after checking the episodes they should have appeared in going by the episode list. Useful cite-template btw! --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

http://tviv.org/Top_Gear/Power_Laps Perhaps we should take a cue from them and do a table like they do? But then again....3 columns worth?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, raided the BBCWorldwide and Top Gear channels on Youtube, and added some references (3 of them). But i'm already getting annoyed at the load times, so if anyone else wants to take a stab, here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BBCWorldwide&view=videos http://www.youtube.com/user/TopGear

Cheers. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice find on the tviv-wiki! Extremely useful. On including the episode in the table itself, the only major problem I see is having to now look up EVERY car not just the ones missing from the website - but that is kinda remedied by the tviv-wiki, so... Why not? Might have to experiment a bit to make it look good though. --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

What is the notability of this article? Top Gear is clearly notable but it's test track? all of the sources are primary except for two that are trivial and descriptive. Where are the secondary sources? even if it remains the article needs massive clean-up. The massive trivial lists of track times beggars belief. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some cleanup is probably not a bad idea. But overall, I think the article is around because the track and all the lap times from it are a significant piece of the show. I'd lean towards attempting to cleanup things and get some better sources before suggesting deletion. $0.02. DP76764 (Talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

all the lap times from it are a significant piece of the show right but what's the significance in terms of notability or commentary beyond the show? Being notable in the show doesn't make it notable outside of that context. Why does it help our readers to under the concepts described to list *every time*? Those lists are for *fans* and we aren't writing for the benefit of fans. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget about 100 different articles link to this page, quite often celebrity lap times are listed on their own pages and linked here as a reference. --Lemming64 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

and? people will make a wiki-link to anything - it means nothing (and indeed is explicitly irrelevant as wikipedia is not reliable source) , just 100 different notability people have appeared - like pebble mill, like the Jonathan Ross show - it adds to the notability of the main article, not this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, it does add to the notability of the show. However, iirc, articles need not show their own notability if they are a fork of some other article. This is one such article. and you are completely wrong about notability - it's not inherited - what is notable about a timing board? fuck all. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but that's doesn't mean an article can contain any old trivial shite - we describe the power lap via prose and mention the top couple - we don't provide a leader board - who the fuck is that for? for general readers? really? I can see the fanboys are gathering - so I guess we'll head off to afd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is need to be so aggressive now is there. --Lemming64 02:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just calling it as I see it - people involved in an article always think that normal rules don't apply because their article is "different" in some way - this is a fanboy article - it's not an article for general readers, which is our audience. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tell that to the folks involved in TV like Family Guy and the Simpsons with their episode articles. How are they notable when I and a hundred of my closet friends don't watch it? Oh, and BTW, don't deleted huge amounts of text without consulting the talk page first. Minor edits okay, removing bad info sure, but removing an entire properly semi-referenced section? Not kosher.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Test Track is notable as there is no other (mostly) unbiased and consistent set of times/performance for automobiles currently. The track as noted (with cites) was designed with this specific aim in mind. This is why the test track times use the same driver when testing different times and the same car when testing different drivers. The track times here perform the same function as 0-60mph(0-100kph) times, a list of worlds largest buildings etc. It allows a clinical look at the relative performance abilities of various production cars. Therefore notable and useful in a manner separate and distinct to the show itself. Felixmeister (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah - so those are official stats - that's the purpose - great, so you can provide multiple third party reliable sources that indicate that? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This article exists because the size of Top Gear (current format) is such that it was necessary to break the article into multiple parts, as per WP:SUMMARY. Warren -talk- 07:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody had provide anything sensible to explain why every time has to be listed just lots of hand waving. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't proven your case either, seeing that other articles do alot more egregious violations of Wikipedia policy than this article. Besides, the Wikipedia: Automotive group has one reason. And it's a guideline for virtually all the car articles across Wikipedia.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave you one. Address it. Warren -talk- 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We're still waiting. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, focus on cleanup of article now due to non-response of complainant. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RIGHT

LEVE THE THE SECOND KONIGSES CCX WITH THE TOP GEAR WING ALONE (IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT WILL BE RIGHT IN WIKIPEDIA ITS THIS)

IN THE SHOW IT IS THE TOP GEAR WING

SO IT WILL BE THE TOP GEAR WING ENRY TIME IT IS MENTIONED

LEVE IT ALONE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.174.192 (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the -x- times???

Should the Avantine and Astra be part of the official timing boards? The rules of the board state that a car cannot be a modified version of a car, meaning the Avantine(heavily modified before catching fire) and the Police standard Astra (power enhanced) should be on the non qualifying boards. I know the Konegggsegg is modified as well, but they let it bend the rules like they did with JK on the SINRPC 82.19.1.50 (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless it hits the board (even if it is thrown off due to the Non-Qualifying rule) it doesn't count. Period. The Avantine will count seeing that Clarkson did slap it onto the board, but the Astra and the other cheap cars don't qualify. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gallardo LP560

It was exactly the same time as the gt2, as mentioned in the episode after the one with the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.85.5 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

star in a reasonably....

please check the table with the information in Kevin_McCloud and correct whichever is wrong.--80.142.177.165 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there corroboration for the Ricky Gervais lap? He's not listed here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/celebritylaps.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.90.246 (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. How does he get listed here when he's never appeared on the show? A hoax? --Davidcx (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose then that he get removed. I'll do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonobo4 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie is linking to Bill Bailey's wikipedia page. I have no idea if either has done a lap, but something is awry here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.151 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Under no circumsatces should in joke names be used when adding names to the leader board. Bill Bailey did a lap Angalina Jolie has never stepped foot any where near the Top Gear Studio.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari FXX

The Ferrari FXX is currently top of the Power Lap board and 5th of the non-qualifying cars. Clearly it is not road legal and should have been removed from the Power Lap board by the presenters - is this the only reason it is still on the board in this article?

