Talk:List of Top Gear episodes/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for List of Top Gear episodes (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >

correction

I won't edit the main page (don't want to mess up anything), but in S09E04 the Robin Space Shuttle _doesn't_ explode upon impact - when watched frame-by-frame it is obvious that the explosion was filimed elswhere and added just for effect - the Robin lands in a field (some cows are visible just behind), while in the explosion shot some mid-sized bush-like plants are seen instead, the two shots are filmed at totally different levels of zoom, and most importantly, no effects of the explosion are to be seen when the wreck is shown.

proposal

Could i propose adding sceen shots or something of every episode in order to lighten the text ridden page? user:tmr5555

I'm ok with that. List_of_south_park_episodes is a featured list and it has a screenshot for each episode, so I guess it is ok from a legal standpoint. Just a word of warning, recently there has been a push to make sure that a fair use rationale is provided, otherwise the images may be deleted without warning. An example of a good fair use rationale is at Image:201 stadium with gas.gif where it says:

This image is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (Discordance) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

* it is a low resolution still of a film;

* it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the film in any way;

* the image is provided at the official website (southparkstudios) as a free download;

* it illustrates the film in question and aids commentary on the plot outline in particular terrance and philip's scheme to save canada.

South Park is Copyright Comedy Central

So as long as the copyright info is good, I don't see a problem. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I set up this page last week and I would have included a screenshot column but I don't have any to upload, so the column would have looked a bit bare. The templates tried out on the Talk:Top Gear page when talking about this had screenshot columns so it's easy enough to add.

The above unsigned comment was added by me Jimbow25

I put as much of the old screenshots back as I could. Way to go PS2, you just ruined a really nice page. You know that getting a good screenshot to represent an entire episode is not an easy task? That's a lot of work you just blew out the window. Let's hope that the TG community will fix this ASAP, hopefully with both new shots and maybe an improved template.Sturmovik 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion confined to one place: #Most of the fair use images have been removed. This is being done on a wide scale, so don't think it is me picking on Top Gear. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose to split up the Seasons by page.

I propose that the article be a gateway to pages with each individual season. I point towards Mythbusters for an example:

That way, we don't have a long article with an unmanageable way of editing. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with one page per season in the long-term, but I started an overall page first to encourage the material to get written, bearing in mind it was originally one section on the main TG page. Once the majority of the episodes have decent write-ups it will be too long but at the moment a list of episodes for say season 2 will have nothing on it but a list of airdates, I didn't want to start 8 or more pages at once. Maybe we can expand the article a bit, and make sure we have a fairly settled stadnard format for how we set out an episodes, before we split it? Jimbow25 12:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good by me. --293.xx.xxx.xx 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do it. It's harder that way to search for a particular episode.

Yes, searching for a particular episode gets as easy as hitting ctrl-f and writing a reviewed car's name in that episode, when the list is only one page.88.233.12.85 06:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we really need to split it now. Notice the warning on the edit page "This page is 146 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles."? IT's only going to get bigger... LicenseFee 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive Info Dump into Season 7 and Suggestion

Right, I did a massive info dump into Season 7, and also added a short noteable blurb from the news segment in most of them. So edit as you will, i'm not picky. I suggest that Season 7 have it's own seperate page as well. --293.xx.xxx.xx 03:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Guests

I know that the guests link have been wiki linked...but couldn't we also add a brief (One-two word) occupation bit...for example for Ian Wright, I suggest we make it "Retired Footballer Ian Wright"...or something like that? --Skully Collins 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna remain somewhat neutral on this. I can see in cases like Sir Michael Gambon or British Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman but elsewhere? Any other opinions?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind this idea. I often have no idea who the person is and have to consult Wikipedia to find out who more information :) Aldango 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think this article needs major cleanup. There is less content on the series' closer to the top of the page, and having said this, I notice that some of the more closer series' may also need a bit of touch up. --Pkwebmaster 16:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you think it needs a cleanup/touchup. If you're referring to the lack of content at the beginning of the article, it isn't possible to clean up something that isn't there. Of course you can suggest someone adds the information, but that's sort of stating the obvious. ~~ Peteb16 16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, It still needs a lotta work... --Pkwebmaster 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinda hard when the early episodes are scant. I have enough troubles trying to get stuff from finalgear.com for Season 6. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

... Season 3 appears very inaccurate - unless they dropped the Hilux of a building three times which I don't seem to remember them doing.

