Talk:List of Top Gear (2002 TV series) episodes

Propose to split series into articles (2)

Can we please talk about seperating each series by page? I haven't got the Wiki knowledge to do the big movements needed, but this list is just too long! I'll help in all I can. Anyone going to help by getting it started? LicenseFee 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the series have to be split up. The article is oversized and it's now getting very difficult to find information you need. You have to be very precise with the scroll bar to find an episode. This difficulty will only increase as more and more episodes are added.

This is what I propose to do: This page should be a list only (no summaries, just # !! episode !! airdate !! guest) a seperate table per series header. Under each header there should be a link directing the reader to the main article for that series. The series article will feature the relevant untouched series table from this article. Any objections? Other suggestions? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we use the list of Lost episodes as an example and that we use the episode list template to make the pages more maintainable Juice10 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is by far the largest article I have seen in Wikipedia. So far, I've started some implementation of a transition to articles by season pages. _{El Greco}^(talk) 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So far I got series one and two done, but series one needs a lot of work. It seems whoever wrote it took it off some website, style and everything. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great work! Although would you mind if I lightened the darker lines on the episode lists? The text is a little bit difficult to read imho.

Example:

Ep #	Prod. Code	Title	Director(s)	Airdate
1	GFGA001W	"Series 1 Episode 1"	Brian Klein	October 20 2002
2	GFGA002P	"Series 1 Episode 2"		October 27 2002

~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, use #ffC0B2, but remember to alternate between white and #ffC0B2. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made that clearer. Does it have to be white or can I not alternate between #ffC0B2 and #ffE0D2 as above? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it white. That's like the standard followed for the List of ... episodes. It makes it easier to read with #ffC0B2 and then white. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth taking a look at List of The Simpsons episodes also, which is a Wikipedia:Featured List, and has a lot of seasons to "catalogue".-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just realised something. The new episode list, if it continues as it is, won't have anything to use as a reference. Each episode will look the same in the list. Other shows, like the Simpsons or Friends, have the episode title to aid someone trying to find a certain episode but in this case there's nothing destinctive about the title. I was thinking that if we kept the guest field, or perhaps a 'car' field (and there's room for at least one of these fields) this would be useful for someone trying to find details of a particular episode, if of course they remember which guest or which car was in it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Guest field would be better than a car field, since multiple cars can be shown on the show at once, and that would bunch up the list. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

New fields have been added at {{episode list}} just yesterday. There is now a field for Director, one for writer (though that is redundant here), and 4 auxiliary fields (previously 3). The problem with a guest field is that on some episodes there have been quite a few guests. Like when they changed the cheap car. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the splitting is complete. Now just some tidying up on the individual series pages is needed and some on this page. Does that {{episode list}} have different style setup, and if not can one be proposed? _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the new format terrible to be honest, it's just pretty without imparting any significant imformation. I loved the old format where I could search for a car and find out the episode it was featured on. Please consider a revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.40.92 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To what? We can't carry on cramming every episode on one page. Tip: If you need to find the series article which contains a certain car, type 'Top Gear' and then the car name in the search engine on the left. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would however like to see if it's possible to include more 'significant' information without taking up any more room and reinstate my suggestion for a car(s) field. In order to do it however we might have to get rid of a few things (sorry El Greco!). Director isn't needed, it's the same guy all the time so we could just say that somewhere, the title could be shortened to just the episode number and, if really necessary, we could remove the production number which, to me, doesn't really mean anything to anyone other than the BBC. ~~ Peteb16

Example: (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I used bullet points to split the cars because with commas they seemed to merge into one. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give some feedback on the above table please? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The above newer version of the table with the car details is much better than what is on the page now. Considering the episode naming being the date isn't helpful neither is the production code or director; knowing which cars are in which episode is important. Though I still think how the page was originally is far superior to these new tables and should be reverted back. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of WP:Article size we cannot revert back as we would continue to expand an already overfilled page per episode produced. Our only choice is to improve on this compact version of the page to make it easier to find an episode. If the above is much better then this is a step forward. Other ideas may also be acceptable work such as short summaries of an entire series written in prose above each table, but we need to all agree on these things. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This change does make it harder to find specific episodes of Top Gear. Sure the search can be used but browsing through the list is no longer an easy task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchello (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What else do you propose we do about it? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a terrible idea. I use this page to find specific events from episodes with the find function in firefox and I'm sure other people do as well. With all the series pages separated it's impossible to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.244.121 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The same would be true and still is true of Wikipedia's own search engine. If you type 'Top Gear' followed by the event you're looking for in the search box on the left, it will find the page the episode is on. Please read WP:Article size and you will hopefully understand why what has been done here was unavoidable. Thanks and sorry for any inconvenience. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree this new format is useless, frankly I don't care who the director or the guest are, I want to be able to find a episode based on what actually happens in it whether that is the cars or challenges, and I shouldn't have to waste my time searching for something that I probably don't know what is called anyway, or should I search for "Top Gear that episode where they buy cheap cars and have challenges"? In fact even now I am using the old history pages to find what I am looking for since this new format is so useless. Also the series and episode number is not a "title" that should be changed to some useful information as well as the product code! I am quite sure no one is coming here and trying to find Top Gear episodes by their product code... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.112.162 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment. This page used to be easy to find an episode based on a car featured in it or a challenge in the episode. The director and production code is fairly worthless information. The template with the cars and guests would at least be better than what is on the page now. However I think how it was originally was still much better. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an episode list not a summaries page. Also most of those episodes if I'm not mistaken probably violate WP:EPISODE in that the plot summary is too long. Also please check out WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Articles are split up to articles more readable and manageable. The list was over 200KB long. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This page has become worse than pointless. If you want a good example of good episode "captions" check out the season specific Colbert Report entries. The summary bar has all of the recurring content cues to help people find what they are looking for. If you copy that style, minus the specific summary text the article will be concise and useful. I recommend removing the director and production code and adding in the main review and maybe the challenge "title" if there's room. If something doesn't change here I am going to take unilateral action because the current format is unacceptable. Sturmovik (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop threatening and knock it off. You forgot to list this wikilink instead: List of The Colbert Report episodes, kind of convenient you listed that one which is equivalent to this one: Top Gear (series 1). So, stop being lazy and stop whining. This is not the ultimate Top Gear informational website period. There are rules and guidelines to adhere by. It's amazing how all of you show up after the fact and not before to discuss. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was showing the example of the Colbert Report season summary page as something which can be used for the Top Gear episode summary page. The director column is worthless, its the same damn guy for all of them. I'm complaining now because I had no reason to visit this page between seasons. I have better things to do with my time than obsessively guard Top Gear pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmovik (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Topgear.s2.hosts.jpg

Image:Topgear.s2.hosts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious fact on Series 7 Episode 1

The bit of Series 7 Episode 1 I would like to refer to...The three look at the Mini Cooper Estate Concept from the Tokyo Auto Salon...is somehow a piece of dubious information as the link points to the "Motor Show", despite both taking place in the same venue, I want to point out that the Motor Show and the Auto Salon are two totally different shows, not to mention that the Motor Show takes place in October biennially whereas the Auto Salon takes place every mid-January and is mainly for modified vehicles, just want to point this out. Willirennen (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who edited this Article so radically it was fine before.

Whoever edited this article please explain yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.8.210.74 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The changes have been discussed at the top of the page. They were carried out because a concensus was reached to do so and no one attempted to oppose the changes until after they were done. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This new format is useless, frankly I don't care who the director or the guest are, I want to be able to find a episode based on what actually happens in it whether that is the cars or challenges, and I shouldn't have to waste my time searching for something that I probably don't know what is called anyway, or should I search for "Top Gear that episode where they buy cheap cars and have challenges"? In fact even now I am using the old history pages to find what I am looking for since this new format is so useless. Also the series and episode number is not a "title" that should be changed to some useful information as well as the product code! I am quite sure no one is coming here and trying to find Top Gear episodes by their product code... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.112.162 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when the main page gets too big, you split it up. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand why this article was split up, it has however made it largely useless for finding a specific episode in a timely fashion. If it needs to be split up, why not into two or three sections instead of 11? --Aienan (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this author.. the old article was MUCH better - I could just search for a car. It's not a matter of making this page look good, it's pointless if you have a 'organised' page that you can't get the information the majority of the users are after. I vote for the return of the 'single' page - to enable searching. --Lieb39 (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The new Format is By all means USLESS. I have no clue what is avilable and what isn't. I spend most of my time reviewing the old history in the formatting. And no you do not just break up a page if it gets to big if it is necessary. The new format is usless!! When I am looking for episodes the new format doesn't help. If I am looking for episodes with smart car I used to be able to hit ctrl+f and type 'smart car' now I must go to EACH season. Furthermore, no one opposed the revision because the page didn't carry a disclaimer for the change. I believe the people who changed it did so that they would have the possibilty of recieving an award and then they could become admin. I firmly believe that. The new revision is utter Trollop and should be removed immeditly! And do not bash my spelling because I am typing this on my phone. Jab843 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

hey what happened ???