Per WP:NOR, we only report on what happened on the show. Unless a reliable source questions the validity of the FXX on the Power Laps list, we can only go by what Top Gear has presented to us for the time being. They may change its placing in a future episode (or it may not). --Madchester (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Top gear removed it themselves in Eposide 2 of the current series and their website agrees. It got the full magnet throwing treatment on air. So it is not OR to discount it, in fact it would be OR to still include it in the powerlap section. --LiamE (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, the program itself stated its lap did not count as per the show's own internal rules. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

FXX is road legal in a few countries, ok not in USA or UK. Ferrari also sell the FXX models to customers and you need not be a FIA registered racing team to buy one. Also FXX has a softer suspension thus it is not a hardcore racing car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.nathan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Challenges cars

Would it be a good idea for cars from challenges, (e.g. the Vauxhall Astra police car, the £100 cars, and the tractors to be in a seperate board but still with their times, like the non-classified section but called Challenge related cars or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonobo4 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia: Fancruft covers this. Also, we have Top Gear challenges. Leave that stuff off the article.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Big mess in the top times (or am I wrong?)

I can't believe it could be wrong in so many items, so I better ask before I edit: The beginning of The Power Board section has quite a few different items when compared to, say, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvcw7lyPsEo time [10:07]. That's just wrong, or am I missing something?

I can't actually see the video, but I don't believe it's an official Top Gear one. If it is, it's from several years ago, and so the lap board would likely have been updated since then. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how "official" the video is, but it is apparently a copy of the original TV footage and it's VERY unlikely if not impossible that is has been tampered in any way relevant to my point. According to its contents it's the episode from November 23 2008, so it's not exactly old. I am, of course, not talking about those items that were possibly added after the video has been made but only those that are still there. I honestly don't see how it could be updated afterwards in such a way that would produce the differences I see between the lap board cut in the video and what's in the article. But I may be wrong in that and that's why I write this. And yes, I admit now, it's not such a mess, it's just: 1)Zonda F convertible being mistaken for the Zonda Clubsport, 2)Veyron and Zonda times swapped 3)Zonda F (coupe) being mistaken for the Zonda F Roadster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.85.57 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actual names not in-joke names

The names off all the guest drivers must be the actuial name of the person and not the In-joke name people were given by the presenters, for what ever reason.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason why the names shouldn't be both - primarily their real name, but also whatever they are credited with on the actual board. This would clear up any confusion that may arise form people who see the programme but fail to match up names compared to the Wikipedia listing. Also, and let's not forget a core principle here - the "joke" names are strictly speaking a more accurate representation of the power board. Whilst we all know that Angelina Jolie has yet to complete a lap - that is what it actually says on the board.

