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)

STOP! using the word "christmas". if it is not aired around christmas then dont call it that way anymore. since the uganda one it is just used to make some hype in december. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.157.138 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're 11 months too late for this conversation. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

my fault, i read somehow feb.2014 above... anyway but it was meant in general for future tg-special announcements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.156.76 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 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. Wiki rules would be that in the case of a revert war the page stays where it was prior to the change that triggered the war. Also, I count at least 7 users who have expressed disapproval and maybe 2 (including you) that have given any sort of support. To put it bluntly, get your facts right, stop acting like an admin with your veiled "could be blocked" threat, and stop trying to own the page.MrCrackers (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr Crackers, please remain civil, WP:AGF and discuss the content, not the editor. The warning on your talk page was justified given you reverted in the middle of a discussion, which is highly disruptive. You may want to step back until you can calm down a little. Meanwhile, Aussie has worked hard to find a compromise that restores the original column configuration while maintaining more consistent formatting. There is no consensus one way or the other regarding new v. old, the time for a WP:BRD revert has long passed, and Aussie is simply attempting to bring the new table columns more in line with the old ones. It's a reasonable change, and one I support. --Drmargi (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to bookmark an old revision of the page and use that for reference purposes. But I've been down this "discussion" road before that turns into a war of attrition and I'm not going to do it again MrCrackers (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And that's an option. --Drmargi (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

MrCrackers, we're trying to build a better article. If you want a better article you can help by restoring the features/challenges column to the individual series articles or by otherwise modifying the individual articles as I've so far done to the series 1-3 articles. It's fair more productive than complaining. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:45, 16 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)

Polar Special missing

Hello,

I'm wondering why the Top Gear Polar Special (Series 9, episode 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_Polar_Special) is not in the list. I think this is an error.

Thanks,

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cspanis (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

hello,

I think the viewers numbers on the ep and seasons might be wrong cause i remember on 60 minutes they said Top Gear has well over 350 million viewers world wide and it is the most watch TV show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.156.81 (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

January 23rd date questionable

I've added a reference to Clarkson's quote regarding season 21 starting on 23rd January 2014. However, I don't believe it may be accurate: Top Gear has always aired on sundays, and 23rd January falls on a thursday. If this change in scheduling were indeed true, I believe there would be a lot more noise and references regarding this. I propose the sentence as a whole be dismissed. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slauwers (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it - as I did a couple of days ago. Twitter does count as a reliable source. A date would need to come from the BBC, or Top Gears own website to be counted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As a verified account, (See WP:ELPEREN#Twitter) Clarkson's Twitter is a reliable source so, even though we may suspect the date is incorrect, we have to accept it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's becoming increasingly commonplace to use tweets from verified production crew and talent as reliable sources, along with some material from Facebook. The revert was inappropriate for a couple reasons, and Aussie was correct in restoring the original edit. I made a minor tweak to correct the date format. --Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(EC) And I removed it again. We could wait for further verification before including a self published primary source, whether verified or not. Given the initial comment from Slauwers about the date difference, I think further verification is necessary before including. Also, not wishing to edit-war (but I'm going to remove it again) information should not be continually inserted while a discussion is ongoing about its veracity. Note that I removed this comment several days ago - which I mention in my above post. I would be quite happy for additional evidence to be provided - and to be proved wrong - but until that happens or discussion naturally terminates, the date should not be included. Drmargi is particularly aware of this, having used the same reasoning to remove my posts while discussion is ongoing in the past - which I have abided by in each case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Staying germane to this issue, reverting stops with edit in place at the time the discussion was opened. Your multiple removals were in error, and have been reverted again, especially given consensus at present is against you. Please allow the discussion to continue with no further edit warring. You may have doubts about the accuracy of the tweet, but it meets the Wikipedia standard for WP:RS and as such, should not be removed without consensus to do so. --Drmargi (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You have got to be fucking kidding. The fact that the veracity of the exact same edit was brought up previously has no bearing on the discussion at all? If that's not being pointy, then I don't know what is. I would have thought that the page should have been frozen at the point of the controversial edits being inserted, not the discussion regarding them, but obviously point-scoring is more important that veracity. I remove myself from this discussion, with an uncharacteristic expletive laden shaking of my head. For the first time in my editing career, I'm actually at a loss for words, and that didn't even happen over at Cleo Rocos. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"BBC Confirms They Have No Idea What Jeremy Clarkson Is Talking About" "A BBC spokeswoman told us that Jan. 23 is neither the studio recording date nor the debut of the new season of Top Gear. As for why Clarkson made that claim on Twitter, well... they don't know." http://jalopnik.com/bbc-confirms-they-have-no-idea-what-jeremy-clarkson-is-1475572128 Surely this ends this particular debate. Userfriendly (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Now we've got conflicting sources. The edit was handled well, although I made a small tweak, noting that Jalopnik cited the statement from the BBC, given they claim that's what the BBC said, but don't provide a link to a direct source. A small err on the side of caution is in order. --Drmargi (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, given that consensus seems to be now moving towards the removal (and consensus has never been in favour of keeping it, despite Drmargi's comment - two editors for removal, one for keeping, and one admitting that "we may suspect the date is incorrect" is not consensus to keep potentially inaccurate - and already removed - information in the wiki) "A small err on the side of caution is in order" could be to remove the information altogether pending a genuinely and uncontroversially reliable source?

