Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 2

message: After Mooquackwooftweetmeow's recent edit I searched for Wikipedia's standards as far as British vs. American English are concerned. I came across Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English which leads me to believe that the page should be standardised in British English. I reviewed the article and didn't find any glaring problems, but I think it would be a good idea for a "native" to look it over and make any necessary changes. quadratic 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Standardisation 

message: * Anyone got enough time to document the Cool Wall ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.72.85 (talk • contribs) 
*:There was a Cool Wall article, but it was deleted through the Article for deletion process, so it probably shouldn't be recreated.  If people wish, I can dig up the vote for them. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Suggestions 

message: Didn't they have the bugatti veyron and the toyota aygo as joint car of the year i seem to recall they said this in top gear magazine but was the same verdict reached on te show? Citizen erased 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point, I don't remember anything about the Aygo in the awards on the show, but I certainly do remember the Veyron winning it - and I don't read the magazine. So no, I don't think the same exact verdict was reached on the show, and since the article represents the show, surely we should only include the Veyron? Perhaps in brackets, or whatever, mentioning that the Aygo also won in the magazine as well as the Veyron. M A Mason 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a brief discussion about this before (see the archive at the top of the page) and the only thing I could find agreed with M A Mason's conclusion.  However, if that is the case, I don't think that the Aygo should be mentioned in the show's article because I think the magazine should be kept separate.  There is a Top Gear magazine article for that sort of thing. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 car of the year

message: "In the summer of 2005, an American television channel..."  Presumably this means the northern hemisphere summer, but this is not clear. --ozzmosis 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does refer to the Northern summer, and it doesn't need clarification for three reasons: 
#This article is  Eurocentric.
#70% of the world's land mass is in the Northern hemisphere.
#The segment is referring to America.
--DarrenBaker 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those things matter. It's ambiguous, as simple as that. While you might think it's clear, I don't, and many other probably don't either. Should readers have to think about which hemisphere a certain topic applies to, before interpreting a "season of year" reference? I think not. Lets try to keep everything consistent and understandable for the majority of readers, whoever and where-ever they may be. Imroy 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed 4 separate instances of this to their respective months. I searched for each of the seasons and didn't find any other instances.  I tend to agree with Imroy that the article should be more neutral in this aspect. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summer

message: To whomever changed it to summer 2005; it was early 2005, not summer.
Also, I don't recall the currencies being changed from pounds to dollars. If you have proof of that, please let me know here. Thanks! --DarrenBaker 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International versions

message: There's a lot of Top Gear clips on Google Video. Is it legal to link to some of them from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.177.18 (talk • contribs) 
:I would say no.  The official policy about Copyright states that linking to copyrighted works is ok as long as the site hosting the copyrighted works legally can do so.  As far I understand BBC copyright and British law, (correct me if I am wrong) any clips on Google Video violate copyright law because they weren't put there by the BBC and the clips aren't in public domain.  So by linking to these clips, it would violate Wikipedia policy.  However, linking to any clips that may be on BBC.co.uk or topgear.com would be perfectly acceptable.  -PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Video links 

message: BBC (bottom right, "Wikipedia's contribution") linked to this article.   I don't know if that counts for a Template:high-traffic, but it is still cool.  I checked some of the other shows on the BBC website and they don't have a link to their respective Wikipedia entries, so I guess we must be doing a good job.  Nice work everyone! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC linking to article 

message: **The episode ended with a ski jump on a snowmobile driven by Dan Lang, a Swedish snowmobile driver, dressed as the Stig. 
Noticed this was edited recently, and when I went to do the <ref> tags, I can't read Swedish. Anyone with knowledge of this language willing to give a try?--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give what a try? The article is an interview with Dan Lang where he says that he was contacted by a British TV programme and asked if he thought he could make the jump. Apparently he jumped at the chance 203.144.143.4 11:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I reference? 

message: It says that Sabine Schmitz managed to go round the Nürburgring in an unmodified Ford Tansit Van, but in the episode they make changes to save weight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.25.155 (talk • contribs) 
Modified could be construed as to add parts to the car, such as a turbocharger or a nitrous kit to the engine. What they did in a sense was to strip the car to cut excess weight. Not exactly modifying in the literal sense.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC
Well, technically they did add to the car; tape was applied over the gaps between body panels in a (probably useless) effort to improve aerodynamics. But you're right, the weight-saving was apparently just removing all the loose articles from inside the car (spare tire, etc). They did the "modifications" on site, presumably without tools or prior planning, so I doubt anything was done that would constitue modifying the vehicle itself. --71.146.92.159 08:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Transit Van 

message: In the Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car section, the second paragraph seems to start without explaning what the paragraph actually entails. I think another sentance should be added to help introduce the paragraph to explain what it entails. Something along the lines of:
::The Liana has endured it's fair share of abuse from the stars when undertaking their laps, often to the delight and amusement of the hosts and the audiance. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be bold and add it. :-) --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of another sentance?

message: What though is the point of having a motoring programme which is so obviously aimed at persons too young to drive and presented by somebody with a mental age of 12? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetalkinguy (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 April 2006.
When I was 12, just because I couldn't drive didn't mean I didn't think cars were interesting.--71.146.92.159 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Show comment

message: The article states that Top Gear is partly about motorsports and in the 'factfile' thing at the top of the page the format of the show is described as motorsports. In reality there is very little mention of motorsports such as Formula 1, Ralley, nascar or any other kind of motorsport in the show. Yes from time to time motorsport stars feature on the show, but more in their celebrity role than anything else. The show is about cars, driving cars fast, and having races in cars, but the show is definitely not about motorsports. Perhaps the references to motorsport need to be changed. 84.66.247.52 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, motorsports were a much bigger part of Top Gear than they are now. The comment refers to the show as a whole, over its entire existence. At one time, Top Gear was the way that the BBC covered the WRC, with special Top Gear shows dedicated to the rally events, presented by Top Gear presenters, such as William Woolard and Tony Mason. This was separate from the Formula 1 coverage though, which was handled as part of Grandstand or other more sports oriented programming. Graham 05:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorsports? 

message: I noticed there is no mention of the Stig's time around the track in the Suzuki Liana.
In some early episodes it has his tag on the celebrity board at 1:48
However, where should it be put?
He was driving the Liana so it could be put with the other celebrities for comparison, but then it is the Stig so maybe it should be with the power cars so you can see how a reasonably priced car could go.
:I think it should be with all the other racing professionals who drove it.  However, as several non-racer celebrities have beaten that time, as have all the racing drivers, I'm not sure it is much of an illustration.  It's interesting that the Suzuki Liana was quite a bit faster than cars like an MG ZT and an Aston Martin DB5!Halsteadk 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power lap or Star In A Reasonably Priced Car. 

message: I included information regarding this change to the show within the main descriptive block of the SIARPC section.
Whilst I was adding this section (or before, and I didnt notice. whatever), another annonymous editor added a short sentence to the end of the SIARPC section, stating the change of vehicle, and the date of the first airing of the show.
I removed this short sentence, and incorporated the first airing date into the main block.
The short sentence has been added again (as of 23:40 BST), by annonymous user (the same?)
Why?
Emyr42 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 8 format (new SIARPC vehicle and format) 

message: Is it worth splitting this into two articles, to address the differences between the early series and everything post-2002? This article has become almost solely related to the modern format, to the extent that 24 years under the old style might as well not have happened. Kinitawowi 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is worth considering Jimbow25 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. What really needs to happen is that the post-2002 stuff is edited back firmly to put it in a proper proportion historically. Most of the stuff in there right now is cruft, written by people who are fans of the newer series without necessarily having known the evolution of the program over time. What appears to have been forgotten is that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for Top Gear. On the other hand, given that Top Gear is really just a brand name for a BBC motoring show, and that brand name has now been applied to something very different from what is started out as, I suppose I could be persuaded. Graham 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Graham.  I feel that once the cruft from the newer series is filterd out, the article will be a lot more balanced. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch my previous statement.  I am ok with splitting it and also am ok with keeping it as is. Anyone else have any opinions? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Since the new series I've finally started the List of Top Gear episodes page, please feel free contribute to it and discuss the layout for each episode that I've done, on the talk page over there. The list of highlights would be miles long by the time this series is over, judging by how much was written about the first episode, so hopefully this will work better. Jimbow25 18:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of episodes (again) 

message: I can't help feeling that this article is less balanced in its criticism of Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson's "anti-BMW" stance, than his Times Online article that it references, in which he explains in a very balanced manner why he is not impressed with the comoany's products currently.  I feel the programme rightly criticises "lazy design", whether it is from Porsche for launching cars that are virtually indistinguishable from their predecessors, or mass-market manufacturers launching rubbish that they know people who don't know better or are blindy loyal to the brand will buy anyway.  I think this has been demonstrated with the show's praise for the latest Vauxhall Astra and Honda Accord (the predecessors of which would have been described as "dull" and "reliable but dull" respectively), for being different both from the models they supersede and their competitors.
--Halsteadk 12:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, although the Top Gear Magazine website reviewed the same model and awarded it 4 stars out of 5. Clarkson may quite rightly have an issue with the build quality and design of the vehicles, but the criticism is that he's taking this out on individual models rather than just having a rant at the manufacturer. Examples: Clarkson's review of the BMW M5 - good review and overall very positive, but he spent a large section of his article criticising very trivial aspects of the iDrive and Satellite Navigation systems which are common on all high-end BMW vehicles. Same again for the BMW M6 review - Richard Hammond gave it a good review, then Clarkson stepped in and ditched it for the same reasons as he put the M5 down.  --Garethpeate 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism - BMW etc 

message: why were the 2006 season highlights deleted? if it's due to the article getting too long, i would propose to delete the other season highlights as well and write them properly, again in a more resumptive manner.
I think making an episode guide on a different page would be a good idea.
this article would benefit a lot of such an addition. one possible example of how this could be achieved could be; list of south park episodes
:There already is such an article: List of Top Gear episodes.  (Presumably the intention is to move the 2003+2004 highlights into this article, once the episode they relate to is confirmed.) Halsteadk 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that is where they are being moved to. Halsteadk is right on the money with while I haven't moved the rest over yet. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I deleted the 2006 highlights section because those episodes were on the new list of episodes page, you can see a note about it in hidden text at the bottom of that section. I would have moved the whole lot and re-written everything nicely in the episode guide but it took a while just to do that, I'm sure everyone can be helpful and contribute to the episode guide. Jimbow25 08:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: The Power Laps section starts with a lot of information about The Stig which can be found in The Stig's own article. Any objections to removing that part of the section to help trim the article slightly? --Scott 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the color differences intact,and purge the rest. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power laps 

message: What do people think about splitting Old Format Top Gear and New Format Top Gear into 2 articles? IMO, the current paragraph for the old format doesn't do it justice. It ran for far longer than the current format has so far and yet there's so little of the article dedicated to it. The two shows, despite sharing the name are effectively different programmes. Alexj2002 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here is tracking down enough information to create a decent sized article, i'm not sure much information is freely available, though it does sound like a good idea. -Benbread 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Two Supports so I've given it a shot. The article about 'old' Top Gear I've written can be found at Top Gear (original format) and I've linked it from the history section of this main article. Alexj2002 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting Top Gear into 2 articles

message: The list of cars in the Cool Wall section is ugly. Perhaps someone could rearrage the list into multi columned table to get rid of all the white space. I will have a go, but will take me a while.
Nominate into a sub-article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to make a small note that there previously was a cool wall article but it was deleted.  However, that doesn't mean it can't be recreated, but it should address the issues raised previously so that the new article doesn't meet the same fate.. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool Wall section 

message: Can someone put a 3 next to Mark Webber's time, as he did it in extremely wet conditions. I would do it myself, but I don't know how to make the 3 higher.. :) (star in a reasonably-priced car)
:Done, and it's using sup (for superscript) tags Jastein 06:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Webber's Time 