I invite discussion on the topic. a_man_alone (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep the list clean and leave the mentions of the jokes in the descriptive paragraphs above then. We don't want to put jokes such as Koenigseggisseggggnignigsegigisegggg as it is literally written on the Powerboard to make the list confusing. The notes in the parentheses should be strictly used to describe the conditions that directly affected the lap times. Blhsing (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The names must all be the real names of the people an no in-joke names used. All in-jokes must be removed from the article as it is a form of cruft which diminishes the quality of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a_man_alone in that, since James Hewitt is officially and literally written on the board as "Well spoken man" by the Top Gear hosts, the article should do well mentioning the fact. To avoid cluttering up the ranking, however, such facts should only be stated in the descriptive parts of the articles. I think that would be the best compromise. Blhsing (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Richie appears as Rich Tea and Bill Bailey as Angelina Jolie but again this is all part of the Top Gear in-joke and is not included as it is part of the in-joke of Top Gear. This must be extended to all in-jokes to retain consitency and standrds across the whole article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Richie and Bill Bailey's jokes are not worth mentioning because their names are not written on the board in any altered way. James Hewitt and Koenigsegg's names, on the other hand, are written on the board in altered ways so the article should mention such facts. There is a clear difference. Blhsing (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blhsing. I'd also like to see Bill Bailey remain as Angelina Jolie, but I'm celarly in the minority, so will go with the flow suggested by Blhsing. To this end I've also added a comment similar into the Cee'd leaderboard. Far from detracting, such comments add insight into the nature of the show. a_man_alone (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the Manual of Style as to how articles should be written the addition of this information is all cruft and is therefore not necessary to the article as it is not written from the point of view of enabling someone with little or no knowledge of the subject to be able to understand the subject easily.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that we should list the correct name and if they are credited on the board under a different name that should be noted after. For instance James Hewitt is in fact credited as "Well spoken man" on the board and thus that should be noted. This is not about "in jokes", it is about accurately reflecting what is on the boards. If the boards says "Well spoken man" for James Hewitt we should have a note of that. I would be prefectly happy for such notes to be after the table or in the prose somewhere but it certainly needs to be noted. --LiamE (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an entire seperate section? --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why go to that effort when a simple note in brackets in the table or a simple footnote to the table would suffice? --LiamE (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It detracts from the quality of the table and is cruft. It is also unsightly and reduces understanding of the table to people who are unfamiliar with the In-jokes. --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I couldnt disagree more. How does having both their real names and noting how they are noted on the board reduce quality and particularly understanding in any way, shape or form? The logic behind that thinking frankly beggars belief. If the quality of a table is determined by how little information it conveys then yes, I would concede that point but otherwise you're on a loser there. So we get down to your last point, is it cruft? It would be cruft if we were noting names etc. that are not written on the board. As they are written on the board the information is needed as explanation for those unfamiliar with what names refer to what people on the board. --LiamE (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the table is determined by its ease of access to an outsider and its accuracy. The times must be accurate and the names of the individual who set the times must be accurate. Having Angelina Jolie for Bill Bailey is inaccurate as it was not Angelina Jolie who set the time. having "well-spoken man" is also bad as it creates confusion to outsiders, thus reducing access to a person unfamiliar with top gear. If the In-jokes are to be included then it should be in its own section referring to the directly the in jokes and explaining them or not at all in my opinion. I am willing to compromise and have them in the pros regarding each car as was reverted before. Inclusion in the table is poor style and unsightly and reduces accessibility to an outsider who is unfamiliar with top gear as it creates unnecessary confusion. This article is also not a commentary on the happenings with the top gear episodes.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. How exactly does James Hewitt (credited as "Well spoken Man") reduce quality, confusion, or even accuracy? I would venture that putting all these comemnts into their own section is far more crufty than as side notes. Based on your arguments I feel I must step away from my previous willingness to compromise, and insist that for accuracy and ease of access to an outsider the tables must match the actual powerboard - ergo I am once again of the opinion that we should reinstate Bill Bailey - listed as Angelina Jolie, James Hewitt (credited as "Well spoken Man") and all the others - although I will draw the line at Koenigseggisseggggnignigsegigisegggg. a_man_alone (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The board must not represent in-jokes within the show as an outsider will not understand why "well-spoken man" is next to the name or why Angelina Jolie is used instead of Bill Bailey. That is why having the addition is confusing. If i was to put on the board Lucy-Marie as a name over say Denise Van Outen. That could be claimed to be an in-joke. No one except me would understand it but it would still be an in-joke and under your reasoning would be acceptable. To avoid confusion to an outsider as to whom exactly did each lap then only the name and no annotation should be used. Otherwise the table would be confusing as an outsider wouldn't know why the annotations were there in the first place. The whole article must be easily accesable and avoid all confusion where possible to an outsider the annotations both add confusion and decrease accesability to an outsider as they wouldn't understand the in-jokes.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice strawman there Lucy-Marie. Arguing with me against a position I don't hold is not going to progress anything. I don't propose we list the names exactly as per TG, I have porpsed with list correct names with notes regarding their listing by TG under different names. Perhaps while we are are wading through the manual of style you should have a look at WP:Drama yourself. We would not create confusion by listing James Hewitt with a note along the lines of "Listed as Well Spoken Man" in fact quite the reverse. How including such explantory data in the table or in footnotes would detract from accuracy, cause confusion, reduce ease of access or cause conflict with the MOS is utterly beyond me. I propose we move this to a vote to gauge concencus sooner rather than later. My proposed format wold be: Ranking, Time, Real name, Track condition note if appropriate, Other notes to include "listed by TG as xxx" as appropriate on a line per line basis. --LiamE (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have not intentionally used a strawman I have simply used the argument as I have interpreted it as written. If it is not the position that you hold then I apologise but it was the genuine interpretation I had of your position. The way it is listed on the board should not be in the table as it looks unsightly but I am not averse to the inclusion as a footnote. If it is essential that the information even be included. I also say we do not hold any form of vote as that is a violation of WP:democracy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Lucy Marie, you are assuming a staggering lack of intelligence on the part of people who look at Wikipedia. Again, I ask; how exactly does James Hewitt (credited as "Well spoken Man") create confusion? You are also either mis-construing my own words, or twisting them - I'm not sure which. I'm not suggesting replacing Denise Van Outen's name with yours. What I'm advocating is that if Denise Van Outen did the lap but said "I want to be listed as Lucy Marie", then we should list "Denise Van Outen - credited as Lucy Marie" a_man_alone (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - An outsider to this topic would in effect have a "staggering lack of intelligence" on the subject as they would be wholly unfamiliar with the topic. The listing like that does create confusion as it asks an unnecessary question” Why is that annotation there next to the name?” If no explanation is given as to why the annotation is there it does create confusion unnecessarily.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What is absolutely certain is that rightly or wrongly a lot of people have seen fit to edit this information in, and blindly stating it cannot be in the article is not going to stop that and will just create work for those who want to keep removing it. If the consensus were to not make it visible (and that doesn't appear to be consensus), then as a minimum it needs to be present as a hidden comment visible on editing. However, I also don't see why the information would clutter the table if presented as numbered footnotes to it (preferable to a column as this info will be relevant to so few entries). It should not be put in a separate prose or bulleted section as that is NOT readable or helpful and will actually make it more prominent and invite people to add more "cruft", whereas a numbered list of footnotes is controllable. Halsteadk (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If the information is to be included in a footnote then an explanation of the footnote is needed as well eg Lionel Richie listed as Rich Tea as Clarkson couldn't spell Lionel.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well providing an explanation is exactly what I did, didn't I? Instead of putting just a simple nickname of "Well spoken man" next to the James Hewitt's real name, I wrote a whole sentence to explain why the nickname was given (James Hewitt (whose name was written on the scoreboard as the "Well spoken man" after the presenters failed to recognize him)) so that outsiders can easily understand why they're seeing "Well spoken man" literally written on the scoreboard, and you chose to undo my addition. Well I can agree to the suggestion that such information to be placed in the footnote instead to keep the main article as clean as possible, so that's what I will do for James Hewitt's entry for now. You are welcome to add explanations for Lionel Richie and Bill Bailey's nicknames in the footnotes. Blhsing (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers (discussion)

