Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Top Gear - originally a local show (for local people)?

"Top Gear started in 1977 and was hosted by BBC anchorwoman Angela Rippon, although the show was initially not networked throughout Britain."

So where was it shown originally? 217.155.20.163 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there is a programme "Top Gear" listed on Tyne Tees (i.e. ITV) 15:25-16:20 on Monday 18th April 1977. I presume this was some sort of children's programme?
Then on Tuesday 25th October 1977 on BBC1 Midlands 18:40-19:10 there was Top Gear Special. Not on BBC1 network or any other regions. Again on Friday 2nd December 1977 22:25 - 22:55 on BBC1 Midlands there was Top Gear. It seems to continue early evening on Tuesday and late evening on Friday (repeat?) though the searches might not be finding all occurrences. It would be logical for the programme to start on BBC in the Midlands with the car industry being centred around there (at least in those days). (All these references found in The Times Digital Archive) --jmb 10:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5367516.stm 'It began as a local show on BBC Midlands in 1977, presenting an uncomplicated look at motor cars and road safety issues. A year later, it transferred to national TV, with Angela Rippon as host in an attempt to broaden the programme's appeal to women.', which might also imply that Angela was not a host during its BBC Midlands days?

contradictions

some of the sections especially when talking about dates appears to contradict other parts of the article.--Lucy-marie 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples? --Zevensoft 23:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow either. I have removed the Template:Contradict, but feel free to readd it once you cite some examples. Until then I don't really see the point in having it on the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

R32

Could someone add info to distinguish the MkIV and MkV Golf R32 times on the table? I assume the faster one is the newer one? --81.105.251.160 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The slower time (1:33.3) is from series 1, episode 9. 12/22/2002

Power Lap

I wonder if the Board ws changed within Time, did some cars dissappear secretly? Ive seen an clip from 2002 Series1 Episode3 featuring the Westfield XTR2 doing the Powerlap in 1:22:60. Why was it deletet, and are other cars missing as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.235.244 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 1 September 2006

Yes, some of the cars were removed with (to my knowledge) no explanation... I believe it happened between series 1 and 2 though I can't remember for sure. - Blah3 10:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall them saying at some point that a car must be able to go over a speed hump to be allowed on the power lap board. Perhaps that's why the XTR2 was removed. 210.84.6.179 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote that those are added to the power lap section with a note mentioning when they disasspeared from the board. I have Season one/two and can easily freeze frame the cars and times. As the article has been flagged as too long perhaps we should move the power laps to a seperate article and include other information such as the fastest politial party/religion/etc and any other vehicle timed around the track.Sturmovik 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Free images on the commons

I uploaded some free use images to the commons. They are available at Commons:Category:Top Gear. They aren't the greatest images, but at least they are useful in that they aren't fair use like the images we have now. Image:Top gear toybota 2.jpg is probably the best of the pack. I wasn't really sure where to place the image, so maybe someone else will have a suggestion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing presenters

What about motorbike rider Steve Berry? Chubby-faced Tony Mason? And didn't Andy Wilman present for a bit? I'm a bit useless so don't know how to add them to the box at the bottom, so if somebody else wants to do that... Beanhead McGinty 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Kate Humble a presenter around 2000? Conflicting versions from different sources --jmb 10:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


My mistake. I didn't realise there was another page for the original format of Top Gear. Perhaps this should be made a bit clearer. Beanhead McGinty 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the article claims that James May was brought in following Jeremy's departure in 1999. As far as I know, he only became a presenter in the second series of the current format and was never involved in the old format apart from a member of the audience. Anyone beg to differ, and if the article is wrong to correct it? Muffin89 20:24, 19th February 2007 (GMT)

James may was in the old format around 1999 having moved from Driven.87.112.86.163 14:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do they change the winners of the races?

According to a Norwegain newspaper article (http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=131292) the car won the car vs. bob-sled race in Lillehammer, but was given status as the loser in the show.--84.48.210.51 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Original / modern format of the show

Why is Top Gear split into two sections; one referring to the original format of the show and another describing 2002 onwards? Surely it should all be on one page?

The current format of the programme really is noticeably different from the original (which evolved more into Fifth Gear on Channel 5). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.19.68 (talkcontribs) 15:42, 21 September 2006

because there is little to no difference between old and new top gear. the only common factor is cars but new top gear is studio based, wheras old top gear just showed a series of film segments from the presenters. Pratj 19:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lap times and Cool Wall

Does anyone else feel that the lap times and Cool Wall unneededly clutter up the article a bit? They really seem to break up any flow in the article. I know it's been mentioned a few times, but I'd like to bring back up the idea of moving them to a separate article. Not neccesserily three separate articles, but some kind of Top Gear stats article, or something to that effect. Or even just removing them altogether, and perhaps linking to the lists on the BBB site instead? Or, does anyone else have any other ideas? - Blah3 22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I like having the times on the wikipedia page.. Maybe some sort of table would organize things a bit..
I say link to the BBC tables. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep themn all they are valuable as they are an integral part of the show and would be a gross omission if removed. It would be like removing the stig because he just drives the cars and dosent actually present the show.--Lucy-marie 00:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I should clarify that I would only want to move/remove the tables themselves. General in formation about the segments is still needed, of course. - Blah3 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
who put that Pontiac Fiero in the sub-zero section? haha
I would strongly suggest having a regular segments page with full details all that data on, and just have a brief summary on the main page. The info pages on the BBC site are not complete according to past comments on the discussions for this page, so having it here does serve a purpose. I think it's also fairly clear that the 2 lap time features and the cool wall are regular segments in a way that "Presenter mocking" and "Caravan destruction" aren't so maybe we can try and make that clearer at the same time Jimbow25 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Most popular motoring song survey

The wikipedia page seems to be missing any mention of the "most popular motoring song survey" conducted a few seasons ago. That whole season had a lot of '"Meatloaf"' (the artist/band) bashing with the Queen song finally winning the survey. Distributed 08:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't consider it a notable part of the show. Perhaps others disagree though... - Blah3 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth adding a section on viewer polls, which could include this and the famous car restoration section.--Schaedenfreud82 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just had confirmation that Top Gear has been accepted into the nomination phase of the ICONS.org.uk project that hopes to compile a list of English Icons.

But for Top Gear to become a full icon people have to vote for it. You can do this by visiting the Top Gear Page on the icons.org.uk website [[1]]. I don't want to add this to the article (might be worth it if it does become an icon) but thought it worth posting here - I don't know how to create a new section on the discussions page. Upyourego 13:53, 20 November 2006 (GMT)

The Stig as a TG presenter

For the purposes of the Top Gear Wikipedia entries, should the Stig be considered a presenter of the show? While I know he is not a presenter in the usual sense, I feel an argument could be made that it could be a description of his role on the show. Furthermore, (and more importantly, IMO) he is credited as a presenter in every single episode of the show since its launch in the current format.

