Template talk:Top Gear

Television Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

He's credited as a presenter, so leave it be. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem debating matters however I do not appreciate being told to "leave it be". You've done a good job with this template, however the above comment suggests a feeling of

ownership

. As to the issue at hand, I've copied my comment from Talk:Top Gear:

Yes he's credited as a presenter on the show's end titles, however no definition of "presenter" could extend to what he does. As well as being described as a presenter he's also given crazy introductions on every episode such as "Some say the outline of his left nipple is exactly the same shape as the Nürburgring". In my opinion his description as a presenter is as tongue in cheek as those. Important member of the crew? Yes. Presenter? No. An encyclopedia should contain facts, not be constrained by external conventions etc. Mark83 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on both matters. I don't think requesting that you leave the template as-is represents an ownership claim at all, merely a belief that you're making something that was accurate less so.

Further, remember that Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is

reliable source

which refers to him as a presenter. The credits of the programme do exactly that. You're suggesting that the encyclopedia should dismiss a primary source in favour of your opinion that it's tongue-in-cheek?

So, your edit now conflicts with User:293.xx.xxx.xx, User:Blah3 and myself, all of whom have now either reverted your edit or explicitly expressed disagreement. Do you need more editors to dispute your interpretation of the credits before you back down, or is three of us enough to avoid edit-warring? --DeLarge 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about verifiability is a fair one. However using that logic I could edit the Stig article and include every crazy comment that's ever been made in the introduction as fact and cite the episode number. Would you really think that was suitable for an encyclopedia? Mark83 14:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just being facetious for the sake of argument, or do you honestly not know the difference between the content of a light-entertainment show, and the credits at the end? Please see this BBC guideline for further explanation. I, meanwhile, shall revert the template. --DeLarge 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comment about adding all his introductions was not meant to be taken literally. I have to say though, I'm sure you don't mean to be rude but you're comments could be taken as such; "Do you need more editors to dispute your interpretation of the credits before you back down, or is three of us enough" and "Are you just being facetious ... or do you honestly not know the difference..." could be taken as dimissive and patronising.

A central pillar of WP is assume good faith. I'm assuming that you are only trying to preserve the quality of the project which is why I've taken the time to respond politely to the queries raised about this subject. Likewise you should assume that I am only trying to ensure the information is accurate. I have never denied he is credited as a presenter, I've seen the show many times and didn't need the image above to remind me, my point is is the credit justified? As I said in my previous comment, your point about defining vs. citing is a fair one. However I repeat that Wikipedia should contain facts, not be constrained by external conventions etc. and the fact is that no definition of presenter could be applied to him. Having said all that I don't to intend to remove it again. Mark83 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we stick to what BBC has done. Top Gear lists him as a presenter, despite the fact he never speaks. Unless you can produce any other verifiable source that The Stig ain't a presenter, then please present your evidence. Otherwise, your edits are unconstructive. Also, i've never expressed any "ownership" to the template, as other editors have edited it by adding past presenters and deleting my insert of the Top Gear Logo and I never complained or drastically went psycho over the edits. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He never was, is, or will be a "presenter". It's just a tounge-in-cheek think that he's credited as such at the end of the programme, in the same way that it was tounge-in-cheek when they went to America and all the casts names were Americanised. If we took that a face-value the producer would Andy "dubya" Wilman. The Stig should be removed from the presenters and a new section should be added for "Also Starring" which should also include Top Gear Dog and

Please stop vandalising the template. By all means discuss a proposed change here (explaining your reasons why you think Sabine qualifies as a presenter) but please don't make changes that you know are controversial without gaining some consensus first. DrFrench 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine isn't a presenter and isn't listed as so. Neither is Top Gear Dog. What are you moaning about? They are both part of the show and so are listed in others. Are you suggesting they are less important than, for example, Jon Bentley???? The Stig is listed (wrongly) as a presenter (like you wanted) so I can't see what the problem is. End of discussion.

