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

February 2013

Clarkson just confirmed in his official Facebook page that Top Gear Christmas Special is gonna air in February 2013. I edited the article according to this: https://www.facebook.com/JeremyClarksonFanClub/posts/512702888759873. Cheers. --181.164.208.140 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources as a rule, and Clarkson plays pranks. Once you have a reliable media source, the content can be added back. --Drmargi (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR and WP:FACEBOOK you are wrong. Many companies have official FB and Twitter pages where they'll post information that is both factual and not available anywhere else. If the page is confirmed to belong to the subject at hand then it can be used as a source. MrCrackers (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Facebook page in the first comment is not a confirmed official source - in fact neither the post nor the page seem to exist any more. The idea that Clarkson would run his own fan club is laughable anyway. Clarkson's Twitter account is real, but he is not in charge of BBC scheduling, and Drmargi's statement is correct. Please can you understand that there are no heroics in being *first* to announce things, it is not Wikipedia's job to do so - people should not be coming here at all to see when TG restarts. Try reading WP:NOT before claiming WP:IAR or citing essays that aren't even guidance. Halsteadk (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New Layout

I was recently unpleasantly surprised by the change in layout for the last few seasons. While I see that it might save some amount of space (albeit small), I have to take issue with the claim that it makes it easier to read. When I use this page I'm looking for an episode with a specific car featured in it, or a specific challenge. Having those two categories of information separate made it very easy to scroll and find what I was looking for, as I could focus on one column depending on what I knew about an episode, what I was looking for, etc. Now its all mashed up in the middle. The episode summaries are not long enough and do not need to be long enough to necessitate using the entire width of my screen. Having one line of text smashed between a bunch of blue links does *not* make it easier to read. The page reads much easier going top to bottom in columns rather than side to side in rows.

The amount of space saved is not worth the loss in ease of use. Compare any two series with equal numbers of episodes, one with the new layout, one with the old. How many vertical pixels are saved? 50?

In any case, this is a pretty large change to a page that doesn't need any major editing unless theres a new episode. I'd rather the issue be discussed a bit before more series are changed to the new format. Corylahey (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the new layout, although it does require some tweaking. The format uses {{episode list}}, which is the standard for television episode lists these days, and provides for easier linking to individual episode articles. It also removes redundancy when used in the individual series articles, which I suppose is the next logical step

I agree, it scatters information around too much. Yes it saves space, but space is cheap. MrCrackers (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The new layout uses {{Episode list}}, which is the standard for television list articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the two. The original is a bit easier to read despite the color bars, but the new format is esthetically pleasing, and follows the standard. Moreover, I think it will be easier for screen readers and other assistive devices to read. --Drmargi (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the quality of the template, but one thing I do notice is that the template seems structured towards shows that have more one-line information (see the LOST episode list article, where every entry is a single line). If you use Series 16, Episode 3 as an example, it's extremely difficult (for me) to read the description because it runs across my entire monitor in one continuous line and is flanked top and bottom by distracting blue links. I agree with Drmargi's opinion that aesthetically it's more pleasing, but only from a distance and reading-readiness is lost. MrCrackers (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wholly support the new layout. Rebel shadow 04:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The new layout, the removal of the challenge information, and the recent inclusion of the "best of top gear" episodes are ALL major regressions in the usefulness of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The new layout is the standard for television programs and the challenge information is in the individual series articles where it should be. The new layout eliminates unnecessary duplication and the need to edit two articles for every episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that standards are a bad thing, but this really seems like a case of forcing a square peg through a round hole. If the only reason we are changing this page is to conform to a standard, despite massive reductions in the actual usefulness of the page, then we should rethink what the goals here are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And while I think the elimination of duplicate information is good - in this case it makes things worse. These aren't source code files, we can have duplication and it not be a bad thing because in the event that there is accidentally contradictory information, humans can reconcile it and in fact fix it. Each page should be written to be easy to read and rich in information that an end user might want from that page. The elimination of duplication on wikipedia quickly reduces to an absurdity I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal of the Features/challenges column from the page. This article has been formatted like this for several years now (since at least Series 12), and I and many other Top Gear fans have referred to it regularly. Why has someone decided to change the page now? It previously was functional, useful, and aesthetically pleasing- and the new version is only aesthetically pleasing. I'm trying to maintain maturity here, but this major edit is really just crap. I also understand the need for standards across Wikipedia, but plain and simple- this reduces the usefulness of this page to virtually nil.--97.81.210.212 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your new layout is just rubbish and dumb(@who did this) at the same time. I tell you why: 1. UK viewers (waste of space, no relevant use whatsoever). 2. when sb search for the season and episode of an tg event, a tg vehicle or a tg-challenge in between >100episodes, i cant find it anymore cause the information is now cascaded into each season. before that i had everything on one page. just using the search button of the browser