I just removed the Rubens Barrichello time from the F1 drivers section. I don't know if this has been revealed anywhere yet but as the show won't air in the UK until tomorrow (11.07.2010) I didn't think it should be on display yet. I would prefer to be able to not find out the times until the show airs and I'm sure there are others. If there is a majority of people who would prefer that the times are displayed before the show airs then that's fine but I don't see any discussion either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.215.69 (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Simplest thing to do is to add the information once the show is broadcast then there is a reliable source for the information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - info shouldn't be added until after the event. Sorry I didn't see the Rubens addition to the power board, or I'd have removed it from there at the same time I took out the other one. a_man_alone (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lap times

Илюхина Камри removed from the lap times. This looks like spam as it is not on the BBC website, and translates as Ilyukhin Camry, which is not a car, as far as im aware. If it is something not yet broadcast please note this and provide some evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.193.149 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Harrier Pilot

IIRC the Harrier pilot is named in Ben Collins' book, but I can't remember what he's called. I'll try to remember to look it up. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Names of the Stigs in the leaderboard.

According to this discussion[2], started by user Lucy-Marie, and eventually taken up on the page, we *must* have real names in the leaderboard, not joke names - even when credited as such continuously throughought the series (such as "Well spoken man", or "Angelina Jolie").

Now that The White Stig's identity is known, as is The Black Stig's, we should follow that convention which has been applied to the other leaderboards. Following Lucy-Maries commandments to the letter, we should really remove "The Stig" altogether, and simply replace Stig with Ben Collins, or Perry McCarthy. However, I don't think that will come to pass. As a compromise, I suggest that both names are present - White Stig/Ben Collins, and Black Stig/Perry McCarthy.