Despite having had a sleep to calm down, I am still baffled at the attitude to include information that has been challenged - and removed under the BRD guide, then reinserted when it should have been part of the discussion. In reality, the original editor was incorrect - albeit unintentionally - and if they doubted the accuracy of the source should have discussed it before re-adding it, especially when it had already been removed once. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No one was "admitting" that we may suspect the date. You don't seem to grasp that if the content comes from a reliable source, removing the content because we think it's wrong is personal analysis, which is not permitted. We have a primary source saying that the series will air on a certain date and a secondary source saying that another primary source says that it won't. Unfortunately that secondary source, which had earlier reported the first primary source's announcement, has failed to link to an actual statement by the second primary source and there seems to be nothing else on the net that supports the claim by the secondary source. We're pretty much stuck with reporting as we have, that Clarkson says one thing while the secondary source says that the BBC doesn't support Clarkson. without a direct link to the BBC's statement, we can't disregard Clarkson. As for the reversion, this thread was started by the editor who added the Clarkson announcement, after he had added it. WP:STATUSQUO says that the status quo prevails and the status quo at the time the discussion was started was that the claim was part of the article. BRD says that we shouldn't edit the disputed content while discussion is underway, but that's exactly what you did, just under 17 hours after discussion started. So no, it wasn't reverted in accordance with the BRD guideline. In any case, you removed it claiming "even Clarksons own twitter account is not a reliable source",[2] which is clearly incorrect. You made the same claim when you first removed it,[3] even though the reference at that time was Facebook, not Twitter. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no skin in this game regarding the date. I'm with Aussie; it's about reliable sources, and we've got one regarding the date from one of the show hosts. I'm not sure whether Jalopnik rises to the level of WP:RS or not; it's a small American blog-based website, but for now, I'm happy to assume it does meet the standard for a reliable source and we can take their word that they've somehow communicated with the BBC regarding the date (does the BBC website have a message board?) I've done a Google search, and can't find a published quote from the BBC refuting the date, just this one article. --Drmargi (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, I was unaware of the policy about verified Twitter accounts, but let's be precise and note that even verified accounts "may" be considered reliable, not that they unilaterally "are" considered reliable. My point, possibly badly made, is that there is controversy surrounding the addition, and that until resolved the info should not be included.

I'm pretty sure that the comment you made of "even though we may suspect the date is incorrect, we have to accept it." means that you share the suspicion that the date may be incorrect, otherwise why would you say that? Even if you didn't mean that, the consensus is still not against me - it was two for two so is a deadlock. Now with the introduction of the IP editor with another source, that's three against, two for. In black and white - I now have consensus for removal.

If we're really discussing sources then Clarkson counts as a primary source which as we all know are generally avoided anyway. Policy clearly states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" We currently don't have anything to support Clarksons comment - and in fact we have a conflicting secondary source to the contrary.

I accept that I'm coming across aggressive here, and don't care really either, you may hold that opinion of me for all you want, it makes no difference to me, or my editing (nor yours, I suspect,) the problem here is that I believe I am right, and you all believe you are right.

I believe that the addition of the information does not yet meet the criteria necessary for inclusion - and that it never has, whereas you all believe that it does, and that the Clarkson source is reliable.