I've finally managed to get the bulk of the episodes from the torrent download so I'll have a look into this is the coming weeks. The Topgear page on the BBC has enough information to make sure the file has been named correctly

Template Storage

This is a "clean" template that can be readily copied into the article when needed.

#	Episode	Airdate	Guests

XX	Series X Episode X	[[XX January]] [[XXXX]]	[[Celebrity Name]]
Review: Text of the relevant sections goes in here. Usually the first segment shown on the episode. This may also qualify as the Main Segment below. News: Noteable news blurbs goes here. Challenge: Any challenges the shows hosts are made to do go here. Star in a reasonably priced car: The episodes weekly celebrity guest goes here, with there laptimes. Main review: Usually the one car segment that has a lengthy review. can be put up on top if needed.

--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a template would be easier to manage. I started putting something together, but there are still a few too many bugs to make to use.

For instance, (I am not sure why it didn't grab the line breaks, so click edit to view a cleaner version)

{{User:PS2pcGAMER/Top Gear episode | overall episode num = 2 | series = 1 | episode = 2 | airdate = [[1 January]] [[2007]] | guests = Jimmy Carr | image = TopGearLogo.jpg | caption = the caption | review = Honda Civic, Toyota Carolla, and some other cars that they do some stuff with | review2 = | review3 = | news = Some car stuff | challenge = Another fun challenge | challenge2 = | star = Carr does a lap | main review = Some car }}

Yields...

#	Episode	Airdate	Guests

2	Series 1 Episode 2	1 January 2007	Jimmy Carr
Main review: Some car Review: Honda Civic, Toyota Carolla, and some other cars that they do some stuff with News: Some car stuff Challenge: Another fun challenge Star in a reasonably priced car: Carr does a lap

Obviously there is a large outstanding bug in what I have programmed, the extra line breaks when the field is not used. Feel free to play around with it at User:PS2pcGAMER/Top Gear episode if you think you can fix it or have any other changes.

Would a switch to using templates even be worthwhile? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron Top Speed

I watched season 9 episode 2 and saw that James May reached >407 km/h. 407 km = 252.898075241 mi so that would be 252 mph before rounding. If we round it is 253 mph, as is stated http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/ (as of 07 Feb 2007) as having been reached. This is also the stated top speed of the Veyron, which was the task at hand. Anything over 407.164032 km/h will be at or over 253 mph without rounding. I am writing all this because I am finding inconsistencies between Wikipedia and the Top Gear site (Top Gear site says both in different places). Nitrous231 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And in different episodes; S7E5, the one where they first introduced the Veyron, said 252. Kinitawowi 12:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really care about 1 mph?

If a police man catches you going 21mph in a 20mph school zone, you are speeding and must pay a fine. Yes, I do care about 1mph. 1 is the difference between single and married, on and off, and if i just leave one letter out of every word in this sentence, it makes it unreadable. Besides, would you rather be right or wrong? 1mph can mean the difference Nitrous231 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about 1 mph just doesn't make sense. Especially when it has to do with such a high speeds wich you can't drive on a normal road. The Bugatti is just REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. That's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.28.134.41 (talk • contribs).

Genius, you're the one complaining about arguing and here you are arguing... and if its the fastest production car in the world (even historically), the correct top speed should still be recorded. The Bugatti Veyron is fast, no doubt, but I for one want to know just how fast. Nitrous231 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's 407.9kph or 253.4mph, as demonstrated by James May in TG 09x02.Sebhaque 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Gas Station Riot

I had heard a suggestion that the town in Alabama where there was nearly a riot due to their challenge had voted to ban filming in future. Is this true and does anyone know what the town is called? Harry Hayfield 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The town was Bagdad