What have you done with my site? I love Top Gear and this was the best content index on the web i bookmarked it some time ago and allways look for a detailed description for each episode now its gone and all thats left is a very short information about the airing date and the star in a reasonably priced car please bring back the old one it was much better looking and more detailed you should respect the great work from the one who has done the previous page pleas restore it

sorry for my english its not my home language --ForceB (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic, the summaries haven't gone, they've only been split into seperate articles. Series 1 is here, Series 2 is here and so on. Look for the the main article links above each series table and everything is how it was before. We had to do this because Wikipedia doesn't allow us make very long articles, for some people the article was difficult to read this way. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative list tables

We seem to be in a no win situation. People need as much information about an episode as possible on one page, but we can't make this anything more than an episode list because of size limitations. So I propose two different list formats for this page as a quick reference. One of these I've already proposed above but added more fields.

1. Using a table format, disposing of information available in the series articles and replacing it with quick references to cars and challenges featured in the programme.

Ep #	Total	Airdate	Reviews	Challange	Guest
1	1	October 20 2002	Citroën Berlingo • Pagani Zonda • Lamborghini Murciélago • Mazda 6	Speed cameras	Harry Enfield
2	2	October 27 2002	Ford Focus RS • Noble M12 GTO	Double-Decker Bus	Jay Kay
3	3	November 3 2002	Mini Cooper • Toyota Yaris Verso	Granny's Donuts	Ross Kemp

2. Using the episode list template, information would take up slightly more room, but looks a bit more tidier and would be more in keeping with other lists. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to change the top fields to the main series colour. Also, title isn't optional.

#	Total	Title	Reviews	Challange	Guest	Original airdate
1	1	"Series 01, Episode 01"	Citroën Berlingo • Pagani Zonda • Lamborghini Murciélago • Mazda 6	Speed cameras	Harry Enfield	October 20 2002
2	2	"Series 01 Episode 02"	Ford Focus RS • Noble M12 GTO	Double-Decker Bus	Jay Kay	October 27 2002
3	3	"Series 01, Episode 03"	Mini Cooper • Toyota Yaris Verso	Granny's donuts	Ross Kemp	November 3 2002

Please post your opinions below, or any other ideas you may have. Thanks! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should only list the Main Review, else it gets out of hand rather quickly. Here's an example with Season 10.

Ep #	Prod. Code	Title	Airdate	Main Review	Guest
(1) 80	ENEA691F	"Series 10 Episode 1"	October 7 2007	Volkswagen Golf GTI W12	Helen Mirren
(2) 81	ENEA692A	"Series 10 Episode 2"	October 14 2007	Audi R8	Jools Holland
(3) 82	ENEA693T	"Series 10 Episode 3"	October 28 2007	Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano	Ronnie Wood
(4) 83		"Series 10 Episode 4"	November 4 2007	Botswana	None
(5) 84		"Series 10 Episode 5"	November 11 2007	Caparo T1	Simon Cowell
(6) 85		"Series 10 Episode 6"	November 18 2007	Honda Civic Type R	Lawrence Dallaglio
(7) 86		"Series 10 Episode 7"	November 25 2007	Aston Martin DBS	Jennifer Saunders
(8) 87		"Series 10 Episode 8"	December 2 2007	Vauxhall VXR8	James Blunt & Lewis Hamilton
(9) 88		"Series 10 Episode 9"	December 9 2007	Ascari A10	Keith Allen
(10) 89		"Series 10 Episode 10"	December 23 2007	Jaguar XF	David Tennant

If you can't decide how to fit the challenge in this should be pretty acceptable to everyone. If you do put the challenge in, again you should only put in the Main Challenge.Sturmovik (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, you can't list everything that was done on the show. And trying to decide what should and shouldn't be included here on the mainpage is still going to be criticized by all the IP users who think that wikipedia is going to tell them every little detail about what happened in the episode. _{El Greco}^(talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise we can't please everyone, but if it's possible to improve the quality of the information without taking any more space, shouldn't we aim for that instead? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend going with tables 1 or 2, either is acceptable. While I think the first one is better than the second, the second one does at least keep it more consistent with other lists as you said. But since this is Wikipedia, we probably should stay consistent with the template and go with the second table you laid out. Regardless either table should make everyone happy since you can still get a good idea of what happened in each episode. And if you want to read more detail, there the series specific page with the full text on it. I wouldn't use any table that lists the production code or the director since that is just wasting space that could be used for more important information. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OracleGuy01. I very much detest this new format, and would prefer it to be restored to the original. I know that as the page is very large this is probably impossible, but, as mentioned before, the first or second templates listed above would work very well. Each episode would only take a line of text and even the new series' and their large content could be transcribed into four or five bullet points. I'm actually considering updating the current layout to incorporate the changes from the table above, does anybody want to comment on this? Sebhaque (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I say go ahead and do that if you want to put the time into doing it all. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been a month, can we finally PLEASE decide on something. I'd do it myself, but some Wikinazi would just revert everything saying that "no decision has been reached". Amazing how easy it is to ruin a page, but how hard it is to fix it. Again I propose droping the Director for the Main Review and the title for the main challenge. We can always add multiple reviews and challenges later.Sturmovik (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision

Alright in an effort to help move things forward, I say we use the second table (the #, total, title, reviews, challenge, guest, air date one) shown above. I'm not sure exactly how the Wikipedia rules go on this but if no one disagrees before say March 30th, that is the decision on the new format. Since people are willing to do the change, we need to have a consensus. Speak now or don't get mad when the format is changed. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For my own search purposes, I've included all the detailed episode lists at User:Snowolf/TG. (Just dropping a note) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode count was not synchronous

Hi, there was a mismatch between the episode articles count and those on the main page. Caused by the Specials - "Top Gear Winter Olympics", "Top Gear of the Pops", "Polar Special". I took over the count from the episodes, cause there they included the specials and set (S) in the series - episode count. As (S) for special, as some of you might have guessed... I hope you know or can guess what i mean ^^ If I have time the next few hours, i gonna add the eleven's Series with Grund force... but if you're eager to do it - do not wait for me ;) KingPingLu (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

hm, can somebody tell me, why my font size is so small? can'T find a reason for that.... anyway, i added series 11 - episode 0 --> Special: Top Ground Gear Force. But I have no idea what hexacolour i should choose, so someone's gonna edit this an, as for production code, director and the whole episode page i have no information. would be nice if s.o. could add these! greets KingPingLu (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Revamping

As decided further down, I have started to implement the new tables. If the in use template isn't on the page and you want to convert over a series, feel free. I could use the help. Hopefully the new format should make everyone happy. In addition if you see errors or critical omissions with any updated tables, please correct them. OracleGuy01 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Much better now.. Finally the page is useful again - and I'm sure everyone will agree. Cheers --Lieb39 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may - I welcome the revamp of the index page (as I'm recording it to HDD from digital, it's very useful for cataloguing and up til now i've had to skip back and forth thru the main pages trying to identify each one by e.g. reviews or guests), the only niggle is ... why bother including "episode title"? It's just a repeat of the Series and Episode number (which can be found variously at the top and left hand side of the same table anyway) which is a whole lot of redundancy and bloat for no benefit. The special editions should be easy enough to mark out in some other way (?). 82.46.180.56 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to do AFAIK with Wikipedia consistency with other pages that list TV episodes. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the new format, nicely done, the old list was absolutely useless if you were looking for a particular challenge/review or pretty much anything. I could live with less vibrant colours though, as consulting the colour legend at the top, then scrolling up and down is really far less efficient than simply reading the series number.--67.193.23.221 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Series 11 - 6 Episodes?

I simply think that the statement "6 episodes" should not be there until a link has been added. The series have not even got recording yet, thus making such a claim senseless without supporting link. Please do remove that if a link cannot be found which supports the claim. --80.216.64.31 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The link where it says 6 episodes can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/seriespreview.shtml.