It is a minor detail, however it is probably worth some discussion as it has come up in past edits, and will again, I'm sure. - Blah3 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes he's credited as a presenter on the show's end titles, however no definition of "presenter" could extend to what he does. As well as being described as a presenter he's also given crazy introductions on every episode such as "Some say the outline of his left nipple is exactly the same shape as the Nürburgring". In my opinion his description as a presenter is as tongue in cheek as those. Important member of the crew? Yes. Presenter? No. An encyclopedia should contain facts, not be constrained by external conventions etc. Mark83 08:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, he's credited as a presenter in the edit credits (see thumbnail), BBC and Top Gear do it in their episodes, so your arguement is bunk. If it's good enough for the primary source of the info (The episodes itself), then it's good enough for me.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

why it is that there is trouble here? the BBC count him as a presenter, but because 1 idiot doesn't think so, the entry must be like this? his wiki entry says he is & the BBC say he is, i'm changing it again Shas'o sodit 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The stig appears in every single show. The stig Is referred to as a presenter by the BBC, in the episodes he presents the performance of the cars being driven round the track. Just because he doesn't say anything doesn't mean he isn't a presenter of the show. The stig as as much as presenter as the main three due to the reasons above.--Lucy-marie 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There were two reasons why I reverted Shas'o sodit's edit. Firstly (bearing in mind recent events here and his own particular edit history) it looked like he was trying to start an edit war. There really was no particular need to change the sentence, unless you wanted to create an issue out of it - and implementing the change three times suggests that you do want to make an issue out of it. But the main reason I reverted the change was because the sentence just flowed better as it was. As The Stig is the only one who has any kind of explanation to is role in the whow, the 'rhythm' of the sentence just seemed better the way it was. (Oh and Shas'o sodit, do try to be WP:CIVIL please.) DrFrench 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In no way whatsoever is he a presenter. It in tounge-in-cheek in the same way that TGD being a presenter is. If TGD can't be classed as a presenter, then The Stig certainly can't because he has never been introduced as a presenter whereas TGD was. Davesmith33 12:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very much like "If you won't let me have TGD, you can't have The Stig" - and that's bordering on WP:DISRUPT. DrFrench 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a load of old tosh. The Stig isn't a presenter and you know it. You're just using it as an excuse to carry on the dispute which started with TGD. Davesmith33 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

vandalism and edits by 293.xx.xxx.xx

DECEMBER 2006

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A vandal? I put the pov tag up because the fanboyismin is overkill and full off pointless trivia. Do we need 1000 about caravan destruction? or comments on every trivial comment the presenters make?

The Toyota page has a tag and is tidier and has better layout than this page.

Then per the tags itself, put down your reasons as to why the article is NPOV and needs a cleanup. Otherwise, I will consider it to be vandalism given you have not provided a reason.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Jay Leno

I read in the Sunday Times http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22750-2436052,00.html that the American TV presenter Jay Leno thinks that "Top Gear is the best motoring programme in the world". Worthy of a mention?


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.6.214 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

No, Leno is a comedian, not a television critic. I supposed it could loosely be argued otherwise, but that information is just too trivial to include. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long...again

48K.size.....starting to gather cruft....time to trim the fat a/or transfer stuff elsewhere.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone remember when topgear were going to repair a car. Every episode they showed an old car like james deans lotus and diannas range rover. Did they not repair the car?

Paddy Hopkirk's Mini was voted to be restored. But I think they lauched it from a ski-jump in the winter olymics special instead, though they don't say if it's the same mini.

^^^The Mini launched from the ramp was a late Mk5-6 shell, Hopkirks Mini is a MK1/2 with external door hinges. No one do that to such an important car!

Production section

Here's the original production section. I don't disagree in Slf67's removal of the section because in its current form it is rather redundant and is entirely unsourced. However, most FA relating to tv shows do mention production, so if this section could be reasonably expanded and sourced, it should probably be brought back back in.

The programme is filmed at the Dunsfold Park Aerodrome in Surrey. The studio is inside a hangar. The audience of up to 400 enthusiasts, who have applied to the BBC for free tickets, stand next to the presenters during the filming, allowing many opportunities for interaction. For the eighth series, the studio was remodelled, with more car-based props on display. The grounds of the airfield is used as the infamous Top Gear Test Track. Details of the layout can be found here.

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios?

(Note: I'm posting this here instead of the sub-articles as it seems a more centralised place for discussion.) The articles for celeb laps, the cool wall and the power laps are almost blatant copyvios of the BBC website here, here and here and should be removed and/or trimmed appropriately (and possibly have the histories deleted as well). Comments? Zunaid©® 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted on Wikipedia:Help desk) It looks like you're referring specifically to the tables of lap times copied from the BBC Top Gear pages (correct me if I'm wrong). IANAL, but those lap times are facts, which cannot be copyrighted. --Plek 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Xiner (talk, email) 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Section:'Races'

I feel this would be better as a standalone article with only a brief summary of the type of races that took place, not an entire list. What do you think? ncma 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, simply trim them down and leave the excessive detail out of the 'pedia entirely. The article as it stands currently is far too full of in-universe cruft which has no real-world significance. The article's focus should be on the program's real-world impact rather than focusing on in-universe detail. Wikipedia is not written "for fans, by fans" but rather with the general reader in mind. Zunaid©® 11:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Go for it! Myself and others have been trimming this fancruft-ridden article back for a few weeks - Races is the last section to go. --Steve (Slf67) talk 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed most examples, however left one of each type of race to increase understanding ncma 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

I added an episode section as there is a page with all episode details on it. I'm not sure if I have placed it in the right section or not. Samaster1991 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to the episode list in "See also", having a section just to have a link seems a bit overkill --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Top Gear Article Name Change

As there is an article about the original format of top gear; Top Gear (original format) is it not logical that the current Top Gear article should have its name changed to Top Gear (current format) and that the Top Gear article becomes a disambaguation page or a brief summary of both program formats ncma 17:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear makes more sense as Top Gear (new format) (or some variation) and making Top Gear a disambiguation page instead, but it is impractical. There are hundreds of articles (or more) that link to Top Gear, the vast majority referencing the current version, so all of those links would have to be updated. It isn't really worth the time in my opinion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
After reading the peer review, I can see how easily someone might be confused by how the article is presented. It would be possible to move the article to Top Gear (new format) and leave the redirect in place until all of the links could be fixed. Then we could let a bot or use AWB to fix all of the links on the other articles. The final step would be to delete the redirect on Top Gear and move the disambiguation page over it. It shouldn't be that much work now that I think of it. Anyone else have any opinion? It could probably be done in 30 minutes or less. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd also suggest that the title be something a little less ambiguous. "original format" doesn't disambiguate between a TV show, magazine, etc and it also doesn't really follow the MoS. Something like Top Gear (1977 TV programme) would probably be a little better. If someone decides to be bold and do this, we should probably make the changes late at night (American time) to limit the flood on WP:RC which is already swamped enough as it is during the day. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So we are proposing Top Gear (original format) moves to Top Gear (1977 TV programme), and Top Gear moves to Top Gear (2002 TV programme). My only comment is that this mildly suggests that the programmes only ran for one year each. But I think Top Gear (1977 to 2001 TV programme) is rather unwieldy, and Top Gear (2002 onwards TV programme) is clumsy. Any thoughts? --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the current Top Gear article should become "Top Gear{Current Format) to keep in line with Top Gear (original format) and the current disimbaguation page should remain. The Top Gear re-direct should be changed to redirect to Top Gear (Current Format) as that is where most links want to go,
Why are you spelling it "program"? -- Arwel (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the accepted American spelling - also acceptable in UK for comp apps (does it really matter anyway?)
I missed that I'd mixed the two! I'd probably go with programme for consistency; I belive the two are interchangable, but programme is the BBC's standard spelling. --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (Updated text above for consistency)
Yep, that is exactly my proposal Steve. The reasoning I thought that about only having the first year the show started listed, instead of the range is that I wasn't sure what to name the current version. My only concern about making the current version Top Gear (current format) is what to name it when the show ends (it would no longer be "current"). Also, there is always the potential for them to relaunch the show once more in the future, so using relative terms isn't the greatest idea, although that it something that we can deal with later if it ever happens. Hopefully someone will come up with a simpler solution. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I’m not sure calling it Top Gear (newer format) has resolved this issue, plus I don't think 'newer' constitutes correct use of the English language. Perhaps Top Gear (2002 format) would've been a wiser choice? ~~ Peteb16 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Top Gear (current format) would make a better title, in my opinion. — FireFox 21:05, 11 February 2007