Of course, we shall see who is right when further sources are made available - but in the meantime is it benefitting the encyclopedia to include material that is suspect? I think not. You think so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure squabbling about BRD procedure's going to do anything but get everyone's blood pressure up, so let's move on from that. You're correct in that we do have a conflicting source, but that leaves us with the problem of how we weight the sources. How reliable is Jalopnik? They reported the tweet along with everyone else, and now claim they've spoken to the BBC, but provide no link or other means to verify what they claim. I'm not inclined to give what they say too much weight. For now, we have a qualified statement that covers both sides of the coin, and under the circumstances, I think it's the best option. --Drmargi (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"let's be precise and note that even verified accounts "may" be considered reliable, not that they unilaterally "are" considered reliable" - WP:ELPEREN#Twitter says that Tweets may be useful as primary sources and that we should consider the "verified" status in judging the reliability of the tweet. Here we have a verified account of a notable individual who is intimately involved in the production of Top Gear. Such a tweet would generally be considered to be reliable, which is why multiple sites reported the tweet.

"I'm pretty sure" - "means that you share the suspicion that the date may be incorrect, otherwise why would you say that?" - Don't assume. I was speaking generally. I don't really have any thoughts concerning the date.

"it was two for two so is a deadlock. Now with the introduction of the IP editor with another source, that's three against, two for. In black and white - I now have consensus for removal" - Ummm, NO. We don't count votes when determining consensus. Consensus is determined by evaluating the arguments. It could be 50:1 but if the one has better arguments than the the 50, especially in relation to policy and guidelines, the outcome could be that the 1 is consensus.

"Clarkson counts as a primary source which as we all know are generally avoided anyway." - Again, no. That's a common misconception. Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further. The statement by Clarkson meets that requirement. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" is a bit of a furphy here. We're not making any interpretation, just reporting what Clarkson said.

"We currently don't have anything to support Clarksons comment - and in fact we have a conflicting secondary source to the contrary." - We have nothing to support the secondary source's claim, There's no link to the BBC statement and no other site seems to support it. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that still means it's a primary source, and see my rebuttal below. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have said "even if we...", which even when used generally is inclusive. And if you don't really have any thoughts concerning the date why are you being so damn insistent on including it, which is of course the whole point of this tirade discussion? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now who's assuming? Perhaps I considered the arguments for removal to be stronger (and better supported) than the arguments for inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we disagree again - the nub of the argument. You hold that Clarksons comment meets the requirement, and I don't. I am saying that his comment requires further backup, and in that regard needs more sourcing. I had to look up what "furphy" meant, and don't understand the relevence. Clarkson claims one thing whichc seems at odds with tradition. It needs clarifying, and we now have another source which contradicts his statement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a poor getout clause - many news items are reported - not only on the web - and just say "a source at the BBC/government/Wikimedia foundation/local council" and don't identify any further. Instead we consider the reliability of the source, and Jalopnik has not been shown to be an unreliable source (yet). Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

However, as Drmargi points out the comment is balanced now. I would still prefer its removal, but am prepared to see how it rides out. I feel that it's only fair to warn everybody (myself included) that if I'm proved right, I will be unsufferable, so no matter how mature you all consider yourselves to be, you might want to start preparing your rebuttals and sarcastic comments, because I'll not hold back on them in the slightest. (And the reverse is true - if Clarkson is correct, I consider myself fair game.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't insert your replies inside a single post made by another editor. That's poor etiquette. A visit to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is probably in order.