I've added the 6-ep back into the article - sorry if this miffs anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebhaque (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the source for what will be in episode 2? It hasn't even aired yet. Chaparral2J (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet more information on episode 3, even before episode 2 has aired. If this remains unsourced, I will remove it as speculation. Chaparral2J (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All the details are up on radiotimes.com Custardninja (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

...And even if they we'rent, a condensed version is available on Freeview/Cable electronic programme guides upto 2 weeks in advance :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Then cite your source if it hasn't happened yet. If there is this website that has solid information on it, cite it as the source of the episode details. OracleGuy01 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the shorter length series is something to do with the olympics being on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.1.84 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so, but if you look at previous years, the "summer" series tended to be quite short compared to the "winter" ones (which also often sprouted special editions), including one that only had 5 "real" episodes. Its maybe just a general BBC scheduling and programme-making thing. People taking holidays, etc. Remember that, even though the "film" footage may be in the can weeks or months ahead of time, the studio based segments are made on the wednesday preceding the sunday airdate and so have to account for such things. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did /you/ look at previous years? The summer 2003 series was 10 shows, the summer 2004 series was 10 shows, the summer 2005 series was 11 shows, the summer 2006 series was 8 shows, but was cut short because of the 2006 FIFA World Cup, and there was no summer 2007 series at all. The only "special" that originally aired in the summertime is the Top Gear: Polar Special. There has never been a Top Gear series with five episodes.

It baffles me why anybody would make a claim like this that is so easily refutable. Come on, check your facts before posting, man. Warren -talk- 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I got confused with the preceding winter series, and was feeling sure enough of myself that I didn't go back and check. But there seemed to be a recurring alternation of long series - short series (esp. s7 and s9... which are also odd numbered ones, which is maybe what threw me) in the last couple of years. There certainly doesn't seem to be any set episode count for this show unlike most others. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

inclusion of the specials on the index page

I think we should bring them back... for one thing if nothing else, the Polar Special is being repeated soon, and I had to go into the series 8, then 10, then finally 9 main pages to actually find what series it was from! (Maybe it isn't "officially" part of it, but it was shown at that time - perhaps it could have a stand-out entry in between series?)

Not to the extent of including all the best-ofs and the like, but anything that's an actual, discrete programme with its own title and unique material, e.g. polar challenge, TGOTP, TG Ground force, Winter Olympics (which even got to feature in the new-style intro graphics for heaven's sake) that people may be looking for, and are after all included as seperate episodes on the main pages and therefore, to be pedantic, require indexing regardless of how you feel about them?

I might go ahead and do this at some point if there are no super compelling arguments for not doing it ;) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The special episodes that aren't clip shows (so things like the polar special and the winter olympics) can be placed on the index. I don't see any reason against doing so. They are TG episodes after all. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

come across another "best of"... where should I stick it?

My freeview recorder has slurped up an edition of TG that I don't see listed on any of the detailed series lists - "Best of Top Gear - The Supercars". I reckon it's probably a Series 7 one, to go with Special Guests, Challenges etc, can anyone confirm this? It's got the Veyron vs Cessna challenge for one thing, so it shouldn't be any earlier than S7 where this appeared originally.

I know it's only a minor, almost insignificant edition compared to the main eps, but the other best ofs (even the untitled ones) have been included so we may as well complete the set. Haven't watched it in full yet so I can't contribute a proper summary until then, so thought I'd get some guidance before I skim through it to find if there's anything I haven't seen before. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Series 11

Any references to support that the new Top Gear in the Autumn will be an extention of series 11 and not a whole new series 12? The article is currently adding on extra episodes to series 11 instead of a new series... LicenseFee (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've heard. I heard that series 12 is probably going to be starting in October but unless anyone can reference a legitimate, reliable source citing the start date, adding series 12 to the article should just be deleted since just posting rumors is misleading. 71.94.6.179 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Children in Need special

If a Children in Need special does occur, then it will have it's own page a la Top Ground Gear Force. Please do not add this to Series 12. Thanks. LicenseFee (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Specials Links

On Top Gear's (Current Format) main page, saying 99 episodes and 5 specials, that link brings you here, but where are the links to Top Gear specials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.72.23 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Under 'related shows' in the info box. There listed are Stars in Fast Cars, Top Gear Winter Olympics, Top Gear of the Pops, Top Gear: Polar Special and Top Ground Gear Force. Regarding this, I will make a little note at the top of the episode page. LicenseFee (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam special

Just a note that this special is not being advertised as a part of series 12, but as a 75-minute special. [1] Halsteadk (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that it is formally part of Series 12 and completes the advertised 8 programs. It's only a special in the sense of the American Roadtrip episode (S09E03) which was also described as a special episode by the presenters along with there trip to Botswana. The presenters are simply saying that the Series has ended due to the fact we will see no more traditional layout episodes in this series. Dsgtrain (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The episode will be longer than the usual hour, about 75 minutes if I am correct, and has been advertised as the Top Gear Botswana Special, in the same format as the Top Gear Polar special, which is counted as a seperate edition away from the series. I, therefore, assume creating a completely new article will be the best way to keep everything organised? LicenseFee (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters... :) I was checking the Radio Times website to confirm it is 75 mins (I spotted that the paper Radio Times magazine says 60, but fear not TG fans, they are now saying 75!) but the website has "8/8" which indicates they think it's part of the series.[2]

Oh Lord. Thank you unreliable sources. Do we believe the Radio Times or the Top Gear homepage? LicenseFee (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, Topgear.com clearly says that Series 12 is over "Series 12 may be over, but there’s one more calorie-filled slice of Top Gear goodness to look forward to before the end of the year: a 75-minute Vietnam special on BBC Two on December 28 at 8pm." [3]. Therefore, I take it as its own special. Any disagreements? LicenseFee (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An authoritative source clouds the issue further - the BBC's Top Gear website is calling it Episode 8 and it is described as "ending the current series": [4] Halsteadk (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I took it apon myself to create Top Gear Vietnam Special. I take the production companies and producers word over the BBC, sadly, but if anyone disagrees please feel free. LicenseFee (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think you guys may be taking this all a bit too seriously? Bumcheekcity (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard the phrase 'Neccessity is the mother of invention and procrastination is the drunk uncle of Wikipedia'? ;) LicenseFee (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reaction and reception (in series specific articles)

As this relates to all of the series-specific pages, rather than pick one series and bury it or put it on all the relevant pages and fork the discussion, I have placed this on this talk page as it covers all series!

I have changed the positioning of this section in the series articles it appears (7, 8, 9, 10 currently) as it was inappropriate to have this before the list of episodes, and certainly inappropriate to not have another main heading for the list (so the list was appearing as part of the criticism section). As there is a bit of debate over whether these sections should appear at all, I should probably note that I have no problem personally with this, provided it is appropriately placed within the article. Halsteadk (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would Like to see Viewing figures in the episode list, get them of BARB perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.0.188 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Series 13

This shows 7 recording dates and therefore 7 episodes for series 13. I've got no idea how to reference this though any help would be appreciated. Thanks Matty2002 (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the link blacklisted? Rubbish thing. Matty2002 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you set the link up incorrectly by adding a space. I've edited it out, but the link still doesn't work because the site is no darned good. Drmargi (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep changing the reviews to an Aston Martin and a Vauxhall? I own the mag and it says that they're testing the R8 V10 and the ZR1 130.113.234.230 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Series 14

Please do not include theories or rumors on the upcoming series on the main page. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy. Only information with good references belongs on the page. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Specials

The specials strike me as needing some reconsidering, and should all be added to the episode lists, not just a selected few. They're specials, yes, but they're also Top Gear episodes that could be incorporated in much the same way as Vicar of Dibley or Doctor Who incorporate their special episodes into their respective articles. Also, why is Stars in Fast Cars described as a special in the main article but not listed as one here? Then, given we've now gotten a series of cross-country specials, should the US (FL-LA) and Botswana episodes be counted as a special, particularly considering US is titled The US Special on the DVD? Drmargi (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If TG and the BBC call them "specials"[5] then what basis do we have not to? I don't understand your edit summary that "specials are entirely out of studio (and thus don't include US film)". I seem to remember most have had an intro in the studio, perhaps the US one was the only(?) one to also have a studio piece at the end but it was the first one so maybe it's just different - don't see how that makes it not a special. Unless they're completely separate from a series run they should all be listed as episodes with an appropriate title (Botswana Special) etc. Halsteadk (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Was getting rather fed up of the half-hearted editing and reverting going on which was leaving the article in a state of either self-contradiction (claiming there were 8 specials not in the list, when 4 of them are in the list) or not correctly explaining how the special episodes fitted in. So hopefully it is now sorted. Halsteadk (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ford== Series 15? ==

How are there new episodes on BBC America? Last Monday they released one, and will continue releasing them. On TV Guide it says that the last aired episode is episode 236. How is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.66.127 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably being shown for the first time on BBC America, rather than brand new completely unseen episodes. Perhaps in counting the episodes they are continuing the numbering from the old format Top Gear. In any case, I don't think any change is needed to the article due to this. Halsteadk (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