Top Gear (newer format) looks horrible and is poor grammar. Newer than what? I would suggest Top Gear (1977-2001 TV series) and Top Gear (2002- TV series). The term "TV series" is consistent with other disambiguated titles (e.g. Firefly (TV series), Heroes (TV series)). If and when the new series ends the title can be updated with the closing year. Zunaid©® 08:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Would there be a problem with Top Gear (1977 format) and Top Gear (2002 format) as a compact way of differentiating the two. To me this looks nicely compact and, to me at least, doesn't imply that the programme lasted one year, merely that the format originated in that year. Its also expandable if the show ever reformats. --Neo 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Using the "format" disambig titles looks even better than my proposal. Per Proteus below though, this article should probably remain simply "Top Gear" with the others on the disambig page. Zunaid©® 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why on Earth has this article been disambiguated? Is the paragraph entitled "Primary topic" in WP:DAB written in invisible ink or something? Proteus (Talk) 12:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I persoanlly don't like newer format why not current format as the other article is called original format.--Lucy-marie 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am using AWB to change all entries of [[Top Gear]] to [[Top Gear (current format)|Top Gear]]. Then, if no one object, we can move Top Gear (disambiguation) to Top Gear. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I diagree with what's been done. Are we out on a 'let's make things as complicated as possible' drive? In my opinion by far and away this article is the most popular/significant Top Gear, hence it's title should be Top Gear. There should be a disambig link at the top Top Gear (disambiguation), with the remainder named with disambig titles; Top Gear (magazine), Top Gear (original format), etc. That not only is the most common sense thing to do, it's also suggested by WP policy. Mark83 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Multiple people have gotten confused on what exactly this article is about. When it was on Top Gear, people thought it was about both formats of the show and then complained that the article was way too weighted towards the new format. This misconception was reinforced because of how the history of the show is presented on Top Gear (current format) (I'm typing the article name out for the sake of clarity). Moving the article clarifies these issues. Even the big notice at the top of the article, explaining what the article was about wasn't enough. Granted it wasn't a lot of people who complained but I feel that not very much is being sacrificed for the return gain. Ease of use is sometimes more important than following guidelines. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is bizarre. Surely almost every person looking for Top Gear would be after this article? This article should be at Top Gear and the article which currently occupies that spot should be at Top Gear (disambiguation) with a mention at the top of this article. The (current format) way of doing things is confusing, unusual, complicated and surely against wiki policy (though in general I'm loath to quote that, since it's often a load of bollocks). Modest Genius talk 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Modest Genius 100%, it should have a link to a disambiguation page, and frankly, I do not find it easy to use with the current solution. I propose it's moved back and a disambiguation page created. --BMT 14:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I say just leave the name well alone do not go automatically to a disambiguation page that is stupid. I say this is the best comprimise solution out there. Please do not rock the boat.--Lucy-marie 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, I'm afraid, I don't quite get what you're saying. This IS a disambuation page in all but name, I am not suggesting redirecting to a disambiguation page, quite the opposite. --BMT 11:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As one of the original supporters of the move, I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article back to Top Gear. It was an experiment to clarify the article (people kept wondering why the article was so lopsided, favoring the new format, because they weren't aware of Top Gear (original format)). I am not sure if the move has helped to clarify this issue or not, so if there is a consensus to move it back, we can. Moving the article did have the benefit of forcing someone (me in this case) to check every link to Top Gear and redirect it to Top Gear (original format) as necessary. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps a solution would be to keep the articles where they are, to create a new page Top Gear (disambiguation), and include a disambiuation link in Top Gear (current format). Top Gear would redirect to Top Gear (current format) and then people would see the title, and the disambiguation link - surely that's enough for them to realise that there are two articles. This will bring the articles in line with Wikipedia's policy and make it easier for 9 out of 10 visitors to Top Gear --BMT 11:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Top Car Survey

There have been a number of edits to add the 2007 results to the list of Top Gear Survey results. The results announced in Feb 2007 were those for the 2006 survey, i.e. the survey that took place in 2006. The 2007 survey will presumably take place later in the year with the results announced in early 2008. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrFrench (talkcontribs) 11:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Starring Top Gear Dog, yay or nay?

I think it is time to come to a more definitive consensus on weather Top Gear Dog should be included in the starring list in the infobox and the Top Gear template. User:Davesmith33 argues in his latest edit summary that ""Top Gear Dog" is stated on the TG website as being a "star" of the show". I haven't verified this myself, but for the sake of argument, Top Gear Dog is not listed in the starring section of the ending credits. I don't really find this argument particularly strong one way or the other. I am not really sure how to quantify Top Gear Dog's notability in order to decide if she should be included in the starring lists. Google News brings up zero hits [2]. Google search fairs slightly better [3], but most either mention the name in passing, have her name in the current episode description or aren't reliable sources. Any opinions? Should TG Dog be listed in the infobox and the template? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The dog was introduced at the beginning of series 8 as a "new presenter", therefore she is a star of the show, albeit in a minor capacity. Davesmith33 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, not if she isn't listed in the credits. The Stig only made it into the infobox because he was listed as a presenter in the credits, and he has a far more important role in the show. --Scott Wilson 18:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The dog doesn't "present", it's a fancrufty in-joke --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scott Wilson and Steve. TGD is just an in-joke and thus merely deserves a passing mention, not crediting as a presenter.

DrFrench 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It says "Starring", not "presenters". Davesmith33 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but neither does the Top Gear Dog particularly star - she sort of floats about the set and occasionally gets taken out on location. If we were to include the Top Gear Dog, you could argue that we should also list all the other recurring people (the rocket group, for instance); they probably have as much influence on the show. --Scott Wilson 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a Co-Starring section then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davesmith33 (talkcontribs).

I disagree, for the reasons stated above by others. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose the removal of The Stig from the Starring section then, for the reasons stated above by others. Davesmith33 12:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has stated any reason on why the Stig should be removed. Seems like WP:POINT to me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Top gear dog hardly appeared in new series so I say nay. The stig should stay as he credited as a presenter in the credits and appears in every show.--Lucy-marie 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument is just a tad ridiculous. She is a dog. Not only does she not really present, she's only on air in brief for a few minutes each episode, if that. Just because they "introduced" her as a new presenter doesn't mean that she really is so. Since when did we take the TG blokes' words at face value? And TG isn't listed, for good reason, in the credits of the show. The Stig is, so any argument against him rather falls down easily. --Minervamoon 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The article will reach a quick fail right off the bat if the statements that are followed by citation needed tags don't have citations added to them. For now, you can remove the statements from the article to the talk page and readd them once you have sources. --Nehrams2020 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"How hard can it be?"