Can I just clarify your point of view here? You are allowed to make edits in contravention of the consensus. Anyone else making edits is told to "discuss changes on the talk page" (see the edit summary on the history page for 18:05 UTC 2007-04-01 ). When anyone attempts to discuss it on the talk page you summarily decide that the discussion is at an end. Is that a fair summary? DrFrench 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Sabine Schmidt to the infobox as I feel (and others may disagree) that she was/is as much a part of the programme as Jon Bentley was/is. Please discuss.

No. She was on 2 or 3 episodes. Bentley was a producer for 10 years. Hardly the same. Dave, on Wikipedia it doesn't matter what you feel, you must back things up with evidence. Having Sabine is fancruft. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, by that standard (appearing on 2 or 3) episodes, we should list every celebrity that has appeared on Top Gear more than once. Obviously that makes little little sense. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer, the addition of Schmitz is nothing to do with the celebrities as they are covered by the Star/Reasonable priced article, Schmitz is worthy more of a related article section and isn't exactly doing any harm leaving it there. The article is certainly more suitable being in there than Jon Bentley.

Davesmith33 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Not doing any harm? You need a better explanation than that as your argument is rather vague. She is covered on

Top Gear (current format) and List of Top Gear episodes, so if I am understanding your logic correctly, she shouldn't be listed. To add, every other person listed in the template is very closely tied to the show. Sabine is different as she has only been in 2 or 3 episodes. Have you read the Bentley article? You seem to have this crusade against him. He certainly belongs in the template. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"She is covered on

Davesmith33 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So many other topics are included in both of those articles... it doesn't mean we need to clutter up this template with links to them. The question we should ask is "has Top Gear had a major influence on the person's life?" If the answer is yes, they should be listed, if not, then keep them off of this template. The answer is obviously yes for Clarkson, Tiff, Bentley, etc but can you argue the same for Schmitz? I say no. The numbers you listed provide no source, so they are meaningless. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The question we should ask is "has Top Gear had a major influence on the person's life?" If the answer is yes, they should be listed" - the answer to that question is yes because it made her made famous around the world amongs TG viewers. I see we have the same 3 people removing facts from the encyclopedia and passing them off as genuine edits. Sabine Schmitz deserves to be on that infobox, just because I put her there has nothing to do with it.

I'd actually qualify the original criterion to "Has TG had a significance in their life?" and "Have they significantly influenced or contributed to TG?". If the former, than put TG in their article, if the latter then add them to the TG article and associated infoboxes. If both, then it gets mentioned everywhere. So Sabine's article should mention TG, but she hasn't had a significant contribution to the program over it 6 years, so it doesn't warrant mention within the scope of TG itself. As a producer Bentley has significantly influenced the program. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes much more sense. I shouldn't edit so early in the morning. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me as though you're making up the criteria as you go along. "Has TG had a significance in their life?" - the answer to that is also yes anyway as it made her a household name and helped get her the job on German TV. "Have they significantly influenced or contributed to TG?" - again the answer is yes. Bentley contributed to the old version of Top Gear and therefore has less of a place there than Schmitz. I'm reinstating her until the issue is resolved. Also, unlike TGD, we are not just going to take it as read if the 3 most prominent posters here (we know who they are), all disagree with me, that that equals a consensus on the subject.

Please lets not start this again. The template is not the place to list everyone who has appeared in a couple of TG features. An appropriate mention in the main TG article (with a wikilink) is sufficient. Please stop being disruptive just because you're unhappy that other people don't agree with you. DrFrench 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French, your aggressive edit-warring is totally uncalled for and is blatant vandalism.

Then please report me using the appropriate channels. I happy with I way I have edited this template in trying to keep it with a

WP:NOT etc. Please drop me a note on my talk page to advise me which route you are going to take, cheers. DrFrench 17:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a note that this arbitration case was rejected and deleted. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and the decision will be appealed.

You are correct. I'll add them. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Jason Dawe be placed in the Current Format Presenters? He is not a current presenter, but he was a presenter in Series 1 of the current format. Rascalb 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Top Gear Dog also be added, seeing as she was introduced as quote, "a new presenter".

No. TDG has been done to death elsewhere. Consensus is to exclude it. DrFrench 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

It has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion (and not just by me) that there is a huge difference between the person who was the producer and editor of the programme for more than a decade (the person who is credited with hiring Jeremy Clarkson) and someone who has appeared in a couple of features across two episodes. Surely you can see that? Your constant attempts to disrupt this and other pages will simply lead to you receiving more and longer bans from editing. It's sad that you choose to be disruptive, but so be it. DrFrench 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHH!! The new colors hurt my eyes!! Revert it back to Green or some other soothing color, please!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as requested. What do other people feel about the colours? DrFrench 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I like the original color scheme better. The green feels a little out of place though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the same shade of blue as the infobox? A bit of consistency? DrFrench 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks quite good. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason I used blue is because that it's kind of new Top Gear's (well, at least before S8) "colour"... Based really on the blue tinge to the logo. But whatever, I'm always adding colour to templates only to have boring reversions. Par for the course, lol.

BD 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair doos - it's often good 'be bold'. But if you find your changes get reverted a lot, why not try something different? Create a sandbox on your user page, then post to the template talk page asking people to visit your sandbox and comment on what they think before making the changes. That approach has worked for me elsewhere. Good luck! DrFrench 12:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version of the template was much more organized [1] Who cares about vertical space? I've seen templates far longer than this one. The way it is now, the information is mushed together, while before there were breaks between the various sections, which helped organized the sections. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit was just going with the flow, so I guess I don't mind if the format is reverted. The current format is more straightforward, though, regardless of vertical space. Anyone else? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? Going once..... _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Top Gear of the Pops and Top Ground Gear Force from the spin-off section to the see also section. This is becasue they're not spin-offs in the sense that most people would think of - just one-off specials for a charity event. DrFrench (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this has been debated already but wondered if there was scope for Top Gear Australia to be added to the template as part of the TG family? Dick G (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could. It just depends on where we want to put it. Does it seem appropriate in the spin-offs section or should a new tab be created called International version, be added? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's probably better in a new section - presumably you could slot the US version of the show in there too... I wouldn't be surprised if Top Gear Live doesn't get its own article too soon and I guess someone will want that added to the template as well! Dick G (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. How's this then [2]? I added them in the Related group and the International versions list with the United States and Australia. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I approve! Thanks for considering Dick G (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His welcome what?

BD 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh? El Greco^(talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out your you're/your confusion. You meant that he was welcome, not his welcome. You're welcome!

BD 11:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I see. Silly spelling mistake. I fixed it now, thank you for pointing it out. El Greco^(talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of TGSM as a "presenter" was reverted. OK I can accept that if he is not credited as such. How about adding TGSM as a "segment" or a "see also"? – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the discussion regarding TGSM, etc. on the main article page to get a feel for the consensus regarding his listing. It will make things clearer, and spare you a bit of grief. Drmargi (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflicted with Drmargi's) Ukexpat, if you hadn't noticed, TGSM appeared in the first two episodes of the current series and has since not reappeared or been mentioned, and isn't indicated to be taking part in the final episode. Before the second show, Andy Wilman wrote in his blog to "stick with him, because hopefully he gets funnier with repetition"[3] - the fact he hasn't since reappeared suggests he's not going to (even though, presumably those "stunts" may all have been filmed before the series started airing), and his appearance was therefore insignificant to the long-term history of the show. Halsteadk (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks, I was unaware that he had not reappeared - we are behind on TG episodes here in the US. So no problem leaving it for now.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So this template overrides the default {{navbox}} colours with a sort of aqua colour for no good reason that I can see. There's no reason to do this - the {{navbox}} documentation explicitly states that "changing the default styles is not recommended", and I can't see that the show has any particular affinity for aqua as a colour that might suggest overriding anyway (such as happens with football team navbox colours). The override should be removed, which will simplify the template and make it more consistent with the rest of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other templates use styling and no one makes an argument about those. I think it's fine just the way it is. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very strong argument. If there's no better reason to override than "I like it that way", then the styling should be removed for the sake of code simplicity and consistency. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As there's been no better argument provided for these overrides in the last week, I have removed them again as they are discouraged in the {{navbox}} documentation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this, school, work, and all. Until someone else offers there comments this stays as it was under the consensus. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus, as it hasn't previously been discussed.