so for god sake do us a favour and put the old layout and lock so no idiots can mess with it anymore. thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.254.141 (talk • contribs)

The new layout is highly ineffective. Top Gear is a show which prominently features challenges, and to remove such a simple entry from the main overview page in the name of "removing duplication" is shortsighted and poor form. While the original layout did not directly follow the so called "standard format" it succinctly presented the necessary and useful information pertaining to each episode. Please undo these recent changes and make this page useful again.Simple information is good (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you all are using the wiki page to index intricate details about each episode, each series page with episode descriptions should suffice, all the info there is mostly cut and paste of what was there before under the 'Short summary' boxes that are hidden here on this overall page. Otherwise, this page will show just the transcluded bits. One proposal to make it more usable would be to add cars used in the features into the box currently labeled as 'Reviews' so to be inclusive as to all Featured cars in each episode. Same goes for 'Guests' since not all guests listed i think were appeared exclusively for SIARPC. This is how series 15 appears now on this page, namely on episodes 2 and 6. List of Top Gear episodes#Series Fifteen.

In order to make this happen though I would suggest these changes by editing in each respective series' pages. These changes are ongoing and of course it can never be finished completely. If users want more freedom I would suggest editing and adding topics over at [topgear.wikia.com/]. Overall, constructive comments or other creative suggestions would be welcome, as long as the aims are for pages to look tidy and concise per Wikipedia standards.

Rebel shadow 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to second all the people commenting on the new layout being garbage. Real people come to this page and read the words on the screen. Removing almost all of the text renders the page completely useless. If you must reformat, please consider keeping the current information for each episode in a newly formatted area. Removing useful information for the sake of aesthetic appeal is not an intelligent nor considerate decision. Requiring people to navigate to 20+ other pages in order to get the same information which was originally very succinctly summarized here is monumentally inconsiderate and shows that this is clearly being edited by someone who is more of a formatting nazi than a real user of the page (which is not the sense of community wikipedia looks to foster) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.170.64 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, the division to single articles and new format should have been more fully discussed before the move was made given the response. I'm still having mixed feelings; standard formats are fine, but sometimes they're like the inmates running the asylum. Table formats should be governed by the information they must organize rather than information being forced into pre-established tables. Spreading it across 20 articles v. perhaps four or five (with groups of five seasons' detailed tables) seems excessive, given there's precious little other content in each seasonal article. I think perhaps the happy medium would be to regroup the detailed tables into clusters (S1-5, 6-10, etc.) --Drmargi (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It really wouldn't be practical to combine more than 1 or 2 series per series article as this would result in page file sizes that would be relatively slow to load. Even though there are only a few episodes per page, there is a lot of information in each entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like this page is frequently used as an index for features/challenges as well as cars and guests on every episode. I seems if another column were added to the condensed episode list format it would look the same as before, with no article improvement in consistency or formatting. 24.19.26.7 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The answer to complaints that the page has lost usability for the sake of aesthetic appeal shouldn't be...go to another forum. That is an attitude that is against everything wikipedia represents. Are there any reasons for doing this beside the conformity to the standard and the crisper aesthetic look? If not...this just seems really misguided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, who is "we" in your statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I really am amazed at the opposition to this. The only difference between the current and previous version is that the features/challenges section is missing. Personally, I find the "Title" column redundant for most episodes. We could use the RTitle field for features/challenges and solve this easily. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

no,keep the columns as they are. people got used to it, and its not improving anything. and what is this garbage with inserting rows with "best of". put that far far away from the episode guide. u are ruining this wiki page by all means. it helped me so much in the past finding things. the main page of tg should stay untouched and only extended with new episodes.