I have added a section on the How Hard Can It Be challenges, if you wish to edit these, do so at your will but mleave me a message first. 1B6 12:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have occasionally heard the presenters use the words "how hard can it be" but I think it is misleading to say that this is the name of the segment. And why do we have to leave you a message before editing this - by adding content you agree that it can be freely edited. It says at the bottom of every edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Halsteadk 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


This section should be removed as it is not a recognised feature in the how. The News section is legitimate, but this is not. The fact that the presenters say it - incidentally, they don't it's just Clarkson - is not reason enough.

This phrase is just Jeremy's way of linking the item.

Hurrah! :-) Halsteadk 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not enough mention of Top Gear Dog + too much vandalism when it is mentioned

Surely such an integral part of the programme deserves more of a mention, yet the slightest mention of the dog results in childish vandalism from right honourable members? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davesmith33 (talkcontribs).

Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean it is vandalism. Please take a look at WP:VAND. Don't readd Top Gear Dog to the infobox. There is zero consensus for it to be included. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The first line of that article states: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.", i.e. in this instance, the removal of an integral part of the programme. Davesmith33 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TDG is a short-lived in-joke, not "an integral part if the programme". TDG is not notable in its own right (as evidenced by the deletion for the TDG article). Quite honestly, your claim that removing TDG from the list of presenters can be categorised as vandalism is spurious and bordering on laughable. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia not a fansite - and the consensus of this page's editors is that TDG does not deserve anything more than a passing mention in the body of the article. DrFrench 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough that is your point of view, but she was introduced as a, and I quote, "NEW PRESENTER". Therefore if a presenter is not an integral part of a programme, then I don't know what is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davesmith33 (talkcontribs).

Content disputes aren't vandalism as it isn't a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Also, please start signing your comments with ~~~~. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that I largely approve of the current version - (I'm looking at [4] ) - TGD isn't listed as a presenter, but is mentioned in the specifics of the new format (akthough I'd get rid of the 'only appeared twice in season nine' bit). If her (?) role expands or continues in the programme then we can always reconsider, and add more. Contrarily we can drop the reference if she fails to appear again. --Neo 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, have we reached a possible consensus? :) Davesmith33 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No. This version is favored by myself. It is neutral, short and to the point. The extra detail doesn't belong in the article and even though I concede that there are many other details that also need to be trimmed in this article, that doesn't mean this is ok to include. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is wrong with this statement: "Richard Hammond introduced a new "presenter" at the start of Series 8, a female Labradoodle named "Top Gear Dog", who is susceptible to motion sickness. However, she only appeared twice in Series 9."? Davesmith33 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, DrFrench can you please refrain from constantly undoing people's edits without first discussing them here on the talk page. I see you have already been temporarily banned for such actions. Davesmith33 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it doesn't belong in the article. The show never refers to or treats TG Dog as a presenter, except for her initial introduction over a year ago. Many things said on Top Gear are in jest and are so incredibly minor and should not be included. What does the reader gain by knowing that TG Dog was introduced as a "presenter?" It is trivia at best and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to ask that everyone stop edit warring over this. There have been 7 reverts in the last 25 hours (unfortunately I made one of them). Obviously it is not solving anything by continuing to go back and forth. Lets just discuss it once more. It worked for the infobox and it can't really hurt to try it for this (although it is basically the same issue). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, TGD isn't given enough of a mention in this article. Whenever anything is written about her, all hell breaks loose because she is classed as a minor part of the show. That may well be true, but the full Top Gear Dog article was deleted and links forwarded to the main TG page. The problems arose at that point. The full TGD article was written by someone who obviously didn't have a very good understanding of English and it was a mess. Instead of it being allowed to be edited (which I had begun to do), it was already too late and was subsequently deleted. I propose the re-introduction of a Top Gear Dog article where everything about the dog, however minor, can be written without upsetting those on the main TG page. That would then do-away with the need for a more detailed description of TGD cluttering up the main page.

Secondly, TGD was introduced as a presenter, this is an encyclopedia and is therefore a place for facts. Whether that be on the main TG page or a seperate TGD article it doesn't matter. "The bottom line is that it doesn't belong in the article." - which is why I'm proposing a seperate article. Davesmith33 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely not deleted for being poorly written. While one recreated version was horribly written, that wasn't the case for why it was nominated for deletion. It was deleted because it lacked notability. Unless you can cite references and make some claim for notability, the article will probably just end up being deleted once more.
Again, trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just because something is true, it doesn't mean that it belongs. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give in. The "presenter" section has been removed from the main article and now a seperate article for Top gear dog has been created detailing the history of the dog. :) Davesmith33 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon Bentley

As most of the information in this article is trivial, I suggest it be considered for removal from the Top Gear infobox, there is less information there than, for example, in the Top Gear Dog article which was deleted. Davesmith33 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like another attempt at WP:DISRUPT to me. DrFrench 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are very good at that sort of thing, French. Davesmith33 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed: Extensive notes

After reviewing the article, and comparing it to the good article criteria found at WP:WIAGA, I have unfortunately had to fail it for GA status. The reasons why are:

  • Referencing: The article has many sections that are currently unreferenced. Most egregious is the insufficient referencing of the History section. How Hard Can it Be is also unreferenced. Top Gear Survey is also unreferenced. The Cool Wall is unreferenced. As well, there are some references in plain html format without ref tags. These need to be fixed for consistency. Also, there are fact tags in a few places, a sure sign of a quick-fail.
  • Unneccesary trivia. Listing every instance of a segment, such as How Hard Can it Be, is probably an egregious amount of trivia. A review of the segment format, with some cursory examples would be better.
  • Style. The title seems a bit confusing to me. Perhaps naming the two articles: Top Gear (1977-2001) and Top Gear (2002- ) may be better. This is even how they are refered to in the navbox at the bottom.

This article is a good start, but still needs the work I have noted above before it is GA ready. Please feel free to renominate it when the above changes are made. If you have any questions, please drip a note at my talk page. Good luck, and happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jay, I have to agree with your comments on this, the referencing thing is a major problem on these Top Gear related pages, I had to go through and add the unreferenced bar to at least half a dozen pages today within this section, although strangely not Top Gear Dog, which although fully referenced was vandalised by our friend User:DrFrench. The referencing added today to the Jon_Bentley_(TV_presenter) page is pathetic and is just a blatant excuse to avoid it being AfD'd. At that rate, there's no wonder this article failed the good article criteria especially when some of the best parts of the Top Gear section are unnecessarily vandalised, aka deleted by biased admin. Davesmith33 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Stig doesn't present

The Stig can't be classed as a presenter. If Top Gear Dog, who let's not forget was actually introduced as, quote - "a new presenter", can't be included in the list, then The Stig sure as hell can't. I propose an "Also Starring:" section. Davesmith33 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit disrupting to make your point. We've done this argument to death. We've gone through this argument a full two times in the last week, do we really need to do it again? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No I certainly don't want to revisit old ground The stig stays he is accredited as a presenter and appears in every show "presenting" the performance of the cars doing laps around the track.--Lucy-marie 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I found a page about Top Gear affecting car sales. Not sure if it can be used as a citation though. http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?cityroverstoryf.htm The other story I can think of is the sales slump of the Ford Ka when Clarkson referred to it as "like a particularly ugly frog".