BBCAmerica is showing Series 13 and 14 back-to-back. The first episode of Series 13 ran on Monday (thus the sudden new influx of Stig-as-Schumacher posts). Drmargi (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Series 15 Airdates

Please do not add airdates or other information on the upcoming series 15 unless it is properly referenced. If the BBC and/or the Top Gear team haven't announced the official date, it counts as a rumor and is a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I took them and the ep count off, and also changed the color for the series to a light yellow. Whoever added the line to the list had just copy and pasted the color from series 14. Tekdude (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Although not a sufficient reference, Applause Store has announced the studio dates for Series 15 (cannot post URL as their site is blacklisted). The first is Weds 23rd June, suggesting the first studio-based show of the series will be aired on Sun 27th June. Still needs to be confirmed before this is added (and I'm quite happy to revert anyone who does add it - as I just have!). Halsteadk (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest issue of Top Gear Magazine reports that "The new season of Top Gear starts on 27 june on BBC 2". You can find an image of said page on FinalGear.com. -- Geodefender (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already used it as a reference and edited the table. It's not the greatest source, but I vote we leave it in and let date remain. However, the source should be replaced as soon as Top Gear or the BBC release an official statement on the web. Tekdude (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Series 15, ep 5

Taken from http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2010/07/22/cruise-and-diaz/ which states Cruise and Diaz in the car, yet the current page says Ross? The episode would have been filmed by today, so are they just having a laugh on their blog as Cruise and Diaz are just in a video related to Ross, or are they actually in the Kia (as bobbleheads or something)? borandi (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fiasco"? (edit summary). You don't think you might be overstating the importance of this? The "blog" is a WP:NEWSBLOG so is admissable, and it was also mentioned on Chris Evans's radio show this morning that Cruise at least would be in the car this week. However, the show hasn't actually been on yet and all of this will be irrelevant in a couple of days time, so on past experience of pointless disputes with people, it would be best not to get too concerned about it. If there isn't a ref for Ross taking part, then just delete his name and leave it alone. (It is conceivable that although it was filmed yesterday the segment might not be shown until a following week - that has been done before.) Halsteadk (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's now on the BBC as a full news item as well, and looks like someone has already made the change to the page anyway. Also, there's almost never any references given to people who will appear in future episodes - names seem to go up on this page about 9-12 days before the filming anyway. Whether that's from someone in the know (they're usually right) or anything else... (I think Cruise/Diaz must have been a last minute add-in, and Ross won't take part/be rescheduled. That's purely my own speculation, however.) borandi (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Series 16

When will season 16 start ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/Brumbassen) 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place for discussions like this. No Series 16 start date has been announced yet. Best places to look for official information are the Top Gear website and Top Gear Magazine. The Applause Store website may also announce filming dates quite early. Any other reliable sources get their info from an official source. Any other rumours (including unreferenced claims on Wikipedia) aren't worth bothering with. Halsteadk (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Official Top Gear magazine says early next year if that's worth adding to the article (reference)

The current magazine is saying January 2011 but no more than that. This section is attracting a lot of unreferenced claims, please can I ask other editors to keep an eye on this. Wikipedia will be taken as "fact" by some and should not be a source of rumours. It is not good enough to claim the start date is the 3rd January, or that there will be 12 episodes, or that a certain programme will be a Christmas Day special, or that there will be multiple Stigs in the next series without a reference that actually states that (and not just a link to a page that is vaguely related to the Stig). Halsteadk (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A new episode appears to be on tonight? 82.33.0.188 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Top Gear Production website calls the new episode on tonight (21st December 2010)Series 15. As does the BBC Website. http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/series-15-rehearsal-gallery-top-gear-tv-2010-12-17 http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/next_episode.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by NevilleHope (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys ! New Episode:

New Episode announced http://www.gtspirit.com/2011/01/18/top-gear-season-16-episode-1-airs-on-january-23/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GTspirit+%28GTspirit%29

Sunday January 23 on BBC Two at 20:00 BST in HD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.212.199 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The episode with Danny Boyle is episode 15x7. http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/series-15-episode-7-danny-boyle-in-our-reasonably-priced-car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.109.11 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Episode numbering and removal of sourced series numbering

The most reliable source for episode and series numbering is the BBC. They have identified the episode on December 21 as Series 15 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x2pq7 and the Middle East Special on December 26 as Series 16 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x31wf. Sense doesn't enter into it. The BBC is the final word. Drmargi (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The second link there states the episode to start on December 26, not December 16. So common sense is restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.110.161 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still missing. It does not make sense that the first "new" episode is associated with Series 15, especially as they open it with "We are back" and show a preview of whats upcoming in Series 16. -- 88.153.201.195 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Application of the smallest measure of common sense would have told the first editor that was a typo. Regarding the second editor's comments, I don't disagree. They start with the "we're back" business, it's clearly midsummer (and very humid) in VA indicating this was filmed for the winter, and the logic behind attaching the episode to S15 defies easy understanding. However, that's what the BBC says, and they're the reliable source. Drmargi (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The links you provided seem to now show that both episodes are now neither Series 15 nor Series 16 but of "Specials 2010," unless I'm not seeing something on those pages. 64.252.117.32 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's becuase the bbc have changed it, it's the same on iplayer, was series 15 ep7 a few days ago, now they appear to have bundled it, presumably along with the mid east trip, into 'Specials 2010'. 77.102.121.201 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Common sense does dictate that the episode aired on 21 December is part of a new series (series 16). The BBC has probably not introduced series 16 for reasons concerning pay for the presenters. To prevent argument it may be best to create a new sub series, as was done for the north pole episode. I would prefer to not see this part of series 15 due to the way the episode began with 'were back' and the montage of series 16 being included, and of course the last broadcast episode was in august! —Preceding comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Commonsense can't be a factor in light of WP:RS. The sources say/have said the episode run was part of series 15. Please do not revert that version until we reach consensus. I have also posted a reminder re: WP:CONSENSUS on your talk page. Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming apparent that this discussion is not going anywhere. Dispute the BBC originally branding the latest episode (21 December 2010) as series 15, episode 7, it is clear that it is not a continuation of the now finished series. As described by many people the episode started with Jeremy Clarkson pronouncing "Were Back" followed by a montage of what is to come in the future planned Episodes. The BBC has now re branded the episode as part of a series called Specials 2010, thus resolving the dispute from many that the episode of 21 December does not belong in series 15. When I updated the page last night I referenced each episode to the BBC website (), each newly identifying the episodes are part of "specials 2010". This is enough proof, as required by wikipedia, to end the dispute I feel, and would be grateful if every body else concerned about this page would agree. These episodes now not part of series 15, nor series 16, but instead a pre sereis 16 special mini series. Happy Christmas.217.42.38.6 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi Please would you discus the conflict of where the 2010 special episodes belong in the article, rather than constantly reverting to a previous revision. Im sure you can quote many pages at me, and others that feel the episodes are not part of series 15, but please read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", and the sources I have quoted for the reason that the episodes are not part of series 15 any more. There is no need to continue to revert the article. On another note, I do not have a user name because I do not seek glory for being a long standing editor. Every time I move to a different premises I receive a different external IP, and even receive a different external IP when MY router resets, and the DHCP lease needs to be renewed. Please do not assume that I am new to editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that, once a discussion is opened, the article stays at the version in place at the time the discussion is initiated. What you cite applies in difference circumstances (such as a long stable version that is reverted to a previously controversial version -- see updates restaurant status on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares for an example). Rather than forcing an edit, and attempting to discuss via edit summary, which is what you are doing, you should propose the change to Specials here, be patient, and allow for discussion. Moreover, to make a discussion work and reach consensus, you need a stable version of the article. What your using as a source is the iPlayer listing. Do we know that's the same as the episode itself? The wisest move at this point is to wait to see how the remainder of Series 16 is promoted. Once we have a number for the first episode in January, this will all fall into place. You have to allow for the holiday, and the numbers of editors who may be taking a break as well. This process has its own timeline, and can't be bent to your will or your calendar. The ironic part of this is that there probably is a case to be made for either moving the specials into Series 16, or creating a separate section, but right now, we don't have a reliable source for guidance as to which is correct, if either. So we stay with what we have until the BBC promotes the remainder of the series.