message: I think it would be interesting to know to what degree is Top Gear scripted and what is the verity of the various segments - especially the Challenges. I believe that Clarkson once commented that the show had won an award for an "unscripted show" and he couldn't attend the ceremony because he was too busy writing the script for the next episode. It seems obvious that many parts of the show (e.g. the parts filmed in the studio, the reviews) are scripted to some degree at least. Otherwise it might be impossible to maintain continuity.
But the Challenges seem to be implied that they are unscripted events. As a particular example, see the Series 8 Episode 6 challenge on caravan holidays. When Clarkson set a caravan on fire, and during the fracas, another caravan was also burned down, it is perhaps difficult to believe that such an unlikely event would occur purely by chance.
Perhaps we can ask, is anything on the show not scripted? Sbwoodside 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the series has been getting more and more scripted over the years since the re-launch. The challenges and situations that occur are just becoming too over-the-top or unlikely. I always thought there were a few dodgy moments where things were done on purpose and that didn't make obvious sense, often so that Clarkson won but I forgave it due to their entertainment value. But now many examples are not even that subtle. The caravaning one a few weeks back looked like the majority of it was scripted: for example that second caravan they 'accidentally' burnt down was obviously staged (was old, no sign of owners, no complaint after reversing onto it etc). I really love Top Gear and love it for entertainment value but IMHO this last series has become a bit too scripted and planned which just removes some of the funnyness. Obviously items are edited to make them the most interesting to watch but the amount of pre-planning now is too much. --Achmelvic 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Gear's verity and scriptedness 

message: I reverted the reverts by Lucy-marie on some of the names on the board. I read through the MOS pages regarding names and naming conventions beforehand and correct me if I'm wrong, but the correct way to display the names is the format they are more commonly known as, especially as this is the format used for the individual biog pages. For example, Jordans page is Jordan (model) not Katie Price (yes I know that it does acts as a redirect though). Likewise it's the same for all of those changed. Jastein 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page seems to indicate using the name they would commonly be known as is the correct form. - Blah3 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removes the ambiguity? WHAT Ambiguity? Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody is going to see "Katrina Price" and know who you mean. Similary, "Raymond Winstone" or "Christopher Evans" aren't going to connect for most people. If anyone is making this ambigious, its you, by using versions of names that the people themselves don't use, versions that virtually nobody is going to know. --Kiand 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names on the SIARPC board 

message: Why was this note added to the power lap section?
< !--Warning do not add that cars were removed from the board unless it can be referenced in the same way as the Koenigsegg-->
I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic behind that. The 1:29 Murceilago lap time WAS removed from the power lap board, because it was replaced by a newer, faster time. The listing in this article is supposed to reflect the board on the show, why would you have times on here that do not exist on the board? Doing so would only serve to confuse people who are looking out outdated lap times.
I will be adding the '5' footnote back to the 1:29 Murceilago lap time unless someone has a good reason not to. 203.214.46.84 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TV show itself is a reference. --Kiand 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree. Look at episode 5x01 when they put the Porsche 911 time on the board - you can clearly see that the 1:29 Murcielago time is not on the board anymore. Why does there need to be a specific quote that PROVES the time was removed? 203.214.46.84 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cars removed from power lap board 

message: The Lamborghini Murciélago requires a refrence as to when It was removed for the board to bring It In to line with the other cars removed form the board.--Lucy-marie 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please refrence Lamborghini Murciélago 

message: Two reference notes don't have verifiable items. One is lacking it's quote, and the other is a lackluster overview of the events in the episode itself. Please re-edit and add the appropiate quotes to the references please. Thank You. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing the exact quotes from Top Gear

message: Since there is apparently some confusion, I was wondering why the DB9 Fridge has been merged in with the Sub Zero section.  The previous inline comment said to see the talk page but I see no discussion of it here, and the current comment doesn't clear it up any. - Blah3 01:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply but it still doesn't answer the question as to why it is merged.  :) It's not a huge thing thing to me as I can see points for it being separate or merged, but it would be nice to have a documented reason why, as there seems to be some contention on it.  Blah3 22:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fridge sectionfall under the umbrella of fancruft so for that reason it should not be mentioned as a seperat section on the cool wall section.--Lucy-marie 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, by the same sentiment,they're not on the wall at all then. As they weren't actually applied to the wall, do they deserve to be listed at all if we do away with the fridge? There's no real reason why they shouldn't be listed separately, seeing as they're held on the cool wall separately. M0RHI 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a continuous part of the show with the four original section being the only pars included. This is similar to the power lap board here the show has a speerat baord for formula one drivers but the article dose not.--Lucy-marie 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fridge appears alongside the wall in quite a few of the episodes with the cool wall. Surely this is manifestation enough that they're recognised in this area. M0RHI 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am afraid not if we were to allow the fridge we would have to also allow the rock or crock wall only ever seen once and have a seperat setion just for formula one drivers. If it was a large a section as the other four then there may be some justification but as it is as small there is little justification too add the section--Lucy-marie 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DB9 section