While we are talking about references, there are a number of pages under the TG umbrella that are totally unreferenced. Can someone tidy these up please, if not I will propse an AfD nomination. Davesmith33 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you tidy them up then? Constructive editing is always welcomed. DrFrench 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done, by adding the relevent bar at the top of each page stating they are unreferenced. Davesmith33 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear Dog Consensus

There is no longer a consensus that TGD is not a presenter as somebody called Ferrari2503 (rightfully) added her back in this morning. Therefore, as stated on WP:CON, the "Silence equals consent" rule, which "is the ultimate measure of consensus" no longer applies as I far as I can see. Davesmith33 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that editor has made less than 20 edits to the entire project, and adding the dog was their first and only edit to TG. I suspect that person had not participated or even viewed the prior, extensive discussions on the dog and saw that consensus was indeed reached. So, in summary, "drive by" editors do not change consensus. --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because a "majority" of editors feel TGD is not a presenter, that doesn't make it right or indeed, a "consensus". This is an encyclopedia and should state facts, not what the most of the editors see as facts. The point is still that the Top Gear article fails to list one of the shows presenters, just because a few people - namely, Stephen, DrFrench and PS2pcGAMER wrongly think otherwise. Davesmith33 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "Presenters" to "Starring". Obviously Stiggy belongs in the infobox. Whether he is a presenter or not is debatable, but the show definitely stars the Stig. Dave, either way, TG Dog is not a presenter and does not starring in the show. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Dave, a fact is not necessarlly notable enough to warrant inclusion in an enyclopaedia. That I like the occasional pint of Guinness is a fact - however it is not notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. In any event, TGD being a presenter is not a fact... it's just a joke. So please stop asking the other parent. If you still disagree and want to push your POV, then you might wish to consider taking it to some form of dispute resolution. However this is not an action to be taken lightly, as going down the WP:RFC route will also involve discussion of your disruptive editing across a range of Top Gear related articles lately. DrFrench 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Or how about I propose another AfD across the entire range of TG articles based on statements of facts being removed constantly? Davesmith33 09:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT. They would all end with speedy keep as that is not a deletion criterion. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find it is as vital information is deliberately being kept from the public just to please a certain minority's agenda. Instead of removing perfectly legitimate related links, why not start adding some references to the other articles on that infobox, again before they are nominated for deletion because they are not sourced whatsoever? Davesmith33 11:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There really is no pleasing you is there? You put an AFD on the Jon Bentley article because you claimed it was unreferenced, yet you add unreferenced material to the same article [5] claiming that 'references are nothing'. Which is it Dave? You can't have it both ways. Oh and do remember that admins aren't stupid, they can tell the difference between a notable fact and inconsequential trivia. TGD is the latter. I really think it's time for you to 'put up or shut up'. Please, take all your grievances to WP:RFC - but be prepared to accept the consequences, as they will also examine your behaviour and disruptive editing. DrFrench 00:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see 2 more contributors (Special:Contributions/Shas'o_sodit and Special:Contributions/80.177.124.148) have tried to add more information to the TGD section, and yet again, a series of aggressive responses have come back from 1 of the 3 editors mentioned above. There is certainly no longer a consensus with regards to status of TGD. So I therefore ask for comments from OTHER users, i.e. not Stephen, DrFrench and PS2pcGAMER, on what their comments are with regards to TGD, so that we can get a balanced view of the situation. The aggressive edit-warring of these users - which incidentally appears now to have spread to Sabine Schmitz and Jon Bentley, is totally uncalled for and is blatant vandalism. Davesmith33 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording to say "At the beginning of Series 8, Hammond introduced a female Labradoodle, the Top Gear Dog. However, she was not featured regularly in series 9." This was an attempt to make it a fancruft-free neutral statement, as there was confusion as to how many times she was featured in series 9. Please explain what part of this constitutes vandalism? DrFrench 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read my last comments carefully, I state that there is no longer a consensus with regards to TGD. Your vandalism of this has now moved to Jon Bentley and more recently Sabine Schmitz' inclusion on the infobox. Davesmith33 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And one of the ways that consensus work is by trying a different wording - a compromise - that everyone can live with. So I ask you again, please indicate which part of "At the beginning of Series 8, Hammond introduced a female Labradoodle, the Top Gear Dog. However, she was not featured regularly in series 9." is vandalism, otherwise I politely request that you withdraw the comment. DrFrench 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave this for the arbitration proceedings. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bullying_and_Victimisation_against_Davesmith33 Davesmith33 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that this arbitration case was rejected and deleted. --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...the decision will be appealed. Davesmith33 08:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Davesmith33 has added TGD back to the infobox again, claiming there is no consensus for it to be excluded. I think there is plenty of consensus to exclude TGD. As previously stated on numerous occasions, TGD is neither as presenter or a star... just a short-lived in-joke. DrFrench 15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, if you actually read what I said, that was when the infobox listed the presenters. PSP2pcGAMER recently changed it to "Starring", becuase The Stig doesn't present. TGD is a star of the show, therefore for you to remove it, another conensus would be required which it currently doesn't so it shall remain. Davesmith33 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have a reliable source that Top Dog is a Top Gear presenter, SqueakBox 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, of note Dave is also edit warring here about a "co-starring" param. Matthew 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just put Clarkson, May and Hammond as presenters and The Stig and/or TGD as Starring. AxG ҈ talkguests 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the section Starring Top Gear Dog, yay or nay? There is no consensus for TGD to be included as a presenter, star or co-star. Raising the subject again merely appears to be 'asking the other parent' and bordering on disruptive editing. I'm not sure why you want to start another round of unpleasantness over this. Please don't. Nobody enjoys it. Do take on board the comments made by some members of the ArbCom that your behaviour was a "cause for concern". If you can work out why they said that and change your actions accordingy, you will soon become a respected and valued editor. If you do not, you will win no friends and you will find people scrutinising your actions more closely, suffer frequent blocks and eventually face the possibility of an indefinite ban - and nobody wants that to happen. (Some comments above have been copied from Davesmith33's talk page which he removed.) DrFrench 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It is just a joke to put TGD on the same level as The Stig, and this would give a completely false impression of the relative importance of the two to anyone reading this article who isn't familiar with TG. Can I put this in the context that this article is meant to be encyclopedic, and is primarily written for the education of people who do not know about the subject, not for the entertainment of a few fans of the show. The Stig has appeared in every episode, TGD appeared briefly in each(?) episode of the 8th series, and briefly in 2/3 episodes of the 9th (and would probably have gone unnoticed if there had been no appearance at all). I'm not sure TGD had an essential role in any of its appearances, but the Stig is clearly central to the significant parts of the show he is involved in. Halsteadk 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
With a good secondary source I would fully support Top Dog's inclusion but not otherwise, SqueakBox 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can I put this in the context that this article is meant to be encyclopedic" - yes, so how can the blatant removal/misrepresentation of factual information form the article be in the interests of the project? Example 1: TGD was introduced as a presenter, why isn't she listed as such?. Example 2: Sabine Schmitz being removed from the related articles section of the infobox. Example 3: The Stig being classed as a "presenter"........and so on. Davesmith33 16:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is getting rather bored going over and over and over the same ground repeatedly. I'll repeat what I wrote on 2007-04-05... "Dave, a fact is not necessarlly notable enough to warrant inclusion in an enyclopaedia. That I like the occasional pint of Guinness is a fact - however it is not notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. In any event, TGD being a presenter is not a fact... it's just a joke. So please stop asking the other parent." Surely you can tell the difference betweeen an encyclopaedic fact and a joke? DrFrench 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but it is upto the reader to decide for themselves whether it is of note, or not - it is not up to you, me or anybody else. If it is fact, it should be included. Davesmith33 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTE would tend to disagree with you. DrFrench 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have an episode of Series 8 to hand, but I have several from Series 4-7. The end credits list The Stig under "Presented by". FACT: The Stig is classed as a "presenter" by the show and no-one here has the right to disagree. Could someone with time on their hands please check whether TGD is listed with the other presenters in Series 8 (not just episode 1 as it's conceivable she'd be listed as a joke) - if she's not listed at all then it's not a fact, notable or otherwise. Halsteadk 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TGD has never been listed in the ending credits to my knowledge. The only people who have ever changed Top Gear Dog to a presenter/star are Davesmith and the occasional IP/newbie edit. To my knowledge, only two people (at most) have ever voiced support for including TGD as a presenter here on the talk page. The overwhelming consensus is to exclude her. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All please refer to "In Summary" section below. Halsteadk 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit by User:Shas'o sodit