The IP issue, etc. relates to my comments on your talk page, and can be discussed there. All I know is I see editing performance typical of a novice editor, and attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I said nothing about the need to register. But it does bear mention that if you want other editors to allow for your experience as an editor, you need to have a means to present a stable edit history, something you've chosen not to do. Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time I move the 2010 Specials to their own section. Honestly. It is my belief that the source (BBC) has updated their identification of episodes sufficiently to warrant a change to the layout of the latest episodes. I have indeed taken onboard your advice about Wiki protocol, and shall of course preach wiki law when I feel it appropriate. Perhaps I shall invest in a user ID in the new year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your belief, yes. Consensus? No. I'm glad it's the last time you're moving it, so we can let the article remain stable at the point where the discussion began until we see what the BBC does once they add the January episodes. Drmargi (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to wait until january to see how the next episodes are numbered? The episodes are part of their own mini series titled "Specials 2010" that comes between series 15, and series 16. They are attached to Series 16 because they showed a montage of the future episodes. Please can you discuss the reasons why you believe the episodes to be part of sereis 15, and not series 16 or their own mini series. As you may or may not be aware there are now 2 episodes "un categorised by series" as of tonight.Currently one is part of series 15, and the other is part of series 16. Is this part of your stable revision of the page? It looks daft if i am honest, and I propose that they be moved to a mini series between the main series'. Please discuss to reach an imminent conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this. The BBC are currently listing, both on the top gear subsite and on iplayer/tv listings, these episodes as "Top Gear - Specials 2010 - 1. USA Road Trip" and "Top Gear - Specials 2010 - 2. Middle East Special". That's straight from iplayer. Drmargi, you said above, "The BBC is the final word.". Currently they're saying these two episodes are under their own series, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is here? Bambers (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There shouldn't have been any fighting or exchange of egos(Amateur!) over this. If the most up to date BBC sources say that these two episodes are their own category, separate from the standard seasons, then this page should reflect that. If the sources change the categorization again at a later date, then this page changes again. No issue. 64.252.117.32 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To further illustrate my point, please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59/series . This page is a list of series of which to pick episodes from. "Specials 2010" is listed separately from the other series, and clicking on Specials 2010 leads you to the two episodes in question. Clicking on Series 15 and Series 16 does not. 64.252.117.32 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If the BBC was the final word on December 21, and they will be the final word on January 23, then by what logic are they not the final word on December 27? – Smyth\^talk 11:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed again. Why is it necessary to wait until 23 January when the BBC source above shows the latest christmas specials as part of "specials 2010, and not series 15 or series 16. I would like to re-create a new series titels 'Specials 2010' to contain these 2 episodes, unless anybody else would like to create a table. If however the BBC changes the identification of the episodes at the start of series 16 proper, then of course we can address this subject again. I suppose the only thing that needs to be waited for is the consent of Drmargi. 217.42.38.6 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, you didn't need my consent (I'm ignoring the cheap shot that comment actually was); I was unable to access this discussion for a couple days while I could only edit on my iPad, which restricts my ability to scroll down long edit windows. You have consensus that the episodes should be relabeled. That's how WP:CONSENSUS works; no muss, no fuss, no bully-boy editing or constant demanding editors do as you wish. Just leave the article alone, talk about it and see what everyone thinks is best. I still have reservations about the accuracy of labeling both episodes as specials separate from Series 16 based on the opening of the first episode, and I think this may very well start over again once the series resumes in January, which is why I recommended everyone be patient. Sadly, that's a scarce commodity in this day and age. The issue seems to be one of consistency of sources; the BBC is the final word, but even it can't even make up its bloomin' mind. The iPlayer listing (which I wouldn't give as much weight as the program guide) says one thing, the BBC program guide (mirrored by TV Times and TV Guide) says another, the content of the show says a third and the daggum Top Gear website, which could clear the whole mess up, says nothing at all. I think it's very possible these episodes could end up being labeled 16.1 and 16.2 before the dust settles, particularly given the preview video shown at the opening of what the broadcast itself would suggest is probably 16.1 (currently labeled the USA special) and the introduction of the Stig issue, which had long been touted as set to be resolved in Series 16. But for now, I'm happy to go with what the group seems to think is best, and leave the episodes labeled as they are, given the recency and ease of access of the iPlayer description.

While we're on the subject of cheap shots, User:64.252.117.32, there was no "exchange of egos" (whatever that might be) over this, and I would suggest that before you take a pot shot at other editors, you be sure you know what you're talking about -- there's a huge difference between labeling someone an amateur (which no one did) and giving someone whose edit history suggests is a novice editor the benefit of the doubt when they repeatedly fail to follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is also a difference between "fighting" (which is what little boys do on the playground), argument, and discussion designed to reach consensus within Wikipedia guidelines. As soon as everyone got on board with the last of the three, we had a speedy resolution, one which could have been reached civilly and without the petulance displayed here. Drmargi (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

s16e01 so-called US Special

#	Total	Title	Reviews	Challenges/Features	Guest	Original airdate
1	126	"Series 16, Episode 1"	None	Jeremy, Richard and James set off on a road trip up the east coast of the United States in a Ferrari 458 Italia, a Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG and a Porsche 997 GT3 RS	Danny Boyle	21 December 2010 (2010-12-21)

what's the deal with this episode? does it exist at all? someone keeps putting this! please verify!--Infestor (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, and we discussed it. But a new editor has brought in a source from Top Gear magazine indicating the Christmas episode is the beginning of season 16. That takes this one back to Season 15. Another editor changed it back, and no one objected, so there it stayed. You might want to review the above discussion; the BBC and other TV media identified this one as 15x7; the BBC later lumped the two together as "specials" when they moved the episodes to the iPlayer. The December issue of Top Gear magazine seems to have cleared up the confusion. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks. the official identification for BBC is that US special is 15x7. --Infestor (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask, having not read Decembers Top Gear magazine, does the magazine specifically say the Middle East Christmas special is the start of series 16? We must bear in mind that the Middle East christmas special is actually part 2 of the christmas special(s). My interpretation is that if the christmas special is the start of series 16, then both the episodes aired 21 December and 26 December should belong with series 16. 217.42.38.6 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor posted the source, so I went to the local bookstore that carries the magazine to look. I'm afraid it does say S16 starts on December 26. Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Got any idea of the page number? becuase I cannot find this in the magazine. Also in terms of sources I would put the bbc above TG magazine given that much of the magazine production is fairly independant from the tv show and the december 2010 issue would have gone to print in mid november. They won't even have finalised the christmas TV schedules by that point. The top gear site constantly refers to the two episodes as an xmas double bill and their series guide only has the 6 episodes in series 15. I see no solid evidence for the usa road trip to be in series 15, seems it's more a question of if it's part of series 16 or not. Unhelpfully the TG site does mention in one of its news posts "The pertinent point remains: two new shows coming up, the first on Tuesday (that’s TUESDAY, not Sunday) 21 December at 8pm on BBC2, the second on Boxing Day at 8pm on BBC2. Then we’ve got the new series proper starting early in the New Year." Bambers (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I wish I'd noticed. I didn't purchase the magazine; they're rather pricey over here, and not interesting enough at the price, so I just read it at the news stand.

If we're ever going to solve this problem, I think what we've got to do at this point is shift gears. We clearly don't have consistent reliable sources, which is why we have the problem we do. We've got the BBC program guide and other TV listings identifying the first episode as 15x7 and the second as either a special or 16x1, and I think we'd all agree that seems a bit absurd at best. We've got the iPlayer describing them as "specials" in what's probably the iffiest of the sources. The Top Gear website is silent on the matter thus far, but we've got the magazine identifying the second episode as 16x1 (bear in mind, another editor originally posted that source; I just checked it) and the corresponding time issue cited, which I hadn't considered. And then the episode content itself suggests they're 16x1 and 16x2. No wonder we can't make sense of this, and that WP:RS is failing us as a means to sort this out.