Silence is only consensus until it's challenged. Why should this template disobey the instructions given in the doc page? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Then are you going to challenge all the other templates that disobey the doc page? _{El Greco}⁽talk) 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do in fact. And if there's no further argument then this one will be restored to using the standard styling. These are not baubles to decorate as we please, the turquoise makes it harder to pick out links, and there are no arguments whatsoever for keeping it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that. I see no problem with it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I've posted a link to this discussion at

WP:3O for wider input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems to me, also, that there is no good reason to change the default colours. Unfortunately, Wikipedia (particularly the English Wikipedia) has lost a lot of its original flavour in trying to become internally consistent and publicly reputable. For that reason, guidelines such as

WP:MOS were developed, to ensure consistency throughout and make it easier to read, so that people don't get confused by changes in colours or style. If you can provide a good reason to have something other than the default colours, then I don't oppose it, but without any reason at all, it should be the default navbox colours. (EhJJ)^TALK 12:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Right. Any further comments before I restore the default styling? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no further discussion, I've switched this back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Top Gear Race to the North be added to the "Specials" section? It was a pretty big challenge, and there's a nice detailed article about it. King Bananamoo (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I've gone ahead and added it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the race to the north wasn't a special as it did the usual SIARPC and news. I would place it under the epic race category, as they all had breaks for segments in the middle, all specials have just had one segment, that's what made them specials. Also the Top Gear Winter Olympics is not part of the list and that was their first special that wasn't for charity. salle81 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salle81 (talk • contribs) [reply]

We've got to be a bit careful not to set a precedent that every race ends up with an article and in the template. The separate article exists because the race had wider notability beyond Top Gear, and a lot of background information has been published allowing a well referenced article to be written. I think it should be in "See Also". Halsteadk (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the race to the north to the See also section and put Winter Olympics in among the specials. 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salle81 (talk • contribs)

the company said : the BMW 2010 it have tracktion you can't drift but here in saudi arabia we have drift and i have a vidio you can get it from the youtube and this is alink : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8-JC585m-M&feature=fvwrel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soso 08 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "Top Gear's Top 41", maybe it would be cleaner with "Top 41" instead? I've added a pre-alpha list of sequences from each episodes in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Top_Gear%27s_Top_41 since I didn't get to edit/make the wikipedia page. I'll update it when I watch the sequence 10-01, maybe later today. 41-35 may not be reprised today, I hope that somebody else keeps a eye up for the two first episodes.

Would it be useful to add something like that "Series 10 Episode 5" after each sequences as a back reference? 78.156.13.117 (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original production was "Top Gear Top 40" from BBC America, not the BBC. See the talk page above. --Drmargi (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a spin-off, not even a one time. It's clearly a Top Gear Special. Moved accordingly. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point I've tried to get across to this user. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We'll know it when we see it".

WP:RS to report on it. —Sladen (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

So now you two retarded it up last year, are you going to even bother taking Clarkson, May and Hammond out of the template? Pfft... Torqueing (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Gear Nepal Special (Series 28) and the Top Gear Driving Home For Christmas Special (Series 31) are not listed in the "Specials" section.

Also, why is the Race to the North considered a special episode?