The fact that Clarkson's post is a primary source doesn't give it any less weight. We have to maintain a neutral point of view when editing, which is why we have to present Clarkson's post here. We can't rely on personal analysis to give it less weight; that's simply not permitted by policy. I'm sorry you continue to misunderstand my use of "we". "We" refers to the group of editors. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaboritive effort and "we" have to form consensus. It's not up to individuals to make decisions here, "we" as a group have to come to an agreement. Regarding "Now who's assuming? Perhaps I considered the arguments ", perhaps you did but you were very clear in your post to cite numbers, more than once. "It was two for two so is a deadlock. Now with the introduction of the IP editor with another source, that's three against, two for. In black and white - I now have consensus" seems to be basing your "consensus" on numbers. Your belief that Clarkson's comment doesn't constitute a reliable source is wrong, he's clearly the main presenter (he's even credited first) and, along with Andy Wilman, he was responsible for the 2002 relaunch of the series. He's intimately involved with the production of the series and his Twitter account is verified so his posts are authoritative. Reliable sources don't always have to be right. If he is wrong this time so be it. The jalopnik source is the source that needs backup. Clarkson is a direct source, while jalopnik is effectively hearsay, which is rarely given credibility. I provided a link to furphy specifically so you would look it up. The closest term to it, as far as it applies here, is "specious", but that doesn't quite cover it. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" isn't applicable at all, as I explained, since we're not interpreting the primary source, just reporting it. As for "I feel that it's only fair to warn everybody (myself included) that if I'm proved right, I will be unsufferable[sic]", the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if we later find out Clarkson was wrong, Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that we report what is verifiable and the 23 January date is verifiable. The jalopnik source is questionable because the claim it makes is not verifiable. If you plan to be insufferable, please consider that a demonstration of maturity is preferable, especially since there are administrative actions likely for inappropriate demonstrations of immaturity. If you are proven to be wrong, you probably won't see any reaction. We all make misteakes. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured that any response (mature or not) to my being correct will not fall foul of any wiki rules and forms. As you so amusingly (yet unintentionally) point out - we all make misteakes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"As you so amusingly (yet unintentionally)" - Oh well, I'm sure somebody got it. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was the only one being childish! Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a joke! Moving along... At present we have a reasonable, verifiable edit in the article, and no justification for removing it, which would be a violation of WP:RS. The article takes a neutral stance, simply reporting the tweet and the counter. Chaheel, neither Aussie nor I is taking a position on right or wrong; we're simply reporting what is verifiable. It's possible Clarkson hit a 3 on his phone versus a 6 or some similar error; it's possible the BBC is changing dates, it's possible Clarkson is referring to the production date, or something we can't anticipate. Who knows? We aren't, and can't take a position on that. We're simply noting what is verifiable: Clarkson gave us a date via Twitter; Jalopnik, in the absence of any supporting link, claims the BBC made a specific statement. Nothing more. If you find the need to cast that as win/lose should Clarkson be in error, so be it. I'm not interested in spite and petty victories. --Drmargi (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Series overview table

An IP recently changed the series overview table, making a number of changes that were problematic.[4] These included:

• Replacing the standard date format with abbreviated dates, which is inconsistent with the way we present series overview tables across the project. It's also inconsistent with both MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. When an article has evolved using one date format, the whole article should conform to that format and it is inappropriate to arbitrarily change formats. Even if we ignore that, changing the dates is blatantly unnecessary.
• Changing bolded cells to row headers, despite the cells not being row headers
• Removing MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT compliance without explanation.

Some other minor changes were made, such as replacing {{N/a}} with {{n/a}} and adding unnecessary formatting, but on their own not serious enough to warrant reverting. However, the dates, bolding and especially the MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT removal all were enough to justify a reversion. In my reversion I asked the IP to discuss before making these changes again,[5][6] but instead the IP has reverted (using a different IP),[7] before leaving a message on my talk page.[8] I intend reverting again, but will invite the IP to discuss here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The altered table adds nothing, and subtracts appropriate information. What's the need for it? Aussie details the technical and policy issues, which I support. I'd just add that informationally and aesthetically, the abbreviated dates are problematic. We're not fighting for space here. There's no need to compress dates or the table. It's fine as it is. (I need to do some homework, but I do believe all but S1 is available on DVD in the U.S.) --Drmargi (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Specials not shown

Hi, Ever since the tables are connected to the series page, there are no specials shown. For example, according to the series 18 page, there are 2 specials for this series: "50 Years of Bond Cars" & "Children In Need 2012 Special", but non of them are in the list anymore. Nima1i66 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest Clarkson tweets

We're back to trouble with Jeremy Clarkson's tweets as sources of information about upcoming episodes and broadcast dates. On July 6, Clarkson left a vague tweet, now deleted from his Twitter account indicating a January return, then the number 13 and the word probably. A couple of editors picked this up and interpreted it as meaning the show would return in January 2015 with 13 episodes. Clearly Clarkson doesn't know much yet, thus the word probably, they've never done as many as 13 episodes, and the last time TG did more than 8 episodes in a series was 2007. GIven the vague nature of his tweet, the article only mentioned the probably January return with a hidden note indicating that the 13 was too vague to be understood accurately. And that stood until one editor picked up a fansite post interpreting Clarkson's post as meaning 13 episodes, and is determined to edit war it into the article now with the untweeted and unsourced addition of a two-part Christmas special (which he can't be bothered to capitalize properly). I checked Clarkson's Twitter account this morning (U.S. time) to see if there was any further comment on or context for the tweet, and found it has been removed. Clearly, we've got an unreliable bit of information, so I've removed any mention of it from the article. Hopefully, that will be an end to it. --Drmargi (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed Clarkson's tweets above and, while at the time we argued for retention, that tweet was found to be wrong, so we should play on the safe side this time and wait for something we can trust. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point about the above. A year ago, Clarkson's tweets appeared to be reliable. Now we know they are often speculative, and should be treated guardedly. That's particularly true of this one which was cryptic at best, and has now been deleted from his account. --Drmargi (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Shock horror - Jeremy Clarkson is not a reliable source. Who'd have thought it, eh? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