Yes, I did watch the show. But you might want to think of an alternative way of phrasing whatever it is you're trying to say. At the moment it really does not make any sense whatsoever. Also consider whether this information needs to be added to the article at all. The information that was previously there was probably adequate for an encyclopaedic reference. If you're adding an opinion it will doubtless get removed in time anyway. DrFrench 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Have re-worded the user's contribution a bit. Fairly sure this is how it was portrayed in the show, so it's not POV. Halsteadk 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

This is a note for Davesmith33. I'm postng this message here so that it will be seen by others. There seems little point in posting it to your talk page as you'll just blank it (again).

Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Trying to enter contentious information (as you did here) and pass it of as a 'typo' is simply dishonest. DrFrench 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabine Schmitz

Why has all mention of Sabine Schmitz been removed from the main article? Davesmith33 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably because she isn't deemed important enough to the development of the programme as a whole to warrant a mention. Remember this is an encyclopaedia not a fansite. DrFrench 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. "An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". Can you explain the process of who decides what is "important to the development of the programme"? I didn't know it was you French who was in charge of such matters. I'd particularly like to know how YOU have decided Schmitz is inferior to Jon Bentley in the running order of such matters. I shall be writing and addition to the Top Gear article later relating to Schmitz and her role in the programme - I take it you will have your delete button to the ready? Davesmith33 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There has to be some limit - you wouldn't record the shirts that the presenters all wear in each episode, for instance. In the programme, she is just treated as a recurring guest, so I would say that she doesn't really deserve much of a mention. Stephenb (Talk) 17:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Dave you have to balance that with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE which says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I've never said that I was "in charge of such matters", but to be honest I would have thought it not that difficult to discriminate between relevant encyclopaedic information and mere trivia. Who do you think has had more influence on the direction and development of the show? The person who was the producer and editor for more than a decade and is credited with hiring Jeremy Clarkson? Or someone who has appeared in a couple of features across two episodes. For what it's worth, I certainly don't have any objection in principle to Sabine being given a brief mention somewhere. A suitably-worded sentence in order to provide a wikilink to her own article doesn't seem unreasonable. However, you might want to consider if it's more suitable for inclusion in the relevant episode guide rather than the main article. I do not think she is important enough to be included in the Top Gear infobox. DrFrench 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to add that challenging other editors in that manner (e.g. implying that you're going to add something contentious to an article merely to provoke an edit war) is another clear example of WP:DISRUPT. However, it seems Davesmith33 has been blocked for a week, following a dispute with some Admins over the content of his talk page. DrFrench 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Sabine Schmidt - at least get the woman's name right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.218.205 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 18 April 2007

Somewhat confusingly there were two separate articles; Sabine Schmitz created on 31 July 2005 and Sabine Schmidt created on 28 March 2007. The latter was changed to a redirect to the former on 1 April 2007 by Davesmith33. If you know which is the correct spelling (and preferably have a properly sourced reference to support it, thus avoiding another edit war) then please correct the articles accordingly. DrFrench 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we have it right. "Sabine Schmidt" doesn't really bring up anything useful on google.de. However, "Sabine Schmitz" brings up this and this. de-wp also spells it the same way we do. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In summary

Clarkson, May, Hammond, The Stig are presenters. The dog isn't. Consensus? --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right time to end this ridiculous(!) discussion, although it's a bit of a shame the original advocate is now blocked from editing so can't take part. TGD is indisputably NOT classed as a "presenter" (regardless of a dog's ability to present). The precise words used by Clarkson to introduce the dog were, "We realised that after 3 years we had to make some changes to keep the show fresh and to keep it exciting - so... we've got ourselves... a dog!". At no point is the dog introduced as a "presenter" and she is not listed in the credits. In fact Hammond admits they don't know what to do with her now they've got her. Halsteadk 12:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well if we're putting this to bed how can The Stig be classed as a presenter? He most clearly is not a presenter, he is a co-star. Davesmith33 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of discussion on this page to support the view that The Stig should be classed as a presenter - here, and here. The Stig is credited as a presenter in the end credits. By your own rules, that fact alone means he should be included as a presenter. I would have hoped that after your week's cooling-off period you would have thought better than start this again - please consider your actions carefully before starting another edit war. DrFrench 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because "The Stig" does not speak that doesn't mean he doesn't present. As the article presenter states: "A television presenter is a British term for a person who introduces or hosts television programmes", now I don't watch this show... but are you trying to tell me he doesn't really host the fast car bit? Matthew 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So any further changes to their status must be attributed with a reference to a verifiable source. That should cut down on the edit wars! --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarkson DID NOT even introduce TGD so that is pure nonsense from Halsteadk. I've just got a recording out and it was Hammond who "introduced" the dog stating that she was a "new presenter". The Stig doesn't host anything, he drives - even 'the fast car bit'. Davesmith33 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me??!?! I typed that whilst watching the first minute of series 8 episode 1, typing as Clarkson spoke his line, and then watched through the series 1 preview to the first item several times!! Those were the precise words used by him, before Hammond walked the dog on and then talked about its breed ("she's fantastic, she is a labradoodle..."), name, the fact they don't know what to do with her, and that she doesn't like cars or James May. No-one at any point used any form of the word "presenter" or, come to it, indicated that the dog would take any further part. Episode ref and timing please if you're going to accuse me of talking "pure nonsense", and perhaps you'd like to type out word for word what you "heard" as I'm not going to type any more proving he didn't. Give it up Dave, you have shown a blatant disregard for any fact put in front of you as the discussions on this page prove. Halsteadk 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's quite simple - watch the credits on Top Gear (here's a screenshot). It says "Presented by Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, James May and The Stig". I don't see how there can be any argument on this - The Stig is a presenter, end of story. QmunkE 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for jumping in front of your comment, but I had to respond to him personally. (I bet he's a researcher on the show, couldn't care less really, is just here to wind everyone up, and we're all going to be in trouble in Series 10!) Halsteadk 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's not end of story. That is TOUNGE IN CHEEK in the same way Top Gear Dog being introduced as a presenter was. Try reading Presenter, it states that a "presenter is a person or organization responsible for running an event" and a television presenter is "a person who introduces or hosts television programmes.". The Stig does not host the programme, he is an integral part of the programme, but he is not a presenter. He stars in the programme, but he is not a presenter. The infobox should be changed to "Starring". Davesmith33 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The programme credits are a reliable source for information - they state he is a presenter. It is not up to you to decide what his role is unless you can come up with a source which supports your assertion that The Stig is not a presenter. If you continue to edit war the article on this point I'm sure you'll be blocked again soon enough.QmunkE 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you've made changes to Template:Top Gear info. Even though the current content was arrived at by consensus, you have decided to change the content without discussing it first, when you know that such a controversial edit is going to be reverted. This seems to be an attempt to provoke an edit war again. You have the opportunity to undo your edit, otherwise you are likely to come to the attention of Admins once more, which (unfortunately) is bound to end up with you being blocked again. I urge you to consider your actions very carefully - is this really what you want? DrFrench 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed out part of the quote:

Clarkson: "We realised that after 3 years we had to make some changes to keep the show fresh and to keep it exciting - so... we've got ourselves... a dog!".
Hammond then brings the dog onto the stage.
Hammond: "Yes, please welcome our new presenter. She's fantastic, she is a labradoodle and we call her Top Gear Dog..."
Then they refer to her not liking May, not knowing what to do, etc.

Facts are being deliberately left out to prove a point - PATHETIC. Why not upload a clip of it to youtube then to put an end to all this (I'm unable to because I don't have the right equipment). Davesmith33 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what is said - [6] - Season 8 episode 1. At no point in the introduction is the word presenter used. Here's what is actually said:
Clarkson:"We realised that after 3 years we had to make some changes to keep the show fresh and to keep it exciting - so... we've got ourselves... a dog!".
Hammond:"Yeah, good girl. Yeah. She's fantastic, she is a labradoodle, so she's part labrador and part poodle."
Enough? QmunkE 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an encylopedia that is supposed to state FACTS. Davesmith33 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch the video - you'll hear that the above transcript is absolutely correct - and at no point is TGD named as a presenter. Fact. User:...adam... (131.111.244.234 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
I just watched the clip and I agree with QmunkE's transcript. I did not hear the word presenter used at all. Davesmith33, you have made some rather unpleasant accusations about other editors recently. I hope you are man enough to apologise to them (either here or on their talk pages) so we can all drop this topic and move on to something more constructive. DrFrench 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with all above, thankyou QmunkE, that is exactly as I heard it. I was man enough to go back to my recording and listen to it over several times (again) in case I had missed it, and would happily stick my hands up and admit if I was wrong. As 3 people have agreed with my original post, it's now time for you to admit either you got it wrong or are lying. And why should we illegally upload it to prove the facts - you would only claim it had been doctored anyway (as Hammond's face isn't initially visible so it would be trivial to dub the words out). It is interesting that your initial response to me was that I had talked nonsense as Clarkson had not introduced the dog - however, you then quoted back to me the same words from him I quoted!! You also completely made up how they announced the dog's name as they went on about how ingenius it was initially. Halsteadk 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
PS, I would like to revoke my original comment in this discussion. Well part of it. Frankly it is a shame you're now unblocked and able to take part, and the peace and quiet here has gone. However, I don't believe in deleting content from talk pages (ahem) so I will leave it there.Halsteadk 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Add another who took time to listen to the video and heard absolutely no mention of the word presenter in Hammond's dog introduction. Dave, what were you listening to? --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also watched this episode and agree that not once did either Hammond or Clarkson mention the word "presenter" in reference to the dog. Twingoman 05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that User:Davesmith33 has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. It's a pity it comes to that but he was clearly being wilfully disruptive and, recently, even abusive.Halsteadk 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Running gags

This entire section is unreferenced and is original research. Unless we can find a reliable, 3rd party source where all these "gags' are mentioned it should be removed. --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this - there are also some misleading statements, eg Hammond - apparently he denies his teeth were "capped", I have never heard this word used; the article says he got his nickname due to his name, stature and eating cardboard - wrong, he had his name long before he showed his cardboard-eating habits; only Clarkson calls him that - actually I'm sure May has too, and as they are the only others who speak (well the Stig can't, so unless TGD becomes a presenter...) doesn't that mean everyone calls him it then?? It all reads like fan-talk to me, only some of it has clearly not been written by long-standing fans. (EDIT:) And more, James May is emphasised not to have any speeding tickets - I don't remember that specifically but Clarkson has regularly mentioned on the show and elsewhere that he has none, eg when Stephen Ladyman was a guest, so the point is irrelevant to James's nickname. Can't see anything of value here. Halsteadk 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No-one seemed to have any objections, nor were any references added, so I have removed this section --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

as he is not the biggest person in the world

I don't think this is an encyclopaedic phrase. Also, it is missing a full stop. Smonnie 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture in The Sun

Quote from the article:

"Clarkson was deemed the winner as he got one photograph of his celebrity
into the papers, although, as his co-presenters pointed out, the image appeared as part of Clarkson's own 

newspaper column in The Sun." I was under the influence that Clarkson wrote for The Sunday Times, and has ridiculed The Sun many times. I'm either confused or wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by To Kick Ass and Chew Gum (talkcontribs).

Clarkson has written for both. See this. Clarkson is mentioned in the browser's title bar. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

British Amateur Rocket Society

Although the BBC site credits the British Amateur Rocket Society for the Top Gear "space shuttle" launch, I can't find any reference to an organization with that exact name. Although I can't find a BARS, I can find a number of similarly-named organizations: see http://www.ukra.org.uk/links/view/all/1

Several web sources suggest that a company called RocketMen Ltd was responsible for the engineering on the project, together with the Bristol UWE engineering department (who are clearly identified in the show). See [7] [8] Further Googling brings up two names repeatedly: Damian Hall and Colin Rowe, who seem to be associated both with UKRA and the mysterious RocketMen Ltd. for details. -- Karada 08:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Speed Kills"

When (the obviously alive) Hammond returned to the show, Clarkson, sitting beside him, signed off saying something about the lesson they had learned from the accident: "Speed kills"

Of course this was a dig at the "haters", and it seems worth of a mention in the article because:

A/ it's possibly an illustration of the irreverent style of the show,

and

B/ it also serves as a kind of succinct and distilled riposte to the "health and safety" or general "killjoy" type critics of it.

Just an idea.

Comedy Moments (Or whatever name maybe)

I'm thinking that maybe there should be a section for hillarious moments or great quotes from Top Gear?

I can only remember the one where Hammond was having such a great time he shouted "I am a driving God!" which May and Clarkson ridiculed greatly.

I'm sure there are much more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.17.86 (talk) 23:43UTC, 12 June 2007

There's already a page on Wikiquote for Top Gear (see here). That would seems a better place for large numbers of 'great quotes'. DrFrench 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I have a suspicion that this was a race to the North Magnetic Pole, not to the North Pole (see e.g. http://www.polar-challenge.com/). That's a totally different location. The on-screen SatNav coordinates when they were supposedly at the North Pole were nowhere near the 90 deg. North it should have been, and the stated distance of 400 miles from Resolute just doesn't stack up either. "North Pole" by itself does not by any stretch of the imagination mean North Magnetic Pole, so something is wrong with this story somewhere.