Future episodes

There are two sources for future episodes, namely http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/nextepisode.shtml. For the next episode as of 21/02/07, I have referenced all information to both sources. Should we use one, the other, or both? Also, the way I've done it is a bit messy, but it will suffice for now, although I don't actually know how to clean it up. --Bolmedias 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, any references whose content are the same, like Ace<ref>Bob</ref>Charlie<ref>Bob</ref> can be named and repeated, like such: Ace<ref name="bob">Bob</ref>Charlie<ref name="bob" /> making multiple occurances of one reference, rather than several references the same. Take a look at how I've changed what you did. – D B D 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. You see, I'm not very good with this sort of thing, but I just wanted the entry to be up to scratch. Bolmedias 11:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Spellings

This is a wiki page about a British tv show, I believe that we should try to keep all the spelling and terminology to British ways. Shotmenot 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, wrong. It's not a case of belief. It is a case of Wikipedia policy, that's how it works. ^† D B D 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works! Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English states that: "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." Quite how you don't know this DBD, seeing as you're so keen to allude to 'Wikipedia policy', I don't know! The globetrotter 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my comment. I was pointing out that regardless of shot's belief, that it is policy that British spelling is used. Bearing in mind that I agree with the policy and that I am a long-time and hard-working 'pedian, please re-read my comment in a revised light. Though I do slightly resent your comment, I can forgive because of this difference of tonereading... ^† D B D 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tense

The entire thing needs to be in present tense!

I'm on the yearbook staff at my school and we use the present progressive - ex: Nitrous231 is editing the wiki. But we should look at the wikipedia policy and also at other articles. Nitrous231 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of References

In the past few hours, User:293.xx.xxx.xx has deleted all of the references from s9 stating "This is a Episode recap page!! We don't need references!!" Whilst I understand and can see why this user has made the edit, I feel that some of the references were fairly useful- especially the bit about how building the Robin space shuttle took months, rather than the 12 days as stated in the prog, and added value to the article. It wouldn't make much sense to try and plug these references into the main Top Gear page, and someone's taken time and effort to find these. Rather than simply reverting, I thought i'd ask what other wiki users think. Should we keep or delete? The globetrotter 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The references are both semi-required, and useful - I'm restoring them ^† D B D 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration. As long as they are reliable, the references can only add to the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an episode recap page, and the episode is well enough adequate. Furthermore, various other Tv lists don't have them, and the inline references look ugly. Let's not also forget Wikipedia:Fancruft. I'm deleting them due to irrelevance. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:293.xx.xxx.xx, there are now three users here who assert that the references serve a purpose. If you are so keen to delete them, at least suggest how to incorporate the Robin Shuttle story into the main article. I feel that knowing that a factual prog distorts the truth is fairly interesting! The globetrotter 10:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The episode number is of course a reference in itself. However due to the methods of TV production there are things you cannot know by watching an episode - the 12 day/4½ month issue being a perfect example. Mark83 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, any consensus to restore the refs? BTW List of Doctor Who serials has 23 references, List of The Colbert Report episodes (2006) has 19, List of Never Mind the Buzzcocks episodes has 20, but sadly List of Baywatch episodes has none at all. Anyway, just showing there is some precedent for a list of eps to include references, and picked these progs because I thought they may have some useful bits of info. The globetrotter 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I did:
- I removed 3 references. The James May cite was hard to understand, and the only reference that supposedly referenced the new series actually alluded to the previous series (Series 8). Thankfully, the bbc.co.uk article had them that was much more clearer, so I used that instead. The other two were just preview articles, and frankly, they have no bearing on the shows since they are previews and are made redundant by the actual airing of the episode.
- As for the Reliant Robin trivia....I took an idea from here and edited likewise. That is my compromise. The info is trivia and should not be included in the main episode body and should be regulated to footnote status. If you can prove that it was mentioned in the episode itself, then by all means, give me a timestamp range from the finalgear.com torrent and I can go check it out myself. I challenge it under the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"That is my compromise"? Power mad. You're simply removing material that there is precident for, and that people say they want to see here. Ever thought of deleting articles that don't interest you? I'm presuming that's going to be your next step into non-constructive wiki editing. The globetrotter 10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Do wish for me to outright delete them then? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Verifiability is absolute in a sense. If I come in and ask "Where is the timestamp period for them noting it took them 4.5 Months to complete in the episode?" and nobody can prove it, and/or I go and check the episode and never hear it mentioned, what does that precedent set? --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, fool? That's not in an episode! I think you may have the impression that we should be using one source and one source only for this page (the episodes) - you are spectacularly wrong! Wikipedia encourages the use of as wide a plethora of sources as possible - thus, the references which were until now so prevalent in this article are, according to policy, a good thing. So stop being a wank. ^† D B D 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility. Calling me fool was uncalled for. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with 293.xx.xxx.xx, however that doesn't mean I want to hurl abuse, accusations and names! The globetrotter and Danbarnesdavies/DBD, stop it. Mark83 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand, The globetrotter has given several episode lists on Wikipedia. Much like my Family Guy link, those pages put items that are not relevant to the episode summary as footnotes. For example, this note references a scheduling anomoly, where the original broadcaster was not the first place the episode was first aired, but rather a second party. Now this info alone is insignificant in the list sumamry itself, and is attributed likewise. See also Colbert Report Notes and Never Mind the Buzzcocks notes. All of them have theri relevant notes neatly tied to the end and not cluttering up the episode boxes themselves.