iPlayer Ratings

Do we really need the 'iPlayer Requests' column in the tables for Series 21 and 22? In my opinion, it's pretty pointless because there isn't really anything to compare it to. 20 of the 22 series have not got this column which leaves extra room in other areas across the table so everything doesn't look so cramped. This column doesn't add to the viewing figures because quite a percentage of that number is the same people watching it a second time after their first viewing ... Just my opinion but I think it would be beneficial and look a lot more even and "neat" should it be removed. 86.134.241.31 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No-ones going to reply then ... 86.134.241.31 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the IP - Although it is the most watched programme on the IPlayer I personally see no point with adding the figures at all. –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Episode 81 seems to be missing

I have noticed that Series 9 Episode 6 is noted at the 80th episode then Series 10 Episode 1 is the 82nd episode. I am wondering whether that someone has just numbered the episodes wrong or is there a reason behind this. 13thDoctor93 (δ³Σx²) 21:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the article histories and it looks like it was a simple case of omitting No. 81. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters, but since it's an Encyclopedia

"Secondhand car specialist Jason Dawe was a co-presenter for the first series, but was replaced by May for the second series."

To be precise, Jason Dawe was a replacement for James May, who was hired for the job, but got so lost on the first day of shooting and never arrived that they had to start the shoot without him. [I have no explanation as to why he could not have joined them half-way through the series, or even on the second episode.]

Not sure if this matters to you. Jeremy chose him and if I'm not mistaken, he was hired first, ahead of Richard Hammond. So, he was not an afterthought, or a second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.165.207 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jeremy said James was "lost" for the first series as a joke ... It was a reference to James' notably poor navigational skills. I highly doubt this was the real reason for him not being included in the first series 81.130.94.30 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Table Widths

What's happened to the widths of all the series' tables?! They seem to have been extended quite a lot so now don't even fit on the page - you need to scroll across to see the viewers column. Surely this can't just be my screen? 109.151.166.109 (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A-Z Special

Should the "A-Z" specials really be included as part of Series 22? The June "finale" (of all the unseen bits) was a definitive end to the series. If at all, the "A-Z" specials should be separated, perhaps as a buffer in between Series 22 and the soon-to-be Series 23, to distinguish between the different eras? Either way, I don't think it is right to have an "unofficial" episode included in the episode list for a Series which ended 6 months ago. Thanks! 109.151.163.216 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Series overview table

Earlier today an anonymous editor decided to completely change the series overview table, which uses {{series overview}} to, amongst other things, ensure compliance with MOS:ACCESS. He/she did this without explanation but demanded one from me when I restored the template.[9] I have replied on the IP's talk page but I don't know whether the IP is dynamic, so I thought I'd note the matter here in case the IP pops up again with a different address. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

2015 Specials

Why're the A-Z specials included on this page? They're not 'official' episodes, barely anyone watched them and they're just highlights and not 'official' specials (i.e. Polar special, Africa, Bolivia, Patagonia, Burma etc.). The Bond car special episode from a few years back isn't included in the list for the same reason, so why are these specials? 81.140.180.82 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Since no-one is replying, I'll remove the specials myself within the next few days if nobody gives a response. 81.140.180.82 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