• Agreed, I see no reason why real/stage names can't be both included. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They should not be included as they are not relevant to the actual lap. The identity of the Stig has never been confirmed on the show so when the lap was done by one of two previous Stigs they were anonymous. The identities of the Stig are covered in great length on the Stig article. There are also no additions of this manner to any other parts of the article such "in joke" names given to people who have completed laps.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"not relevant to the actual lap"? Eh? The driver's name is not relevant to the lap? Confusing. Include both names for completeness. No other argument is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are desperate to include the names of the people who were the Stigs then please do so as a footnote with a full explanation and not as an addition to the table to keep the table cleaner. I though do believe that if you have a second name next to the "Stig" outside users is confusing and would cause unnecessary confusion to be created to outside users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No-one is "desperate" to include the real names of the people who drove the laps. The point is to include the factually accurate information. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be factual but is it required and does it retain the purpose of the table to reflect the lap times completed, I believe it does not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but as an encyclopedia, we could well be in the market for offering up facts. The more facts, the better. How real names would affect the "purpose of the table to reflect lap times completed", I'm utterly struggling to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is because it distracts from the clarity of the table and the table being easily accessible to all users regardless of the level of knowledge on the subject. As i say a footnote with an explanation is the best way to go for inclusion if inclusion is to be commenced with.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. By having a list of real names, and then a pseudonym, we are creating potential confusion, especially when - by your own edict - we went through all other charts on this page and removed aliases, pseudonyms or nicknames, even when that is how they appeared on the board and replaced them with real names. Now you are insisting that we remove a real name, and replace it with a pseudonym. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Accept a compromise and accept the two names on the board. As for clarity of the board for users regardless of the level of knowledge on the subject. it is even more important to list both names, as they may well have no idea who this Stig person is, and why he is listed amongst a bunch of real people. a_man_alone (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a case iof right or wrong. As I have said for cleanness and simplicity in the table add the real names as footnotes and not in tha actual table.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not said that. You have repeatedly stated that the tables must contain real names, as referenced above, a demand which was agreed upon, and enforced throughout the article. Now you are going against your own apparent desire for simplicity by wanting the opposite - you want the real names as footnotes, and the alias as a list entry. You have at least two editors who disagree with you and think that the list should be of the alias followed by the real name in brackets. This is not democracy, nor is it mob rule, it is a (small) consensus of 2 versus 1. Until said consensus shifts away from that - and by that I mean through valid talk page input, not mindless reverting, with generic and unhelpful "vandalism" edit summaries, then the names stay, and you risk the vandalism tag being applied to you should you repeatedly remove them. And once again, I believe that for cleanness [sic] and simplicity the list should contain the alias followed by the real name in brackets, to clarify to readers (at a glance) who are not so familiar with Top Gear why there are two different entries for the Stig. a_man_alone (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This case is different the people who are "the Stig" are effectively actors portraying a character, as opposed to the in-jokes which are associated with the celebrities. It is wrong to name the portrayer of the Stig character as it is not confusing, to retain the name of the character. It is though confusing to include in-joke names. The actors names are not known in the shows context, the celebrates are though known. It is inappropriate to name the "actors" in the case of the Stigs but is wrong to carry on an in-joke.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is becoming a bit of joke. There is nothing wrong with adding both names. Full stop. It isn't confusing, it isn't an "in-joke" really, it's been widely publicised. People reading this particular article will be well aware, and if they're not, that's what wikilinks are for. Come on folks, we're wasting far too much time on these petty disputes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is a discussion over whether or not to include an additional, what, 30 characters, factually correct, to a table, and this is going to RFC? What a total and dismal waste of limited resources. Leave the facts in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I think it would be a bad idea to remove any name that appeared on the board, as Wikipedia should reflect what sources say. Whether to include alternate names, real names for those who appeared on the board with an alias, &c is a secondary issue to me and seems to be a minor matter of aesthetics - but if in doubt, we should definitely include the name which was used extensively by the main source. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with resolving this by using both names when in jokes are used, just adding the nickname as part of the addendum with whether the track was wet and other conditions. I also can't see why this isn't being agreed on. Come on peeps, good faith and all that! Bennydigital (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So, this might be a bit "out there"... but why do we need every celebrities lap time on here exactly? It's not exactly encyclopedic or notable information. It just looks like fan information - sourced to the episodes. I say drop the lot :) Worm^TT 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to go all 'Sith' on you after you've been such a great help, but I reckon that, given the popularity of the show in the UK, it would be something people would trust from wikipedia, and something people would actually care about. I'm not a massive fan of the show myself, but it is almost like a sports fixture to a lot of fans, and I can hazard that's why why it's been included, and I think that browsers (rather than us lovers of the W) might like it to be here. I'd say it falls just on the right side of notable, but can completely see why it wouldn't be! Definitely a bold suggestion though, and if agreement isn't reached, I think removing it would be a reasonable solution.Bennydigital (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with the "remove the times" argument. Perhaps a note to say who was fastest/slowest but no need for a list of times in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't expect you to agree with me Bennydigital, just because I'm your mentor doesn't mean you and I have to come to the same conclusion! I thought it might be something to put out there, I was looking at the article, and I really don't see what the list actually adds besides a bit of trivia. And I *am* a massive fan of the show, and it's good information - just for the BBC website, not wikipedia. Worm^TT 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.98.65.24, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello:

I believe Amber Heard was in an automatic Cee'd!

71.98.65.24 (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —GƒoleyFour— 13:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just watched this on Dave, and the car she drove had the reg plate LC10 PHF - or at least something close to that. At no point in the segment do they mention whether she drove an auto, that should at least give a clue as to whether she drove the "usual" car or not. a_man_alone (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alice Cooper states that he drove an automatic Cee'd in the 26/6/11 episode - which also has the reg of LC10 PHF. Could really do with comparing that to a known manual transmission star in a car, but otherwise, look likely that Heard did drive an automatic. Not that I'm suggesting I count as a reliable source though... a_man_alone (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Caparo T1

The Caparo wiki-article states:

"On November 11, 2007, the T1 surpassed the Top Gear Power Board leader's time of 1:17.6, then held by the Koenigsegg CCX, with a time of 1:10.6. Immediately after having declared the time and placed it on the Power Board, presenter Jeremy Clarkson removed the record because it did not meet the show's rule that the car must be able to go over a speed bump.[3] However, Ben Scott-Geddes of Caparo has stated that, "the model we supplied to Top Gear was one of our final engineering vehicles without adjustable ride height and electronic active driver control systems which are standard on our production models. When drivers select the 'road' setting, the car is more tractable in slower speed conditions and the ride height is fully adjustable to bring the car up to 90 mm clearance, making it more than capable of driving over speed bumps."[19]"

That's not quite the same as "The Caparo T1 was subsequently modified to have adjustable ride height with a 'road' setting that can clear speed bumps." from this article.

I'd suggest "Caparo have stated that the T1 tested was a late prototype without the adjustable ride height which allows production models to clear speed bumps." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.107.247 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So, is anyone actually going to either object or make the change? Note to whoever locked the page: you're not improving Wikipedia by doing so unless you subsequently make it your business to apply edit requests. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Dave

If an article is semi-protected it usually means there's a lot of disruption (e.g. vandalism, bias or BLP issues) from IP editors. Getting rid of that is in my opinion a much bigger improvement than your edit request, which you could have done by yourself if you had created an account. Moreover, mortal users cannot protect pages, they can only request that an administrator do so. Expecting admins to watch for edit requests on every page they protect (which can run in the dozens each day) is of course completely ridiculous. But I digress...