thank you again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.254.141 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the reaction you are seeing is from a use case that perhaps you hadn't considered. A lot of people use this web page as an answer to the question, "what episode will I watch next on Netflix?". By removing the column of challenge data it no longer works in that way. The other reason is probably that people see no need to remove it. Why bother? There is still no cogent explanation of why it is worth conforming to the standard. What do we gain? 2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:F7 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you even watch the show? Features/challenges are literally ALL anybody cares about. No-one knows about the episode with "blah" car, but everyone knows about the episode where they go on a caravan holiday, or try to make amphibious cars. No-one cares what cars they are, the important piece of information is what they are doing with the car (such as making it amphibious or racing it against a bullet train).174.20.170.64 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, when replying, please add your post in chronological order, not before other existing posts. Secondly, whether or not I watch the problem has no relevance to what I wrote. The only difference between the old and new layouts is the features/challenges an I suggested that we could include them if necessary. I have indeed watched every episode and special and your assertion that "Features/challenges are literally ALL anybody cares about" is your opinion and not fact at all. I often look through old episodes to look for car reviews related to cars that I have driven, Lamborghini Gallardo, Ferrari F430, Aston Martin V8 Vantage, Audi R8, Lotus Elise, Mazda RX-8 and Subaru Outback to name a few. People have different reasons for watching the show, not everyone watches for the same reason that you do. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Could everyone please remember to sign their posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) after their post? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this page may be useful for non-wikiconformists? http://topgear.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_list -24.19.26.7 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Bookmarked. "Screw you guys. I'm going home." Congratulations formatting nazis for taking away traffic (and potential donations) from wikipedia. 174.20.170.64 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. The only argument for these changes is that other sites maintain the data all the users want so we can go there? Where is the value proposition of the new formatting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please note, this page has now been protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. The constant, selective reversions by IP editors were grossly inappropriate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site and we try to act with some sense of decorum. By all means continue to discuss here, but the edit-warring cannot continue. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain what the differences between an encyclopedia article and a fan site are to you? I feel sort of powerless to argue that the reduction of usability in this page is bad. It would be really helpful to know why you want the page to move to this new format. Right now it just looks like you are making a power grab. Or maybe you can elaborate on the sense of decorum you want?71.227.235.69 (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• AussieLegend, please don't take this as hostility, but I have to ask- what is your motivation for these changes? Major functionality has been lost with this recent deletion. A perfect example is Season 8: Episode 3, the first amphibious car challenge. That is arguably the major feature of the episode, yet your new template would suggest the only important aspect is that a Lotus Exige S is tested. Is this all really just to conform to a Wikipedia template? It just doesn't make sense to blindly conform to a template at any cost. You've seen a large number of both mature and immature disagreeing reactions to your changes. I apologize for those that have edited a mass revert or left immature comments on this page, but it is clear there is overwhelming opposition to the removal of the episode features. Is Wikipedia a community project or is this page now just your project and no one else's? 97.81.210.212 (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"what is your motivation for these changes" - I didn't make the changes, another editor did. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why edit a perfectly usable page to suit yourself? You've mentioned the fact that it's somebodies opinion about challenges/features being the main thing in the episodes yet you seem to be forcing your opinion on others that the challenges/features are not important. No usability has been added to this page what so ever, it's only been taken away by preventing visitors from quickly and easily getting to some of the information they are looking for. There was nothing wrong with the page, no complaints about it or anything but it still got changed because of a single person? I'm sure there are countless other pages that you could change that actually would benefit from editing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.92.113 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"you seem to be forcing your opinion on others that the challenges/features are not important." - I have never said anything of the sort. I didn't make the changes, another editor did. I do agree with the changes though. It's not a perfect result but then, no result is. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New layout seems fine to me. Yes, it's different - but different does not automatically mean "worse". Honestly, it's like being involved in the Sega Genesis/Megadrive arguments all over again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying new layouts are automatically worse. Everyone is saying, "THIS new layout is worse". They've provided reasons, primarily that it simply removes useful information for no real gain. No one is treating this like a "fan page". You don't see people on this discussion page arguing that the page lacks anecdotes about Richards teeth whitening. All you see is people asking for relevant, pertinent, usable information to not be removed. Its hard to argue that it wasn't "encyclopedic" before because that page was clearly fine for years. As of yet, we have not seen one compelling argument for this change from you. Your argument seems to boil down to, "stop complaining". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.235.69 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• _{(Insert to address specific comments in the above statement)} Where do I accuse anybody of treating this like a fan page? And your coment that "we have not seen one compelling argument for this change from you" is probably because I havent' commented at all either way on the changes. Don't be so disingenuous. My argument may sound like "Stop complaining" to you, but yours all sound like "I don't like change, and I don't like this" to me - especially when a user feels that the best way to present their argument is by saying "Please stop, it's really, really, fucking annoying"
• You know what, I don't really care what format the page takes. The old format looked fine - the new format looks fine. What I do care about is how discussion and progress is made regarding changes to pages. That's why I compared this to the inane and juvenile sniping over at Sega Genesis/Megadrive (although it hasn't got quite that bad here yet). The arguments between "Megadrive" and "Genesis" were so evenly matched that I personally chose to take my preference based on the method that those arguments were presented - and Genesis was done in a more mature and academic manner. As I said, it's not that bad here yet, but I can see it going down that road. Well done there on improving the quality of both the article, and now the talk page as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"it simply removes useful information for no real gain" - It really helps to look at the articles. This has been taken into account. As a result of that complaint the features/challenges content has been restored, it has just been merged into the same field as the reviews. It's possible for this to be moved into a separate column but when this was suggested, the response was "no, no, no" with no practical alternative. Really, all of the arguments are along the lines now of "I don't like it". If you don't, you need to suggest how to improve it. Restoring the old layout though is not a good option. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with AussieLegend here. I think we've hit a good compromise. Edit:forgot the signature. 2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:9 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is the old layout not good? The problem is that the page was a usable, helpful, informative source of information before the change, and now whomever has changed it has not only ruined that utility, much like deleting a third of an entry in a written encyclopedia, but thy have angered enough people that those in favor of the new layout are outnumbered by 20 to one by those against it. If this is not a dictatorship, then it should clearly revert to the way it was. There is no reason to be doing this, save to get off on annoying thousands of people. Please stop, it's really, really, fucking annoying. AlasdhairM (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, the old layout required that two articles be edited for every episode. This layout needs only the individual series article be edited. It also provides for an easy method of linking to individual episodes, which the old layout did not. I don't understand your claim that "the page was a usable, helpful, informative source of information before the change, and now whomever has changed it has not only ruined that utility, much like deleting a third of an entry in a written encyclopedia". The content that was in the old version is still here. It hasn't been deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference in how hard it is to visually parse the page now with one combined column compared to the original separate columns for reviews/challenges, plus I am usually looking for one or the other, not both at the same time. I don't have the technical understanding of Wikipedia to comprehend how the changes that were made result in the improvements you mention, but I'm willing to take your word for it. However, is it really not acceptable to have the reviews and the challenges in separate columns? 50.46.189.48 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The combined columns is really the only thing that I don't agree with. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, it looks like an amateurish attempt at condensing every single episode into a 1 line entry. But that's the problem with Wiki in general, while we're all busy discussing it some yobo is busy destroying the page to the point where we can't even go back to what it was even if we wanted to MrCrackers (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather silly thing to say. The ONLY difference between the old and new versions is that two columns have been merged.