They were advertised by the BBC as Top Gear specials and contained Top Gear footage, so are listed for that reason. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@109.151.163.216 and 81.140.180.82:, I tried to solve this for the externally-produced clip show in Special:Diff/721670428 by using the "From A–Z" broadcast title. This was partially reverted (…presumably on the basis of WP:BRD) in Special:Diff/721685359 with the summary "Undid revision 721669162 by Sladen (talk)convention is to use "Specials"" by another editor. We appear to have "regular" episodes, road-trip "Christmas specials", corresponding Best of Top Gear runs after each series. Richard Hammond's "50 Years of Bond Cars: A Top Gear Special" that was rebranded as Top Gear at the last minute. And then, we have something completely different: The "From A–Z" two-part talking-heads clip show that was externally produced, had markedly different format, and was not blessed by the original production team or presenters. I can certainly see why "Specials" could be confusing. I would welcome other suggestions and input if "Specials (2015)" is felt to be misleading and the broadcast title "From A–Z" unsuitable. AussieLegend, could you help myself and others understand your thought process here—this would likely enable a more useful discussion. —Sladen (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As was already explained, the BBC advertised these episodes as Top Gear specials, which is why they are listed on this page. However, they weren't part of series 22, and 109.151.163.216 asked if they should be listed in series 22, which they incorrectly were at the time. They were moved to this page, fixing that problem. Regardless of the types of specials, all the rest listed here are included in their related series. Only the "A-Z" specials weren't part of a particular season, so they were added under the heading "Special episodes (2015)" - "special episodes" because that's what they are, and "(2015)" to establish the chronological order. "Specials" is the convention used across the TV project, we don't list them by name, and your edit only changed the title used in the series overview table, not the section heading, breaking the link in the process. "From A-Z" is too confusing in the series overview table. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend: Thank you for picking up on the technical issue of the sub-heading link not working: hopefully with Special:Diff/721870433 the linking is more coherent. "Top Gear: From A–Z"/"Special episodes (2015)" make the series overview table very wide. I've tried to keep the entry in the series overview table short, but given a longer contextual name in the table of contents/sub-heading. —Sladen (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC) PS. "As was already explained,", "has been discussed at length", …, and such phrases only gain useful context when accompanied by corresponding WP:DIFFS which enable others to locate the WP:CITED discussion. Ditto for links to the MOS: eg. where is the wording about "special episodes" discussed on WP:TV?

As already stated, "From A-Z" is confusing in the series overview table, and "Seasons" is the convention for headings. Please don't edit-war. Your edit was reverted, and you should respect WP:BRD.

"As was already explained,", "has been discussed at length", …, and such phrases only gain useful context when accompanied by corresponding WP:DIFFS which enable others to locate the WP:CITED discussion. - I don't understand the point of this. You're obviously aware of the discussions, since "As was already explained" obviously refers to the post immediately prior to yours. "has been discussed at length" hasn't been used on this page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Original revision being responded to is at: Special:Diff/721872872

Hello again AussieLegend. The WP:BRD-NOT revision I am looking at is Special:Permalink/714032272#What BRD is, and is not. It states:

1. "Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." —One day was left to see if the reverting account owner would respond or open discussion by way of following WP:BRD. This did not occur.
2. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts … instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, … —In Special:Diff/721847045 you were asked to share your reasoning, and encouraged again in Special:Diff/721872188 to cite precise wording/policy/discussion. This was not done, and continues not to have been. One technical issue to do with linking was raised and this was dealt with in a following edit. (ie. WP:BRD).

Edit-warring has been mentioned. The only account to have deployed revert or Twinkle rollback multiple times across Top Gear-related articles in the last 48 hours has been own account (Special:Diff/721685359, Special:Diff/721687205, Special:Diff/721686172). Please reflect upon this.

—Sladen (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You changed the title here. That was subsequently reverted.[10] You then restored the title here. That constitutes a reversion per Wikipedia:Edit warring, which says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You reverted after discussion had commenced, completely ignoring what I said in this edit and before consensus had been reached. That constitutes edit-warring. WP:BRD essentially says make a bold edit, but if it is reverted, discuss and reach consensus for any further changes. It doesn't say discuss and make your changes anyway, regardless of what anyone else says. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And for the record: Special:Diff/721883392 occurred two hours later with User:AussieLegend using Twinkle revert on User:Molong05's edits and restoring Top Gear: From A–Z (2015)→Special episodes (2015). —Sladen (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you weren't trying to point score, you might have noticed that Molong05's edits broke the link to the special episodes and Season 23 sections, violated WP:TVUPCOMING and was based on WP:SYNTH. Apparently he/she saw this anonymous forum post from a year ago and decided that meant the series had been cancelled.[11] Anonymous forum posts are not reliable sources and can't be used as references. There were so many things wrong with that edit only a vandal wouldn't have reverted it. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to follow this, but haven't read all the discussion (time!!) However, I can't see the point of including this special. Why this one? Yes, it has clips, but it's not a Top Gear episode. It should go with other episodes of its type, such as the Bon Cars special, the 40 best stunts (or whatever it was) special, or the multiple specials produced by BBC America. A Top Gear episode is a specific thing. This is just a last hurrah tribute to what used to be, not a new episode. I'd move it elsewhere. In the meantime, the article needs to stay at status quo, which I see as the version Aussie Legend is reverting to. The Molong05 edit isn't relevant to the larger issue, and the revert was perfectly appropriate. --Drmargi (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't say that I disagree with anything that you've said. As I've already noted, the only reason the specials are here is because BBC advertised them as Top Gear episodes and they didn't belong in the series 22 article. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Episode summaries update

The current episode summaries for each series of Top Gear feature details on each segment. I propose that in addition to this, the "tonight..." opening sequence and the Stig introduction are added to each episode summary. These features are some of Top Gear's most well-known, and are fun, interesting pieces of information to include for each episode.