I had a serious think about this, and have somewhat changed my tune. I suggested once upon a time that an argument could be made for labeling them 16x1 and 16x2, and that we wait until the next episode hits the BBC program guide to see how it's identified. Folks don't seem to want to be patient enough to do that, so I'm going to suggest that, in the absence of not just reliable but consistent printed and electronic sources, that we consider the show's content itself to be the most reliable source, and list the episodes accordingly. That would mean 16x1 and 16x2, with the Middle East Special imbedded in Series 16 much like Bolivia or Vietnam, rather than treated as a free-standing episode, like the Polar Special. Identifying the two as Christmas specials never worked for me because the one with the US road trip clearly was a regular episode, similar to the trip from San Francisco to Bonneville. Clarkson also notes Middle East is their annual Christmas episode (I'll have to check his actual words, but that's the jist of it) at the end of the previous episode, suggesting it's not a free-standing episode. What we've got to do for the moment is leave the article alone and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS here. Drmargi (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion makes little sense. User:Drmargi start's it off with the statement that The most reliable source for episode and series numbering is the BBC, quoting a BBC website that says nothing of the kind. Perhaps it did once, however I don't understand why he is perpetuating dated information that the BBC has long since corrected. The website clearly makes no reference to either Series 15 or 16 for either of the recent Christmas specials; however the website is secondary information. The primary information are the episodes themselves. And the December 21st episode clearly states that it is the start of new material, not the continuation of the previous season. The episode was clearly recorded long after Series 15, and the studio segments appear to have only been done recently. My inclination is that it is obvious that both episodes will be considered to be Series 16. However, the only secondary source indicates that they are stand-alone specials (ignoring the primary source that suggests they are the start of a new series). Listing the December 21st episode as Series 15 in contradiction of both the primary and secondary sources, and relying only on tertiary sources, makes no sense, and will only serve to confuse those using this resource. One question I have though - what exactly is one the Season 15 DVD that is being released next month (though given that it's only reported on Amazon as being on 2 discs and 58-minutes shorter than the Season 14 DVD, I could take a guess ...) Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that what I said about the BBC was posted over a week ago, and things change -- at the time I put the link in place it clearly identified the first episode as 15x7, and I wasn't the first or the last editor to act on that basis. The iPlayer listing has clearly muddied the water considerably. I wouldn't characterize what the BBC did as correction; it's a different kind of listing now, that's all. Please see my latest thinking above your post. r:DrmargiDrmargi (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems bizarre to me to suggest preserving the article in a state that no one supports. Listing the last 2 episodes as specials until we can figure it out seems to be the neutral solution compared to listing them as either Season 15 or Season 16. And I say this as a neutral editor with no past history with this article. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful ... [[User:Drmargi is removing my edit that the December 21st episode is not Series 15, citing WP:Consensus, yet at the same time he is arguing above that it isn't part of Series 15, and there appears to be no one claiming that it is ... let alone no consensus that it is. Am I the only one who finds this more than a little odd? Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this more than a little odd and i am only reading this discussion. I don't watch the show or read the magazine or edit the articles relating to Top Gear. Reverting to something you know is wrong because there is indecision between the sources and indecision about which source to abide by can make for a lively discussion. This is even better than when itv orders a 13 episode series of Law & Order | UK and then when it comes time to broadcast it they split it up into a 7 ep series & a 6 ep series and there are references existing from the same source which group the episodes differently; and itv repeats this odd behviour each year. About this show, a two episode group which is shown well after the end of series 15 and which at its end promos the forthcoming series 16 to me sounds like a two-part special, like the last David Tennant episodes of Doctor Who are between series 4 and series 5. With the Top Gear website showing series 15 ending in August and their blog describing these as Christmas specials and the BBC & iPlayer likewise treating them as specials has anyone considered the publication deadline of the magazine and it simply being that the magazine was printed with the then-current take on it at the time the article was written but by the time it made it to newsstands the info was outdated? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
And since i notice that there are claims the website is silent on this matter (ie there is nothing in the episode guide) here are a couple of blog posts from the Top Gear website which are blatantly clear about these being a 2 part Christmas special. http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2010/12/21/the-first-of-our-christmas-double-bill/ & http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2010/12/21/xmas-double-bill-details/ and these have been around for more than 10 days now so i don't know why i, the outsider who has no interest in the show, am the one who is pointing these out to people who have an interest in the show. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"The iPlayer listing has clearly muddied the water considerably. I wouldn't characterize what the BBC did as correction; it's a different kind of listing now, that's all." Iplayer also said it was 15x7 initially, that's why I labled it a correction. Actually the whole of the bbcs site appears to run from the same database, so when the episodes were changed to specials 2010, everything that links to it, updates automatically. This includes iplayer, the channel listing guides and any program subsites. Anyway since 15x7 makes no sense and is backed up by nothing I'm changing this back, at least it looks vaguely reasonable then until the next episode determines whether these two are part of 16 or their own seperate double bill. 77.102.121.201 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC) bah, not logged in. Bambers (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the change to the iPlayer listing, but regardless, we've got a couple options under discussion here. Please try to be patient and give us time to sort this out. Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

However, the only option that you keep reverting the article to, is one that no one seems to support. In terms of Law&Order Uk - I haven't looked at that article, but in some markets outside of the UK, it was broadcast as a single series, week after week - long before the second bunch of episodes aired in the UK. Clearly the entire bunch of episodes were produced as a single series ... this is not the case here, as much of the Top Gear December 21st episode clearly was only recorded recently - months after Series 15 aired. I see no reason not to remove the reference to Series 15 lasting until December 21st 2010 in the article. Does anyone actually disagree with this? Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You revert to the point where the article was when the discussion started -- I've been consistent about that. Law and Order has nothing to do with this discussion other than to serve as some sort of example (I think). This configuration also makes the (sourced) episode count for S16 work, based on what's being posted in the main article. Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert to the point where the article was when the discussion was started. Why have you said I did that? And why would one do that, that makes no sense, and would violate several Wikipedia tenants. The article should be adjusted so that it doesn't show something that we all know to be wrong; and should remain neutral. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned L&OUK as an example of where different sources, all from itv, will say different things. A comparison of the confusion. That is all. Nfitz, i don't know any other way to say it but 'aaahhh, yeah'. This constant reverting to 21 December = s15e7 in the face of majority of and all of the most recent references as well as those which never changed from the primary source which calls it the first of a 2 part special, and the sheer number of people moving the episode out of being labelled s15e7 speaks to the erroneous nature of the version that Drmargi keeps reverting to.
So you want consensus that it is s16e1 & s16e2. Theoretically everyone here could agree on that. Things go forward. Then series 16 starts and there is now the fight over whether to call that now-future episode s16e3 and leave the 21 December ep as s16e1 or to change it to be a special and the now-future ep be s16e1. Nothing calls the 21 December ep s16e1 but some tvrips you could download; they are notorious for messing up when a special is shown as it is outside of their episode numbering format. I would direct you to Flashpoint if you want to see grossly mis-labelled tvrips. topgear.com itself has always maintained the 21 & 26 December eps are specials. bbc.co.uk had it different at first but later fell in line with the topgear.com stance on the matter. I would point out that basing the episode list on what someone else wrote in the main article violates every rule of using WP as a source for itself. Synchronise them yes but don't use one article as the reason for making another read a certain way. This shouldn't be this difficult. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• My edit - which User:Drmargi keeps changing to something even he seems to think is untrue - wasn't to make the specials either Series 15 or 16; simply to list them as 2010 specials - which is what BBC is currently listing them as. Surely that's the safest thing to do. I fail to see why User:Drmargi keeps trying to change the page to say that it's Series 15. And I'm unsure how he thinks this will be resolved, given that everyone seems to agree that the December 21st episode isn't Series 16. Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• has anyone actually watched this us special? because there is a preview of sason 16 in it, along with the iraq special and all. in all the other seasons, the preview was in the first episode of that season, not in the last of the one before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.208.32 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes this point has been made earlier, additionally delerious&lost, I had mentioned the magazine publication date above and the TG site saying it was a double bill, though I didn't quote the blog posts. Why drmargi keeps reverting this to 15x7 is a mystery, yes there isn't a consensus on exactly whether these two episodes are their own mini series or just a start to series 16. I actually suspect it will turn out to be the latter and there will only be 5 more episodes in jan/feb/mar, it's mentioned somewhere on the tgsite that 16 will have 7 eps, however the bbc currently say otherwise. Thing is, there is a consensus, in addition to a small mountain of evidence that there is no 15x7 so the episode list should not reflect this. It's better to be possibly a little incorrect than obviously wrong and only agreeing with outdated media and tvrips published before the bbc changed their minds. Bambers (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wake up, refresh my watchlist (wish i could remember why it is here for me to have seen this discussion in the first place) out of pure curiosity and Drmargi strikes again. Will all edits be reverted? 55 reverts or edits that effectively reverted changes about the episode/series numbering done by Drmargi since mid-December including 8 this year alone. None of them that i saw were reverting vandalism; they were reverting to the preferred content of Drmargi pending this discussion (which Drmargi started a fortnight ago). It is only Drmargi who is doing this reverting (though some have reverted Drmargi's reverting of their own edits). Yes there is this discussion here but the reverting has gotten to the point of being an edit war to promote this discussion which is oddly enough supporting the edits that are being reverted. Even Dramrgi has declared to be now against s15e7 [6] despite continued reverts which speak to the contrary. Anyone else confused?
Per the topgear.com blog i first support calling these specials that fall between s15 & s16. Second to that i could support calling them s16e1 & s16e2 pending further details on the next episode. Given all the information i am aware of i must oppose s15e7. Either they are both specials or they are both series 16. Either way this has not made me a fan of the show; I'll take the bus. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand now going back and forth...semi-protect the page for starters. I don't think we can say the US Special is part of Series 15. The delay between the last ep of S15 and the first special was months...indicating a new series (also a good argument for calling them seasons and not series). Jeremy also starts by saying "we're back", which he only does when a previous series has ended. Also, the preview of S16 is shown in the US special. The way we have it now someone is going to watch the 3rd episode of the series and expect to see the preview. Finally, on the piracy front the specials are consistently listed as S16E01 and S16E02. Thus my vote is leave them as Eps 1 and 2 of Season 16. It's definitely not apart of season 15 and leaving them orphaned as specials makes searching for them much harder, as well as implying a disconnect between the specials and what's next, which isn't true. MrCrackers (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Like everybody else, I agree that they're not part of season 15. But we can't mark them as part of season 16 either at this time, aince the BBC has not made it clear what they consider to be connected to what, still less what the episode numbers are. – Smyth\^talk 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually could not care less where they are listed, but came across this discussion whilst looking at the official topgear site which states it is 15x07: Search for "Series 15 episode 7" and you will find amongst other results http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/01/06/series-15-episode-7-outtake-more-from-danny-boyle/ 20:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoundDog (talk • contribs)