Now let's put it in context here. The episode itself is the Primary source for each episode listing summary here. We edit a basic summary of what happens in the airing of the episode. Now let's look at the disputed reference. While the episode airing says 12 days, the article reveals that it took Top Gear 4.5 Months via a third party to cock about with a Reliant Robin.

Someone finds the article, and adds it to the summary. Now here I come along. I take a quick scan of the episode list, and I find this little blurb about a 12 day build ballooning to 4.5 months. So I go to finalgear.com, torrent the episode in question, and watch. I don't hear the 4.5 month hangup, so I watch again a couple mroe times. I don't hear it. Now I go back, and wonder why this info was put in originally when it's wrong. My obvious idea would be to just delete it, because it's harmful (trying to pose as fact in an episode summary) and isn't sourced properly.

Now you guys raise a stink about it, and restore it. I look into it more, and I decide to challenge it. It's not in the episode, so why is this info added to the sumamry as fact when it's not mentioned in the episode? So we both get into a fight over it. I then do a little research, and I find the Family Guy Episode list and see that some other Wikipedias have "agreed" that the airing schedule of a particular Family Guy Episode warranted a mention, but not in the main article. "Good idea, race to the list here and edit it likewise. While i'm at it, also reconfirm the other reference marks per Wikipedia: Citing Sources.

Now here is my arguement: If other lists of episodes can do it, why not us? It seems that the other lists have adopted a kinda common code of sorts. Keep "extra info" regulated to footnotes. I mean, is it that hard to be lead by example?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Also note that I have not reverted any deletions at any time, as I believe that discussion is the key to moving any debate forward, which is why I took acception to your quick deletions after DBD had re-added the links. You make some good points, which I would encourage you to post elswehere; if there is one thing this debate has indicated, it is that some blanket decision needs to be taken for references in episode lists. What I do not understand is the view that if something isn't mentioned in the programme it shouldn't be clarified here; as they wanted viewers to believe that it took 12 days, they really wouldn't want to add that it really took a lot longer. With no chance of the real story being mentioned on the TV programme, and a good referenced source (quotes from someone actively involved with the project) it really adds value to the episode information. In terms of Wikipedia: Citing Sources, I believe that the links "...improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia." We hear what they tell us in the episodes, but we can show that they don't mind bending the truth. BTW I think that it would be a good idea to avoid mentioning torrent sites that carry copyrighted material. The globetrotter 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seasons are screwed

I don't know if all of them are, but season 3 is completely screwed up. There was only 9 episodes but this has 10, and the tenth episode appears to have been created with bits from other episodes. Improbcat 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the last episode for each season is a 'Best of Top Gear', with clips from each of the other episodes in that season. This is usually shown during the break between seasons where TG is off-air to film the next season. Sebhaque 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please let me join in on this