For example, the summary for episode 17x3:

---

Opening: "Tonight: I talk to two old ladies; Richard makes a phone call; and James sniffs his own armpit."

Stig Introduction: "Some say that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of Nottinghamshire; and that he recently received a very strong e-mail from his fiancée's mother saying it's bad manners to sit at the dinner table in a helmet. All we know is he's called the Stig!"

Review: Jeremy reviews the McLaren MP4-12C and its main supercar rival, the Ferrari 458 Italia. He praised the comfort, the handling, and the build quality of the Mclaren, but dislikes the lack of joy when he drove it. On the track, it managed to set a blistering lap time of 1:16.2, only 1.1 seconds slower than Ariel Atom 500 and 0.6 seconds faster than a 1,184 bhp Bugatti Veyron Super Sport.

News: The trio discuss the effects that the London 2012 Olympics will have on motoring, suggesting that new cars will need to be built in time for the games in order to make the British public safe from 'Foreign Tourists'. They also ask the point of being in a car owner's club, with Jeremy claiming that standing in car parks admiring other people's cars is simply sad and a waste of time.

Review/"Car Vs. Something" Race: James travels to the American state of Nevada to test the sustainability of the Range Rover Evoque. He attempts to drive the car through Death Valley, testing aspects such as the car's suspension, on-board equipment and ability to sustain a soft ride on all terrain. He also attempts to reach an appointment to chauffeur megastar Cher across Las Vegas, however, is disappointed when it turns out to be a male Cher impersonator, named Steve.

Challenge: Jeremy and Richard attempt to find the best second-hand bargains for the same price as Britain's cheapest new car, the £6,995 Nissan Pixo. Jeremy finds a nine-year-old Mercedes CL 600, whereas Richard opts for a seventeen-year-old BMW 850Ci. The duo ponder the fact that both have V12 engines, many equipment features, and luxurious interiors. The pair decide to road test both vehicles, to see which one has the better handling. They then compete in a drag race, before placing both cars on a rolling road to see how much power they have lost. They then have the cars forensically examined, to find traces of what happened in the car before they owned it.

After the film, James is dismayed that anyone would purchase a used luxury car when they could instead buy a reliable car still under warranty. When Richard informs him that they have actually bought these cars (not merely borrowed them for the show), James bets all of his hair that one of the cars will break down within 2 weeks. And the trio announced the caravan train challenge.

F1 Star In A Reasonably-Priced Car: Reigning Formula 1 world champion Sebastian Vettel sets a time of 1:44.0 in the old Suzuki Liana, becoming not only the fastest ever Formula 1 driver but also the fastest person to ever do a lap.

---

What are your thoughts? – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, per template instructions, MOS:TV and wide consensus, episode summaries should be 100-200 wrds. Yours has 495 words. Summaries are not meant to be replacements for actually watching the episode and shouldn't contain nminutiae or trivia. The opening and Stig introduction certainly fall into that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Please note that the summary is not mine, I just borrowed an existing summary and added the intro and Stig segments to it. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 14:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I realise that. It doesn't change anything though. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, I did think that they were rather long to begin with. On another note, how does this look with a rewrite to shorten the summaries (using the example from above)? The new summary only overviews the bare essentials of each segment.

Review: Jeremy reviews the McLaren MP4-12C (lap time 1:16.2) and its main supercar rival, the Ferrari 458 Italia.

News: The effects that the London 2012 Olympics will have on motoring; and the point of being in a car owner's club.

Review/"Car Vs. Something" Race: James travels to Nevada, USA to test the sustainability of the Range Rover Evoque and chauffeur a male impersonator of Cher across Las Vegas.

Challenge: Jeremy and Richard attempt to find the best second-hand bargains for the same price as Britain's cheapest new car, the £6,995 Nissan Pixo. Jeremy finds a nine-year-old Mercedes CL 600, whereas Richard opts for a seventeen-year-old BMW 850Ci.

F1 Star In A Reasonably-Priced Car: Then-reigning world champion Sebastian Vettel (lap time 1:44.0).