I am back to being totally amused by this. The blog on topgear.com had been the sole consistent source declaring it to be a special and now there is a post on the blog declaring it to be part of series 15 now that everything else had conformed to what early blog posts had called it. Top Gear is messing with us all. They call it Ψ while everyone else called it ξ and they get everyone to call it Ψ and then they turn around and call it ξ. I say we call it Φ and be done with it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does feel like we're being messed with. My current favorite is the BBC site referring to the next episode as "Season 16 proper"...so does that mean the two we have were "unofficial" S16 starts? Personally I think they were calling them 2010 Specials for advertising more than anything else and they'll eventually become S16E01 and S16E02. But I'm standing down given the official word is they are standalone; which makes little sense IMO given they showed the S16 preview already. We also have the business of the Sereies 16 page being all over the place which I'm not even going to try sorting out.MrCrackers (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you, the reason I put them in as specials 2010 is because I didn't have a source to do otherwise. My suspicion was that the new episode would start at 16x3 resolving the issue neatly. However, suprisingly, (or not given current form!) the beeb has gone with s16ep1 (out of 7 interestingly) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y469f Bambers (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me that they have made two specials, one budgeted as part of series 15, and one as part of 16, and broadcast them prior to the start of series 16. The above edit war has just made things more confusing, as every time I visit the article things have moved and changed their names. Perhaps we all need to get some perspective? 71.105.101.61 (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@ 71.105.101.61 - The sources keep changing. No, really it is not a joke. The sources can't remain consistent. If one says "Hi" the other says "Hello" and then the one says "Hello" and the other says "Yo". That has the one now saying "Yo" whilst the other says "Hi". A big, frustrating loop of unending reclassification. Thanks to the edit request below i noticed that topgear.com now has placed the specials as s15e7 and s16e1 in their episode guide. I mean, come on. What will it be next week? topgerar.com and bbc.co.uk have been all over the place in what they are called, one following the other, and for maybe a few minutes here or there they are the same but they are each chasing the other so the synchronised naming never lasts more than a fleeting moment because they don't know that the presently have it synchronised. I call it Φ = series 7 episodes 12 & 13. At least i promise not to change my mind about calling it that. So in one sense i am more reliable than BBC and TopGear.com :P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least reach consensus that the US Special isn't part of series 15? I'm really getting tired of it constantly being moved there and having to be moved back. Unless you can provide 2 independent and current sources proving it, even the vaguest common sense dictates it's not remotely part of series 15 (cause, you know, they've always ended a series by showing the preview for the next series *eye roll*). ****Watch the end of 15x06. Jeremy states unequivocally it's the end of the series and the voiceover following says the same. That's the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned.MrCrackers (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You have a reliable source that says it's Series 15, and not for the first time. Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I We have a presenter which stated directly Ep 6 was the end of the series. We have the voiceover, which is done by the BBC and not the Top Gear team stating the same. We have common sense which shows no connection between Series 15 and the USA special. We have the series 16 preview being shown at the beginning of the episode. Oh and then we have the Top Gear site singing a different tune every week. But somehow we're ignoring real evidence and considering your source "reliable"? I refuse to consider it part of series 15 unless you can gain consensus that it actually is. Making a notation that its placement is disputed is sufficient IMO.

Regardless, I've added BBC sources which have supremacy over Top Gear sources (BBC controlling production of Top Gear) indicating that series 15 ended with episode 6. I've also changed the article to show that the US and Middle East were not part of "Series 16 Proper" (according to Top Gear site) but instead "Specials 2010", which was consensus prior to S16E01 airing. I'm satisfied with how it is now and would like to propose the current page for discussion before this turns into more of an edit war.(before MrCrackers (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Se 15 Ep 1, Reliant Robin year correction

In the description for Episode 1 of Series 15, it said that Jeremy drove a 1981 Reliant Robin. A 1981 car would have a suffix "W" or suffix "X" registration. The Robin Jeremy drove had a prefix "M" registration (1 August 1994 – 31 July 1995) and I confirmed on DVLA's vehicle enquiry page on the DirectGov website that the car was manufactured and registered in 1994. I have therefore corrected this error. (Also note the new-old-stock Ford Fiesta front lights and Ford Escort van rear lights that were fitted on these 90s Robins) --86.169.37.122 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Varrbacon, 25 January 2011

All of the names of the episodes are incorrect, they are just listed as "Series 1, Episode 1" when in fact the name of that episode should be "The One With Stig Cheating a Speed Camera." On the official BBC Top Gear website it lists all of the episodes in order, with their names, and it should here too. Here is the link to the website where everything is listed correctly. http://www.topgear.com/uk/tv-show/series-1

Thank you and good luck.

Varrbacon (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It already is semi-protected until the end of the month. And I don't care what the catchy name of each episode is. For reference/searching purposes I just need series and episode number. Maybe throw in a link at the top for people who care but otherwise it would be a waste of space without contributing much.MrCrackers (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Varrbacon is correct here--we cannot make up our own titles (which is what in the article now). I just checked three similar pages (List of Friends episodes, List of Star Trek episodes, and List of Mad About You episodes), and all use the actual show title. The issue has nothing to do with what you (a reader) need--it has to do with providing correct information. We couldn't for example, just list Shakespeare's plays as "The First Tragedy" and "The Fourth Comedy" just because we wanted to. I don't see anything on the official website that calls those "catchy titles"; they appear to be the real show titles. Personally, I think someone with a closer connection to this article should fix the problem, because it is admittedly a lot of work. Varrabacom, if no one else does the work, you will be able to do it once protection expires; since this is a topic I am not interested in, I can't bring myself to spend the hours needed to do it myself. I'm leaving the request up so that hopefully someone will start to tackle it; I'll check back in later and see if anyone has done it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think the link provided is proof that those are episode titles as opposed to 5 word summaries. The BBC refers to episodes by their series and episode numbers, not by any title.MrCrackers (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think that it is more than just a summary of the episodes. The title of the episode should be "101 - The One With Stig Cheating a Speed Camera." Then you would be able to find it by searching for Top Gear 101, as well as have the correct title. Plus, why would they have a 5 word summary literally right above the summary to the episode. It is obviously a title.Varrbacon (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MrCrackers, can you show any reason why you think those aren't titles? It's certainly not a general BBC policy—see List of Dr. Who episodes and List of Fawlty Towers episodes, for two examples from other BBC productions.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they were being cheeky as well as providing a quick means of determining what an episode was about without having to skim the summary itself. Just see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59 where they don't use any "The One...." titles but rely completely on the series episode labeling. The war over the most recent episodes has shaken my confidence in the Top Gear site as a reliable source, so unless we can find another source or it being directly stated "Episode Title" then I wouldn't agree with making such a bold edit of this article. Even the Top Gear site doesn't label what the 5 word blurb officially is. If we also look at a google: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&&sa=X&ei=yL4_TfrAEIqCsQOzsKCWCA&ved=0CB4QvwUoAQ&q=top+gear+the+one+with&spell=1&fp=ff7438fb088773d1 we can see that "The One With" isn't particularly common usage outside of the Top Gear site. The reason why I'm opposed is because this page has already come under fire for being too long. Something like a production code would be equally as unhelpful as "The One With", but "The One With" would add a ton more length.MrCrackers (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The point you make about the BBC site makes more sense. Does anyone have a copy of a DVD of a complete season? That seems like it would provide a definitive answer. I'm guessing that they don't have titles, since when I look at the amazon.com listing, in the "View it Now" section, the only titles are "Episode 1", etc., whereas other shows (like Friends) do list full titles. As a side note, your concern about the length of the page is irrelevant--if those are really the titles, we must add them; we can't have wrong information for "length" concerns. The only question is whether or not those are actually titles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked Netflix, they have the episodes listed by series-episode as well whereas Mad About You and Seinfeld is given actual titles. The BBC America site uses series-episode format as well. If the DVD did have the titles I would still change the article to something like "Episodes are given titles[external link] on both the DVD and Top Gear homepage, although in most places the titles are not used [cite BBC]". An arguable point is that so long as we can show the blurbs aren't official titles, the information shouldn't be included in the episode tables since its format already lends well to quick skimming and a 5 word blurb wouldn't contribute further in that regard (under the category of Fancruft). MrCrackers (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the USA special be counted under Series 15 or 16 or neither