Old version

Total	No.	Title	Reviews	Features/challenges	Guest(s)	Original airdate
1	1	Series 1, Episode 1	Citroën Berlingo Multispace • Pagani Zonda • Lamborghini Murciélago • Mazda6	Speed cameras	Harry Enfield	20 October 2002 (2002-10-20)

New version

Total	No.	Title	Features	Guest	Original air date
1	1	Series 1, Episode 1	Citroën Berlingo Multispace • Pagani Zonda • Lamborghini Murciélago • Mazda6 • Speed cameras	Harry Enfield	20 October 2002 (2002-10-20)

--AussieLegend (✉)

Wrong again. The new formatting removed all information regarding challenges for several series (which have now been readded). Series 20 still has no information on challenges, and the specials no longer indicate what is featured (except the Africa Special in series 19, although this only lists the featured cars, not the plot). Two columns merging is not the "only" difference - the change removed a significant portion of the content. --{ StonedChipmunk _talk }-- 17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to where it was 2 weeks ago. AussieLegend seems to be the only user who supports the changes, and he/she isn't even close to building consensus around it.MrCrackers (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the discussion again. Several editors have expressed support. Reverting while the matter is under discussion is considered disruptive and could result in a block. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No what's disruptive is making a giant article format change without discussing it first (yes I know you didn't do it). It should have been reverted at that point and put to discussion. MrCrackers (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've been through the series one article and split the reviews and features/challenges back into two columns, as was the case with the original version. It's a fairly simple thing to do for the remaining 19 seasons. I'll work on the other series as I have time, but it doesn't take any special skills to do - anyone can do it. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Series two has now been done as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As has series 3. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Series 20 Date/time

Nothing citable, but I just saw a commercial for the new series that says "Premieres Monday July 8th 8:30/7:30c" on BBC America. 75.82.195.95 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that BBC America uses their own schedule vs. BBC UK, where the "premier" might be for a season that's already aired in the UK.134.134.137.73 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Top Gear - Correction Request For Season 15 And Season 16

Hallo

The episode S15E07 is incorrect added as the first at Top Gear Season 16 Episode 1. Details for the Top Gear Seasons/Episodes was taken from here, http://www.topgear.com/uk/tv-show/series-15 and here, http://www.topgear.com/uk/tv-show/series-16.

Also the numeric order from season 16 is incorrect according to the Top Gear website the first episode from season 16 is "0" and it is the "Middle East Road Trip".

Both seasons 15 and 16 must be corrected. Thanks Christopher Barbas 07:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarbas (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2013

can you please put back the previous format of list of top gear episodes because it had more information and easy for exploring, the newer version does not give more information . 124.123.83.20 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This is currently under discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is this "under discussion"? You are the only person pushing for this counterintuitive change. I had to log in to an account that I haven't used for 6 years just to ask why in the world all of the information on this page is suddenly gone. Can you please provide a concise, reasonable explanation for the removal of the features/challenges section of the episodes? Keep in mind that a large quantity of watchers who use this page use it to find a specific episode based on not only just the cars. For example, if I wanted to find the amphibious cars episode (first or second, or the recent hovervan episode if you count that as an amphibious car), I can no longer do that. Ultimately, I must go to the Wikia link posted above, which does not have any information for the past 3 series. I say again - what is the purpose for this change, and can anyone corroborate your opinion? Given there are no rules mandating your change, the vast majority of Wikipedia users seem to be against it, so you are the one causing the edit war. --{ StonedChipmunk _talk }-- 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

1. It's under discussion above at New Layout
2. I'm not the only one pushing for the changes. I didn't even make them. I just reverted the inappropriate edit warring by an IP, and did that only once.
3. The place for a discussion is above, not here in response to an edit request.
4. Just in case you didn't get No. 2, I didn't make the changes.
5. You last used your account in September 2009, just under 4 years ago, not 6.[1] Welcome back. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)