In fact, since writing the above I've just found that the coordinates displayed on their SatNav at the "Pole", which I noted down, are the coords that the Polar Race people use for the North Magnetic Pole (see http://polarrace.com/about/faq/). So, unless anyone has any other thoughts, that seems pretty conclusive.

  • I agree with you. Clarkson also states that Resolute was the Northernmost settlement when it clearly isn't (two places in Norway and Alert are much closer to the real pole). This was clearly done as part of the Polar challenge events where support infrastructure was in place to make sure the presenters and the film crew could get up and back w/o getting stranded or turning into blocks of ice.Sturmovik 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarkson said that Resolute is the most northerly town in Canada not the world ExoWraith 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They set their Sat Nav to the wrong location. They went to 78°35'7"N, 104°11'9"W (which is 78°35'11.7"N, 104°11'15"W) when they should have gone to 78°35.7′N, 104°11.9′W (which is 78°35'42"N, 104°11'54"W). Looks like about 1km using google maps. I'm surprised at James May, he's normally very pedantic about such things. Anon user 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

78 degrees north is where the magnetic north pole was ten years ago in 1997. It is now around 82 to 83 degrees north. They were around 250 miles away from the position of the magnetic north pole at the time the programme was made and around 800 miles away from the position of the geographic north pole. In fact they were still somewhere in northern Canada. If they had driven to the geographic north pole where Lewis Gordon Pugh was able to swim because the ice was melted on 15 July 2007, they would have needed to take underwater breathing gear. So much for their school boyish attempt to undermine the serious warnings about climate change.

Anti-Americanism

Perhaps it's just myself, but often I have seen that the hosts of Top Gear seemingly go out of their way to bash Americans and perpetuate American stereotypes. Have there been any complaints against the show for this? --Sturmwehr 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any complaints - however I would say that the Anti-Americanism does seem to come pretty much solely from Jeremy - who echoes these views in his books. Reference the "Amphibious Cars" episode where he stated that his outbound motor that weighed 600 pounds was the "equivilant to having a whole American sat on the back". I will try to find a source with info on complaints (as Top Gear *is* renowned for attracting them!) but I don't know if it's something that would be readily available. Davetibbs 10:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the tailgate jibe was "Anti-American" – it was merely an illustration of how much 600lb is... And it's hardly offensive to say that some Americans are overweight – that's hardly headline news! And there wasn't even a hint of "a whole American (which I hate because they're shit)" or whatever, so any complaints would be a vast over-reaction DBD 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I would. You are also assuming that the average American is overweight - a biased and ignorant statement. How would you feel if I accused the entire British populance of having bad teeth and still not knowing what tooth paste is? It's not only ignorant, it's unrealistic. And, yes, it is an anti-British statement. --Sturmwehr 06:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd chuckle and put it down as a joke... Like when Family Guy have done it. DBD 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course it was a joke, the thing we are trying to establish here is if it's anti-American. In which case, I certainly think it is. Saying something in the format of a joke doesn't make the words have less meaning. If someone were to tell a joke about Jews in a negative light in WW2, it doesn't make the words any less anti-semitic. Also, Top Gear is not a comedy show like Family Guy either. So your analogy is completely flawed. --Sturmwehr 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This show also seems to be hyper- critical of American cars, specifically the Corvette. The Wikipedia page on this subject states that he expressed his extreme displeasure in a C4 (I can't blame him, depending on the year,) by shooting it with a Gatling gun. I have not seen the show, but is he like this with all American cars? Jason Keyes 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bar a few notable examples like the Ford GT. I guess it's based on the assumptions that most American cars have appalling handling and fuel consumption, comparatively terrible build quality and that US Automotive companies just seem to build bigger engines when they want more power rather than improving the design. The Japanese get the same power as an American 5 litre V8 out of a 2 litre flat four. Davetibbs 14:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more poking-fun than it is anti-american. At the end of the day the show does have a comedy and provocative element and in this case the US is one of the foils. In general this is stated with some fact - the US cars tested all display the traits expressed - that the team may take some glee in pointing them out is their style and possibly a provocative reaction to the "US is great" aura that some bad cars carry as part of their marketing. Certainly Clarkson has previously said the greatest car ever made is the 60's Mustang incarnations and waxes lyrical about the Ford GT (despite admitting it had never successfully completed a return journey without breaking down). Ei2g 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Staging

Although the whole caravan fire stunt was obviously staged (they wouldn't have been allowed to run back inside to rescue a dressing gown if it wasn't a controlled event...), it raises a question of just how much of the trip was staged. At one point Hammond threw a cushion that was on fire out of the window, setting the next-door caravan alight - it seems fair to assume that this was all part of the plan. They had previously driven the caravan into the awning, buckling it so perhaps this was part of the plan too? So just how much of the entire trip was staged? I wonder just how real the Arctic trip was - we never saw them together after they left, and according to the programme had just one camera crew out there, so I'm utterly sure they did not race each other simultaneously - it would have been far more difficult, and wouldn't have made any difference to the programme. It's still great telly and doesn't spoil my enjoyment, but Clarkson has stated that these road trips are NOT staged, and only what happens in the studio is tightly scripted... Halsteadk 11:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

^^^The Polar challenge was quite real, the company that prepared the vehicles they used have documented the challenge quite closely on their website (arctic-trucks if I recall). The shows producer has also blogged the making loosely too, so I see now reason to challenge the authenticy of it. Apologies for not knowing correctly how to edit or answer these by the way! -A

To clarify, I don't doubt they reached the pole (well one of them!), but I suspect it wasn't actually done as a simultaneous race - I think the logistics would have been much more difficult and it didn't seem to make any difference to the show. However, as I say, staged or not, none of this takes away from one of the best programmes (in terms of entertainment and production quality) on the telly for me. Halsteadk 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the caravan fire, in season 9 episode 4, the Reliant Shuttle launch was almost entirely staged. Aside from there being no possible way that a rocket of that size could be designed, constructed, and launched legally in 12 days, there are a number of evident signs that show it is just a lot of special effects. A close look shows that the flight sequence was done with a scale model about half the size of a bush, with some trick photography and a bit of CG smoke and such. It's the same with scenes like the red-neck assault at the gas station: good fun and hilarious, but not authentic. In fact, much of the cruise-in-the-U.S. episode, when viewed with a logical eye, appears very set-up (the hosts all finding their $1000 cars off camera and with less than an hour left, the strange discovery of a dead cow, Hammond buying a grill just before the rules of the camping sequence are revealed, etc). Or the episode where Clarkson fires various weapons at cars being shot off a cliff (real guns, CG rocket, staged explosions). I love the show, and the comedy is great, but obviously little of it is meant to be taken seriously, and the producers are not afraid to use staging to get the most entertainment. The list of very-likely stagings and scripted scenes would make for a very large section indeed. 128.211.250.148 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I had always believed the rocket launch was authentic but after some careful analysis of a clip on Youtube I'd have to admit it probably wasn't the case. The "12 days" isn't necessarily accurate as there could have been months between filming dates, but even so I agree it would have taken a lot to pull it off. That said I can't spot the scale model and trick photography so easily! Davetibbs 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)