Thoughts? – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Revised Overview

Series	Episodes		Originally aired
			First aired	Last aired
1	10		20 October 2002 (2002-10-20)	29 December 2002 (2002-12-29)
2	10		11 May 2003 (2003-05-11)	20 July 2003 (2003-07-20)
3	9		26 October 2003 (2003-10-26)	28 December 2003 (2003-12-28)
4	10		9 May 2004 (2004-05-09)	1 August 2004 (2004-08-01)
5	9		24 October 2004 (2004-10-24)	26 December 2004 (2004-12-26)
6	11		22 May 2005 (2005-05-22)	7 August 2005 (2005-08-07)
7	7	6	13 November 2005 (2005-11-13)	27 December 2005 (2005-12-27)
		1	12 February 2006 (2006-02-12)	TBA
8	8		7 May 2006 (2006-05-07)	30 July 2006 (2006-07-30)
9	6		28 January 2007 (2007-01-28)	4 March 2007 (2007-03-04)
10	10		7 October 2007 (2007-10-07)	23 December 2007 (2007-12-23)
11	6		22 June 2008 (2008-06-22)	27 July 2008 (2008-07-27)
12	8		2 November 2008 (2008-11-02)	28 December 2008 (2008-12-28)
13	7		21 June 2009 (2009-06-21)	2 August 2009 (2009-08-02)
14	7		15 November 2009 (2009-11-15)	3 January 2010 (2010-01-03)
15	6		27 June 2010 (2010-06-27)	1 August 2010 (2010-08-01)
16	8		21 December 2010 (2010-12-21)	27 February 2011 (2011-02-27)
17	6		26 June 2011 (2011-06-26)	31 July 2011 (2011-07-31)
18	8	1	28 December 2011 (2011-12-28)	TBA
		7	22 January 2012 (2012-01-22)	11 March 2012 (2012-03-11)
19	7		27 January 2013 (2013-01-27)	10 March 2013 (2013-03-10)
20	6		30 June 2013 (2013-06-30)	4 August 2013 (2013-08-04)
21	7		2 February 2014 (2014-02-02)	16 March 2014 (2014-03-16)
22	10	2	27 December 2014 (2014-12-27)	28 December 2014 (2014-12-28)
		8	25 January 2015 (2015-01-25)	28 June 2015 (2015-06-28)
Specials	2		26 December 2015 (2015-12-26)	30 December 2015 (2015-12-30)
23	6		29 May 2016 (2016-05-29)	3 July 2016 (2016-07-03)

Seeing as the specials are considered part of the series they are closest to (although not strictly being part of it), I have done this to try and distinguish where the series themselves begin and end, and when the special(s) was/were broadcast separately. I believe this makes more sense. However, using the template, I was unable to perform a "colspan" for the broadcast date column, making the table look messy. Does anybody have any suggestions and what are your thoughts on whether or not this is an acceptable change - once complete? 109.151.163.193 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Average viewers for Top Gear seasons

Hello, There is a difference in the average viewers from the series overview section and the viewers per episode in the per-season sections. An example of this is season 18, that has an average viewers of 5.11m but the season 18 section says 6.62m, 6.21m, 6.25m, 6.16m, 5.28m, 6.12m, 5.81m & 6.15m. Even at a glance you can see that 5.11m is lower than any of the other numbers, so it's not like someone just missed a number. Seasons 16, 17, 18 & 19 seems to be the effected. Thanks, Conor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor026 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The figures in the Series 18 section show the BBC Two and the BBC HD figures added together. However the average figure in the overview only counts the BBC Two figure. I believe this is the issue. Either way it's a bit of a mess. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem was exacerbated by the efforts of an anonymous editor who, back in December, completely renumbered every episode and moved several from one series to another without any explanation. Some of his edits were reverted but others were not, resulting in numerous errors. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

exaggerated ratings for new series

The new presenters ratings figures are actually the 28 day data, not the 7 day data uaed for all 22 previous series. This makes the ratings for series 23 onwards too high. Or the previous figures too low. Whichever way you look at it, it's a change in methodology which misleadingly shrinks the fall in viewership. 92.3.156.60 (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As of Series 27 this has happened again. Misleading switch to 28 day data...no justification offered. 81.135.234.139 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Polar Special?

Why is there no mention of the polar special for season 9?. --Xc4TNS (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Because it wasn't part of series 9. The Polar Special was a completely standalone episode and doesn't fit into the series hierarchy, much like Top Gear of the Pops and Top Ground Gear Force. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Could a stand alone section for one off specials be a good idea? Mn1548 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)