Anyway, I'll have a look at it and make the change if I think it's appropriate. Feel free to leave a reminder at my talk page if after a couple of days nothing has happened.--Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 21:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. Can I just point out, I wasn't expecting immediate action, but this was waiting since March when, as you say, any logged-in user could have done it. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Dave

You're welcome and your input is certainly appreciated. I merely happened to come across your request because apparently somehow this article ended up on my watchlist, probably because I made some edit(s) to it some time in the past. --Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 23:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Chicago

I Changed the link from the City to the Band as it's named after them and not the windy city itself (Most of the original names are music related), I'm sure it's on the BBC site. Should it be linked at all though as linking it away in this case could be slightly confusing as I doubt the article linked mentions the corner (I Didn't read through the whole article on the Band Chicago.(Morcus (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Alice Cooper

Alice Cooper's time of 1:56.3 (wet and automatic) can be added to the Kia Cee'd leader-board — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frereleo (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Out of a desire for neatness, wouldn't it be better if this article was entitled something like "The Dunsfold Park Circuit" or whatever its' real name is which would provided a neutral point for the history and users outside of Top Gear, then a major section of the article could be devoted to the track's usage as the Top Gear Test Track....Just thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.63.2 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - it's only notable as the Top Gear test track. a_man_alone (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just thinking, would a redirect be an acceptable compromise? (provided that there is a reliable source to establish the exact name of the track) --Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 16:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to get the article clear of possible deletion, given the contention I've seen on the talk page over various topics related to Top Gear. Listing the track as a race track or test course open to paying users other than Top Gear lessens the contention over it. Also, its only called the Top Gear Test Track within the context of the show to dodge BBC guidelines on the overuse of brand names. The changes I've suggested would bring the article inline with many of other racetrack pages both in the US and other places, most of which are a lot less noteworthy. If there is category for test tracks, though these are mostly owned by car manufactures, this track should be included there instead of a racetrack category since it was specifically designed to test the abilities of cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.63.2 (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether other tracks are more or less noteworthy is (unfortunately) irrelevent - in this instance the track is singularly noteworthy for being the Top Gear test track. That doesn't mean it isn't used for other purposes, and by other people, (as it obviously is,) but that's all people know it as. a_man_alone (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the TGTT/Dunsfold Park circuit is largely not open to other users in practice, although it's not completely impossible. Firstly, it's a figure-of-eight, so you can only have one car on track at a time, so it's not used for trackdays or races. On top of that, I believe Dunsfold is limited in the number of days per year the track can be used (as a track), and TG takes up the vast majority of them. If I understand correctly, part of the circuit is still a working runway. Going by the official site (http://www.dunsfoldpark.com/track.html) I get the impression that the track is largely only used as a filming location. It's also possible, based on timings and unsourced, that TG actually created the track. Unlike other tracks, the main publicly known use of Dunsfold is as the TGTT. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Dave

Edit request from Maurice Yap, 26 August 2011

Remove 2nd and 3rd external sources. The 2nd one goes to a deleted page on the Top Gear website and the 3rd one goes to a now non-existent website.

85.210.57.129 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Assuming you were meaning the Maps Section. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from User:Aslaveofaudio, 29 August 2011

Per the 31 July 2011 episode of Top Gear (Season 17, Episode 06) the lap time for the Lotus T125 Exos was 1:03.8 and I would like to add this to the "Lap times of non-qualifying vehicles" section.

Aslaveofaudio (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, didn't see it there...but it does need to be reordered because the ranking doesn't match up with the descending lap times. Aslaveofaudio (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 02:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

New Stig

Do you think there should be an indication of which "Stig" set which time on the Power Lap board. Due to the Stig's anonymity, it's impossible to judge if any one "Stig" is/was a better driver than the other two. However, because there is a possibility the Stigs' driving abilities are different, I think it is worth noting.JakeH07 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It largely depends on the stance Wikipedia takes on the Stig - and I don't know what that is. There's no reliable evidence for the number of Stigs. Officially, it's three (not counting Schumacher), but there is plenty of evidence for multiple drivers representing each incarnation. I've even heard it suggested (unofficially) by Andy Wilman that the lawsuit against Ben Collins was just part of hiding the truth... :)

Anyway, if each incarnation of the Stig is considered separate, then the times should be listed by those. If we're trying to separate out the laps that were driven by different drivers, I suspect that's impossible. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Dave

Not only that, but it has been implied on occasion that, for insurance reasons or owner preference, the Stig we all know and love may not have been the driver anyway. As above - it's known for a fact that the FXX was driven by Schumacher, despite him wearing the Stig's gear. How many other times might the same have happened? Best to just leave it as "The Stig". a_man_alone (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving of the time boards

Might it be reasonable to have the time boards in an separate article just devoted to that? As is this article seems cluttered with them and discussion of the various caveats. Perhaps keep mention of record performances in this article and have the full listings and discussion moved to the new article page the likes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_Motor_Speedway_race_results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.20 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually!