I tend to use the wiki episodes list as source for my file naming conventions. Yet again the List_of_MythBusters_episodes episode list seems an example. down here the "specials" of "best of's" are numberless! at least I could use a $sequence.$episode# or special#.S$$.E$$.$name.avi if you catch my drift ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.29.145 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaguar XJR on the cool wall

There seems to be a mistake under Series 2 Episode 4: "Cool Wall: Jaguar XJR is uncool, but it is cool if its in black as Hannibal Lecter owned one". I've just watched this episode again, and they place the XJR in the cool section, bordering Sub Zero. It's the XJ6 SE (that they are briefly discussing because of it's ugly grille), that is placed in the uncool secion. Zedrick 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the fair use images have been removed

I removed most of the fair use images per WP:NONFREE ("decorative use") and the recent push to remove fair use images from list of... articles. I have left the first image of Dawe, Hammond and Clarkson as I felt that it was particularly important in the history of the show, but if someone disagrees, they should feel free to remove it. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well seems like i'm dumping all the new info I gleaned from the torrents I gotten for the empty Top Gear Episodes. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I honestly think that one image per series is justifiable. I just didn't think that any of the images really exemplified a series, but feel free to take a go at it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it have killed you to tell me thru my talk page "Oh, I wanna delete the images offa Top Gear Episodes, any objections?" Instead, I had to waste an hour going back into my history and putting {{db-author}} tags on the images. An hour I could've spent adding info, but instead wasted because someone was inconsiderate enough not to tell me and regulate the task to a bot that only got two of the 30 odd images I uploaded? I would've deleted it happily, but no.--293.xx.xxx.xx 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of uploaders, so I didn't see the point in leaving them each a message, which is why I left the message here. The whole point in telling people that their image has been orphaned is so that they have a chance to "de-orphan" it before deletion. However, since this is more of a policy thing, none of the images were going to be readded anyway, so what is the point in notifying everyone individually? I'm not sure why you felt the need to tag it with {{db-author}}. I did my best to tag all of the images with {{orfud}}. If I missed any, Betacommandbot would have just tagged it for me. The bot is going through thousands of image files and it takes time to tag them all. What is the rush to get them deleted anyway? As long as they are off the articles, it doesn't matter if they are on the server for a few extra days. It is going to take a very long time to clear the orphaned fair use backlog anyway. As I said, I am sorry that you took the time to upload these images just for me to come by and remove them a few months later and it is unfortunate that you spent the time to tag orphaned images for deletion when a bot would have hit them all eventually. Next time I will be sure to leave you a courtesy message on your talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think a picture per episode would be helpful. Perhaps in the older TGs, where there wasn't really a main feature, this might be quite hard to do, but in the latest seasons there have been the large challenges. I believe on the official Top Gear website they have pictures of upcoming/past episodes, so I think that having a small picture with a caption doesn't really diminish the quality of the article. Just my two pence. Sebhaque 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from. This might be of some interest: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you completely understood where we were coming from you might have respected our point of view instead of dismissing it out of hand. You know, I feel that this just another example of the admins throwing their weight around to somehow justify their existence. There's always been a lot of resistance to these episode lists / guides here and this feels like another chapter in that saga. My feelings aside, your actions in removing the images have essentially ruined this article. In case you hadn't noticed, this list is more than just a bare bones listing, it has short episode summaries and without something to help the eye parse the content the article has become a morass of text. At the very least this article should have been given some special consideration and grouped under the same policy as the individual episode pages and their use of screenshots. Maybe I should hold my tongue tho, I wouldn't want you to "improve" the page by simply deleting all of the "useless information" in the article (and wiping out the rest of the hard work in the process). Instead of getting on some sort high horse about "free content", perhaps you should stick to two more basic questions: 1) Goes this action make the article better/more useful and 2) how much community effort am I wiping out. In this case your action made the page significantly LESS useful and wiped out a significant amount of community effort. I contributed a number of those screenshots and you have rendered all of my efforts, which were well within legal and policy bounds, completely non-existent. Way to motivate the Wikipedia community by allowing users to spend large amounts of time and effort making pages better only to see those efforts eliminated at a whim.Sturmovik 05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1) This was an editorial decision and one that was done throughout much of the community. Obviously there is some objection, but the removal of images from this article seems to be in line with community's feelings on the issue. I'm not sure what why you think that being an admin has anything do with this situation as I have acted strictly as an editor. If you have an issue with admins that is fine, but it is absolutely not relevant to this particular situation. 2) My entire basis for removing the image agrees with your own statement that the page "has short episode summaries and without something to help the eye parse the content the article has become a morass of text." i.e. the images were used only for decoration use only, which fails our fair use criteria. If there is too much text that makes the page daunting to read, add some empty space or try something else, but images aren't the only solution. 3) Many of the images were not in line with policy, although this wasn't the basis for my removal as this issue could have been addressed. Many images had no fair use rationale whatsoever. Many of the images that did have a fair use rationale had a very weak claim. Some of the images could even be replaced with free content ones. Do a search on flickr for "Top Gear" and you will see what I mean. I even uploaded a few onto the commons awhile back and inserted them into this article, but they were removed by people who apparently wanted a fair use image instead.

