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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Series 20 Date/time 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Top Gear - Correction Request For Season 15 And Season 16 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Polar Special missing 

message: An IP recently changed the series overview table, making a number of changes that were problematic. 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  with  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, but instead the IP has reverted (using a different IP), before leaving a message on my talk page. I intend reverting again, but will invite the IP to discuss here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Series overview table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specials not shown 

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

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

text: I agree with  - Although it is the most watched programme on the IPlayer I personally see no point with adding the figures at all. –Davey2010Talk 14:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPlayer Ratings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Episode 81 seems to be missing 

message: "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)
replies: text: Do you have a source for your claim? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not sure if it matters, but since it's an Encyclopedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table Widths 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-Z Special 

message: Earlier today an anonymous editor decided to completely change the series overview table, which uses  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. 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)
thread_title:  Series overview table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revised Overview 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Average viewers for Top Gear seasons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  exaggerated ratings for new series 

message: Why is there no mention of the polar special for season 9?. --Xc4TNS (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Could a stand alone section for one off specials be a good idea? Mn1548 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar Special?