It had REALLY appeared in FM4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.94.40.167 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Liana leaderboard

Over the past few days there have been some changes to the Liana leaderboard, with one of the changes reverted, the edit summary for the reversion stating "Times as shown and in the order as shown on the Top Gear website". When I checked the episodes, I found the reverted changes were actually reflecting what was shown in the episodes, so it appears that the website and the episodes have gotten out of sync somewhere. Because of this I went right back through all episodes to find correct figures, which are reflected below:

1:46.7 – Ellen MacArthur 1:46.9 – Jimmy Carr 1:47.1 – Simon Cowell 1:47.3 – Ronnie O'Sullivan 1:47.8 – Ian Wright 1:47.9 – Chris Evans 1:47.9 – Rory Bremner 1:48.0 – Trevor Eve 1:48.0 – Justin Hawkins 1:48.0 – Paul McKenna 1:48.0 – Jodie Kidd 1:48.0 – Jay Kay 1:48.0 – Patrick Kielty 1:48.6 – Rob Brydon 1:48.8 – Stephen Ladyman 1:49.0 – Neil Morrissey 1:49.7 – Roger Daltrey (mildly moist) 1:50.0 – Martin Clunes 1:50.0 – Jeremy Clarkson (with passengers) 1:50.0 – Lionel Richie 1:50.0 – Cliff Richard 1:50.0 – Patrick Stewart

1:50.0 – Jamie Oliver 1:50.0 – Gordon Ramsay 1:50.7 – David Walliams 1:51.0 – Ranulph Fiennes 1:51.1 – Timothy Spall 1:51.2 – Carol Vorderman (mildly moist) 1:51.3 – James Nesbitt 1:51.4 – Christian Slater 1:51.5 – Joanna Lumley 1:51.5 – Omid Djalili 1:51.5 – Sanjeev Bhaskar (wet) 1:52.0 – David Dimbleby 1:52.0 – Rick Parfitt 1:52.0 – Eddie Izzard 1:52.0 – Jordan 1:52.4 – Christopher Eccleston (automatic) 1:52.7 – Tim Rice 1:53.0 – Vinnie Jones 1:53.2 – Johnny Vaughan (with passenger Denise van Outen, originally 1:53.4) 1:53.3 – Fay Ripley (midly moist) 1:53.4 – Bill Bailey (wet) 1:53.5 – Jack Dee 1:54.0 – Steve Coogan (wet, originally stated to be 1:53)

1:54.0 – Ross Kemp (wet) 1:54.0 – Alan Davies (wet) 1:54.0 – Stephen Fry (moist) 1:54.0 – Tara Palmer-Tomkinson 1:54.0 – David Soul 1:54.0 – Rich Hall 1:54.0 – Martin Kemp (wet) 1:54.1 – Trinny Woodall (very wet, with passenger Susannah Constantine) 1:55.0 – Michael Gambon (wet) 1:55.4 – Geri Halliwell 1:55.7 – Susannah Constantine (very wet, with passenger Trinny Woodall) 1:56.0 – Boris Johnson 1:57.0 – Anne Robinson 1:57.0 – Jonathan Ross (penalised for cutting a corner) 1:57.1 – Davina McCall (very wet) 1:58.6 – Johnny Vegas (provisionally licensed) 2:01.0 – Harry Enfield 2:02.0 – Billy Baxter (blind man with Clarkson as passenger guide) 2:03.4 – Terry Wogan (originally listed as 2:04) 2:06.0 – Richard Whiteley

References

Interestingly, some of the figures were changed over time. For example, Terry Wogan's time was originally listed as 2:04, but was later changed to 2.03.4. I don't know why, but what the current version of the article reflects the times as they were announced and shown in each episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Something else that I found interesting was that over time, there was some re-ordering of names, and in some episodes some names had been removed from the board. For example, in one episode Susannah Constantine had been removed but was present in episodes before and after that one. Perhaps they were removed to make room. The list above represents the order gleaned from several episodes, starting at the most recent and working back through time, which was necessary because obviously they don't show every part of the leaderboard each episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Enstone

Cant think how at the moment, but surely this should be added to the article somewhere? http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/dec/04/broadcasting.bbc Narom (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"essential to interpreting the board."

I recently removed several irrelevant bits of trivia from the leaderboards, but was reverted. I contend that what is actually written on the "Star..." board is irrelevant, and constitutes trivia. What is relevant is the name of the person and the conditions. It is not relevant that Peta Todd is put on the board as "Peta 23 from Essex", or that the weather was described as "fucking wet". We are not here to act as interpreters between Clarksonese and English, we are here to report relevant facts. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Television episodes as aired are the primary method of reference for most readers so what happens in them is very relevant and is generally provided greater weight than other sources such as websites. This is a long standing consensus of the TV project. It's a core policy of Wikipedia that readers have to be able to verify everything added to Wikipedia and, in the case of TV programs, viewing the program in question is the quickest way of doing that. Where there is a difference between what is aired, and what is in an article, there has to be clear clarification of why the difference exists. When, for example, the board in the episode says "Peta 23 from Essex" and the article says "Peta Todd", or the board says "FW" and the article says "very very wet" it has to be made clear to readers that there is a reason for the difference. You're actually correct when you say we're not supposed to be interpreters. Strictly speaking, the article should reflect what was shown on air (i.e. the "relevant facts"), in which case the article would say "Peta 23 from Essex" and "FW". What we have in the article now is a common-sense compromise. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Map image PNG/SVG?

Shouldn't the PNG map image swapped with the SVG (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Gear_test_track-en.svg, or a segment of it) for better quality? 89.0.44.92 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire image is inappropriate for this article, as the article is specifically about the test track. As far as I'm aware, there is no cropped version of the image to use. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429091541/http://www.injection.tv:80/site.php?domain=uk to http://www.injection.tv/site.php?domain=uk

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Series 23 'Star in a Rallycross Car'

So I watched the first episode of the new Top Gear, and I am quite disappointed and annoyed at the changes made. But one of the most prominent changes, aside from Mr Shouty Man (Chris Evans), is the changes made to the track, for the now-offroading-centered Star in a Rallycross Car. I imagine that this page will have to have a lot of editing over the next few weeks, so I've kind of started the change already.

This is going to be a big editing project, I can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullian111 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601075912/http://www.topgear.com/us/assets/tracktimes.html to http://www.topgear.com/us/assets/tracktimes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131232117/http://www.skyboard.co.uk/Skyboard/Profile.html to http://www.skyboard.co.uk/Skyboard/Profile.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/prog1/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of stupid names of celebrities

The names of celebrities which were written on the board in show should not be included here as it just cruft and an in joke, which is unknown to those outside the world of Top Gear, it also detracts from the article meeting the Manual of Style and being Written in a neutral point of view. Sport and politics (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a few issues here. The most important is the issue of verifiability. The list here shows the correct names based on uncited content apparently from the Top Gear website, used to correct the entries that were shown on TV for the benefit of readers. A casual reader/watcher does not have access to that information, they only see what happens in the TV episode, which is a primary source. As such, it is not appropriate, per WP:PRIMARY to "re-interpret" what is seen on the episode. Technically, the names in the table should be as shown in the episodes ("Rich Tea" instead of "Lionel Richie", "Well spoken man" instead of "James Hewitt" etc.) and not as shown on an unidentified website that was not part of the aired episode. Similarly, when James Blunt appeared, neither "very wet" (your version, which was not correct) or even "very very wet" was written on the board. It was a wetter track than the "very wet" tracks that were shown previously so Clarkson wrote "FW" on the board to differentiate, so that is what should be shown. However, there is no context for "FW", which was not explained, so that requires an explanatory note. The list in this article is a compromise between confusing accuracy and something clearly more understandable by our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The above arguments are complete confusion and show limited understanding of portraying this information. Including in jokes of names of celebrities is a nonsense. This cannot be a facsimile or that would be a potential breach of BBC copyright. Including other things such as FW and alike, are more of the same in jokes. This article has to be neutral and not a progamme promotion or a facsilmile of the show as a whole. It should be noted that in interviews given by Clarkson on the subject of copyright, it is specifically discussed in relation to the BBC owning the intellectual property rights of handwritten lap times and another asserts the BBC rights over The Star in a Reasonably Priced Car, the Cool Wall, the Stig – all that had been left behind … and replaced with other stuff. The articles can be read in full here and here. Including this information in its verbatim format need careful consideration to avoid copyright issues. Sport and politics (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you're confused. The content in the table is based on what is shown in television episodes, which are primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That means that we really shouldn't be "correcting" the information at all without providing additional sources to verify those corrections. This means including entries like "15. 1:47.6 – 'Well spoken man'" because he was not actually identified as James Hewitt in the program. The addition of his actual name is really original research. Your perceived copyright problem is not a problem at all. Simply listing names is perfectly OK. WP:PRIMARY actually requires it as a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact". If you read the articles you linked to, you'll see the issue was handwritten lap times, because they might look too similar to Top Gear. There was no problem with actually having lap times. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed several years ago - at the time the leaderboard had literal descriptions, so listed "Well spoken man" instead of "James Hewitt", and Hewitt was listed as a note or addendum etc. I still think this is how it should be listed, as it is how the board is presented. However, after much argy-bargy - mostly by an editor who turned out to be a serial sock-puppeteer - we agreed that real names and notes was the way to go - which extended to things such as weather conditions and how the Stig should be identified. In short - I would be against removal of what is in reality valid information from the board. In this instance it is not cruft, but of actual relevance to the show (names) and statistics (weather conditions). Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough, a cogent point put forward by Chaheel. It all seems a bit well, odd. I think that the alternate names should be in footnotes, along with all of the other descriptors. FW though is just saying Fucking wet, and being euphemistic. Euphemisms should not be included as that s just a confusion. Sport and politics (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As Chaheel Riens wrote, the descriptors used to be literal, and "FW" is the literal descriptor. From what Clarkson mouthed, it actually means "flipping wet", not "fucking wet". That's the problem with interpretations and why WP:PRIMARY requires that we report what the primary source actually says, without any interpretation of what we think it meant. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Lotus Connection

The article currently leaves the impression, that Dunsfold Circuit had been some Lotus factory test track, before Top Gear started using it also. Jeremy Clarkson however claims that he had the idea of using some old airfield for Top Gear first, and after they had secured the use of Dunsfold "a Lotus test driver called Gavan Kershaw" laid out the course specifically for that purpose. BjKa (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)