• Season 15. This business of is it 15 or is it 16? has been such nonsense since the beginning. One minute the various editors want to go with the BBC, the next minute, it's the show, the next minute it's the Top Gear site (which had not identified the episode until Season 16 started), with no consistency. And now we have one editor declaring himself final arbiter of what takes "supremacy" and reverting two reliably sourced edits placing the episode in Season 15, per the show's own website. Worse, the justification for the reverts is little more than what the hosts said and the BBC iPlayer (which has changed more often than I change my socks.) Top Gear's episode guide for Season 16 is now up, it places the January 23 episode at 16.01, the Middle East special as a special and The USA Road Trip as 15.07. Regardless of where it's placed, it's never going to be perfect, but the show's own website would clearly be the most reliable source for what's accurate. Drmargi (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Series 16. - Specials 2010 In response to Drmargi. First, enough with the accusations and aggression, I'm not calling myself the final arbiter on the matter. It is my opinion that the BBC has the final authority on all things Top Gear (seeing as they finance, broadcast, and produce the show), and therefore in the case of conflicting information we should default to the BBC. Next we have "the show, Top Gear site, and the BBC". Both the show and the BBC agree that it is not apart of series 15. 2 out of 3 sources agreeing would seem to indicate the Top Gear site is wrong. However the BBC also classifies the USA special as well as the Mid East special as part of Specials 2010, in multiple locations as current references show. I furthermore recall Jeremy saying something to the effect of S16E01 being the "official start" of the series. However, because the series 16 preview was shown in the US Special, I believe the 2010 specials must be placed underneath series 16.

Addendum taken from above talk comment: We have a presenter which stated directly Ep 6 was the end of the series. We have the voiceover, which is done by the BBC and not the Top Gear team stating the same. We have common sense which shows no connection between Series 15 and the USA special. We have the series 16 preview being shown at the beginning of the episode. MrCrackers (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC

-Deliriousandlost, you seem to be using a lot of words on this talk page without actually contributing or suggesting a resolution to the situations present. It would seem by your logic we should leave the two specials sitting in an untitled box somewhere between 15 and 16 and hope the BBC and Top Gear page come into alignment. We have no information even suggesting they're aware of the disparity and/or working to resolve it (if ever). Such a solution would leave readers confused and misinformed at best, which is no where near ideal. If the sources are conflicted, then why are we not expressing this in the article itself? I made this addition by adding a "Misc" column, but this was reverted by Drmargi. I believe Drmargi misinterpreted my addition as using the article for a talk page, when I was merely trying to point out to a neutral reader that our sources conflict.

-Furthermore, I disagree with your statement that "they are both apparently out of sync with the content of the show itself". The BBC site is in agreement with the content of the show regarding the USA Road Trip not being apart of series 15. The purposed of this RfC was to attempt to bring consensus to a solution in absence of agreeing sources. Nearly any dispute resolution process (ie RfC) can fall under the category of "Original Research". In fact, I initiated the RfC process to reach *official* consensus over whether to agree with (place "supremacy") of either the BBC website or the Top Gear website in deciding the series number of the USA Special. The issue along with others has been discussed at length in the main Talk body, yet I felt it had become too lengthy (time-wise and content-wise)and pluralized for any real consensus to come from it. Yes I'm aware that both are owned by BBC Worldwide, but, even at that, the BBC site is refered to as "The homepage of the official Top Gear website". Furthermore I've made my position clear that I believe the TopGear.com site is not a reliable source on the subject at hand.

-Therefore your claim that a RfC here is inappropriate I believe to be untrue and invite any administrator to comment as well now that the issues have been laid out. Frankly I think your cry of opposition to a request for comment is an uncalled for attempt to stifle discussion. If an outcome of the discussion is "Original Research", then so be it, but it is unfair to cut something off before anything has resulted.

-I'll admit readily that any consensus we do reach will be inherently tainted for the reasons you've mentioned (conflicting sources), however I feel that taking no action in absence of attempting to reach and/or find agreement through consensus or additional independent sources is a wrong action.MrCrackers (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I point to WP:BURO and WP:IGNORE MrCrackers (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd give much weight to the (now inappropriately placed) comment by Deliriousandlost. Wikipedia has the RfC process as a mechanism of dispute resolution without parameters or pre-qualification, just the recommendation an attempt at discussion on the talk page be made first. That's happened here, therefore RfC has been applied appropriately. In no way does RfC supercede WP:RS or WP:VERIFY; it simply allows for outside perspectives that will lend themselves to resolution of the disagreement. You think the TopGear.com website isn't reliable; I feel it's the most reliable source. We're at impasse, so let's hear what others have to say that might allow for resolution. Nowhere in any of this is anything that remotely suggests WP:OR. I would suggest that, if the RfC above is to be taken seriously, this discussion should halt here, that the furious editing stops, and that everyone concerned lets the outsiders weigh in. Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Drmargi at least I've been able to agree with you about something today. I won't be making any further edits regarding the USA Road Trip (issue at hand) until some sort of consensus has been reached. If we don't receive any written objections or objecting edits to the way the article currently stands then I believe WP:CON has been met. Offhand I suspect the article will have to be protected again at the end of the month to prevent a futile attempt and discussing a moving target MrCrackers (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And I don't. You've got to consider the IP edits that are currently locked out as opinion on which version is correct, and you've GOT TO GIVE IT TIME. The reason we've had this problem is people won't leave it alone. That's what I was trying to convince people to do -- leave it at one version and TALK. Don't push it, don't edit over and over and over -- just leave it alone. You may need to walk away for a week or two. Drmargi (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Delirious I think you're still missing the point. If Wikipedia didn't use consensus to accept certain "definitive" sources while downplaying others than there would likely be significantly less progress made as a whole. For example, if a paper encyclopedia has an error on a topic would that topics corresponding Wiki page grind to a halt? No. So how is this example any different than the current situation? Anyways more to the point, while both sites are owned by the BBC we have no information regarding who actually edits, writes, and controls publication of the content. For all we know the BBC Top Gear page is written in China whereas the TopGear.com page is written in South Africa. "Generally accepted" "popularity contest" and "consensus" are all different ways of saying the same thing. And coming to consensus that TopGear.com isn't reliable on this one topic doesn't make the entire source unreliable (see paper encyclopedia example). Your objection to a simple solicitation for comments with the hope of reaching consensus is doing nothing more than taking pre-emptive prejudice against any results and is unproductive in provoking relevant discussion. For all we know an editor will come up with a third independent+reliable source that will solve the issue cleanly. Regardless, an RfC has nothing to do with the integrity of the article directly so therefore your complaint has no merit. If the RfC comes to an agreement, the article changes to reflect, and you disagree with the changes *then* you can start complaining.MrCrackers (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving beyond the impasse of BBC vs TopGear.com, the content of the show itself has said (presenter and voiceover as mentioned before) 15x06 was the end of the series. A statement like that would have to run through both the entire Top Gear production team, as well as the BBC directly in order to be aired. Unless we can find a statement on anything BBC owned saying "sorry that was a mistake" or even in replays of 15x06, why would we not take that as being the definitive fact deciding the placement of the USA road trip? This alone combined with agreement from the BBC page (ignoring connection to TopGear.com) to me is ^^ample^^ evidence that the Top Gear page is wrong in this instance (WP:BRAIN). Furthermore my logic is that if we can agree the USA Road Trip is not apart of Series 15, that would immediately disqualify the TopGear.com page as a reliable source thus clearing up the controversy immediately. But apparently people don't agree and thus the Request for Comments. Regardless I don't think it is right to leave the article to devolve into an edit war under the hopes that the BBC will sort their mess out. If we reach a consensus that we can't say what is correct one way or the other than the article should reflect that and get consensus that WP:IGNORE should apply regarding original research for such a special isolated case. MrCrackers (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To throw another wrench into the works, the BBC Top Gear page (not TopGear.com) is listed as "The Official Home of Top Gear". However, I don't think sifting through conflicting sources is performing original research, otherwise we could describe any form of selecting references (referencing) as performing original research without discussion ||| I'm with you in hoping you get a response but I bet they get a billion "oh I love your show" emails and thus ignore everythingMrCrackers (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)