My response to your questions are as follows. 1) There are free alternative images out there, not for every episode, but there are some. The whole point in removing the fair use images is to encourage the upload of free versions. If we kept all the fair use images, especially using them as decoration as was the case for this page, it does nothing to promote our goal of being a free encyclopedia. 2) The hard work of editors is undone all the time on Wikipedia. Just because someone spent a lot of time on their contributions, it doesn't mean that the contributions are necessarily in line with the encyclopedia's goals. Yes, it is quite discouraging to people to see their hard work removed and I truly do feel bad for them, but articles are constantly being reshaped to fit into the community's consensus. I personally have had portions of my contributions eliminated/rewritten/etc. That is just the nature of a collaborative project. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I understand your view on this too, and it's fine with me. There's no use in getting in a large argument over a few pictures. If a fan knows which episode they're looking for, they probably won't need a picture anyway. Thanks. :] Sebhaque 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

question

does anyone know the original episode in which jeremy clarkson says that he will eat his hair if the vauxhall ends up looking like the concept car? b/c in season 5 episode 1, hammond says that in the last season jeremy said he'd eat his own hair. i need to know the original episode in which this happened. Thanks. Sadartha 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Series 10

Please can I note that any editing of this to give a more precise start date MUST be referenced. Acceptable references could include www.bbc.co.uk/topgear www.topgear.com and Applause Store (tickets for recordings, likely to air the Sunday following the first recording). Halsteadk 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

Would it not be a good idea to have a list or some other way of showing the music that was used in each episode. I often find that I am watching an episode and i have to search for quite a while in various different places to find out what the music was when it would be so much easier to find out if it were just listed here. Shploom 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The forums on finalgear.com compile this information: [1]. As the music isn't credited at the end of TG, it might be difficult to provide this on Wikipedia without straying into original research. Yes, it could be copied from Finalgear but that would be copyvio and it could be argued that it's just original research somewhere else, not an authoritative source. Given the sheer number of pieces of music used in some films (76 are shown for series 9 episode 6, the first episode I picked at random), this may also take up more space than the rest of the article itself - it then potentially looks like we're writing about a music show rather than a car show! Also would need to bear in mind that some people will watch the show on BBC Prime, UKTVG2, and other channels where the show is edited, occasionally with different music than the original. Nice idea but I just don't think this is the place. Would it be appropriate to link to this information on finalgear.com? Halsteadk 16:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Best of

Do the "best of" episodes contain any new content at all, even commentary, or are they entirely pieced together from the other episodes? Ham Pastrami 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the latter – they're just clip shows. With the exception of The Jimmy Carr Show aka Best of the Guests, which had new material by Carrnage himself. ^† D B D 08:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Need to add the most recent Best of which was on last night. I can't do it as I only saw the last 10 minutes which featured them driving across the English Channel in their amphibious cars. TheTrojanHought (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari on the Moon

Can someone elaborate on what that was about? 83.100.229.21 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I saw of the show, it was mentioned in the open, then May said something about them not being able to show it. Probably just a joke. Darry2385 12:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a commentary on the recent "scandal" about faking television ^† D B D 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Just a Joke. 81.110.245.215 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was also a joke, yes ^† D B D 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives