Talk:The Grand Tour/Archive 1

lowercase title
The inclusion of allowing the page title to render and be indexed as "untitled Amazon motoring show" was reverted in Special:Diff/711615683 (by ). The result is that the page title no longer matched the inline usage on the rest of Wikipedia, which is lowercase "untitled" and no italics. Having been surprised by this revision I would be grateful for any alternative suggestions or improvements. The present title is a placeholder (which is why it does not use italics), and contains only a single proper noun, which is "Aamzon", which is the second word. —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * But how is this different to every other Wikipedia article named after a non-proper noun, such as dog? – Smyth\talk 10:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * An article about dog does not appear to contain a subsequent Capitalised Word/Proper Noun. Perhaps compare with Amazon motoring show (untitled) where 'Amazon' would be (still) capitalised and 'untitled' would  be (still) lowercase.  For everything else, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Sladen (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how containing a subsequent proper noun is relevant to anything. You can't use "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" as a justification for ignoring Wikpedia's article naming conventions. If you want to make this change you have to show either that it's supported by the conventions, or a good reason why it should be an exception. – Smyth\talk 11:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And when you're in the middle of the D stage of WP:BRD, you don't go off and make the same change on a dozen other articles! – Smyth\talk 12:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've brought WP:OSE to your attention because pointing at an article on canines with a three-letter title is not likely to be relevant to the conversation, ditto for other random examples. I don't see any inconsistency with WP:TITLEFORMAT ("The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text.").  —Sladen (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So why do you think the word "untitled" is an exception to this rule? – Smyth\talk 13:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article is "[an] Amazon motoring show". There are cases were a piece of material is released by an artist called Untitled (eg. Untitled Amazon motoring show. In this case the "untitled" is a adjective, where the alternative words might be the/an, or removing the word completely.  The distinction is maintained by referring to an untitled Amazon motoring show (no italics, no upper case)— corrects and maintains that in the title in a situation where it is needed for proper parsing of the title by the reader.  I don't see an exception to (the WP:TITLEFORMAT) rule.  —Sladen (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We're obviously failing to get through to each other here, so I'm going to solicit more people to join the discussion. – Smyth\talk 11:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree that "untitled" should be lowercase in the middle of a sentence. But if you're proposing that article titles should be displayed with the same capitalization they would have in the middle of a sentence, then that does contradict WP:TITLEFORMAT. – Smyth\talk 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand, you're attempting to distinguish between works which are actually called "Untitled" and works which simply don't have a title. But the correct way to do that is to use italics or quotation marks in the first case and not in the second, as you have correctly done elsewhere. There's no need to mess around with the capitalization. – Smyth\talk 10:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Italics are not propagated to the , which is what is displayed and indexed by search engines. Lowercase is accurately reflected as we can see in www.google.com/search?q=de+Havilland+Comet. —Sladen (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest avoiding the issue, by moving the title to either: Amazon's untitled motoring show or Untitled motoring show on Amazon. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what you think the issue actually is, because his argument makes no sense to me, and [I understand now, see my comment at 10:37, 27 March 2016] insofar as I understand it, it would apply equally to your second suggestion. – Smyth\talk  13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We have literally hundreds of thousands of "list of..." articles, where "List" is capitalized in the title but is not part of the proper name of anything. Absent the extremely rare stylistic choice to actually use a lowercase first letter for the name of a thing (e.g. k.d. lang), the first letter of a title is capitalized. bd2412  T 13:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a non-issue as links to the page can use either upper or lower case for the first character. Leave well enough alone and let the software handle it. Doubly so as this issue does no affect the editable text of the subject page, and the header can be read as an independent sentence/phrase that should start with a capital whether a proper noun or not or a name or a descriptive title. --PBS (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , as you say, the linking inside Wikipedia is automatic and will work anyway so is there any downside to getting it right in the ? —Sladen (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "getting it right" depends on a POV see my comment on sentences.
 * 2) this section demonstrates what a time sink shink and waste of editorial time this sort of issue is. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , yup. It was a five-second edit that, that I (really) did not expect to attract any discontent.  I was surprised at seeing it reverted without understanding—so I entertained that in the hope that in the long-term it might reduce the pattern of revert/random examples/forum shopping prior to understanding.  —Sladen (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When someone makes a prominent edit which I believe contradicts a policy, and does not provide an explanation along with it, I feel no obligation to understand the edit before reverting it. It's WP:BRD, not BDR. Don't take it personally. – Smyth\talk 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . BRD, not BR{silence}.  It should not fall upon other editors to open a thread to find out each time something is (not) understood.  —Sladen (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Titles in Wikipedia are capitalized as a general matter, whether they start with a common noun, verb, or adjective. Therefore, having these titles capitalized is getting it right. bd2412  T 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sladen: what you're proposing is clearly against the policy. If you want to change the policy, start a discussion on the policy page. – Smyth\talk 16:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy[See precise wording above] and consensus are two separate things. I am more than happy to follow consensus from those who have taken the time to read and understand an issue prior to commenting or reverting.  Any frustration stems from seeing yet another potentially useful discussion derailed by those who have not fulfilled these criteria.  —Sladen (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed material
In Special:Diff/712057286 (by ), these citations + content were removed:

…

…

…

A stunt double wearing a mask resembling Richard Hammond's head was present.

…

…

In March 2016 filming took place with a Mercedes monster truck in Cobham, Surrey, and on the Game of Thrones film set in Marrakesh.
 * Removed citations

—Sladen (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it relates to WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirmation that the material removal was intentional; I'm hopeful that others editors might supply alternative satisfactory sources.  Perhaps we can start the ball rolling with non-red tops:
 * —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Christian Today article is simply re-reporting an article in Get Surrey. The original source should be used. – Smyth\talk 12:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , then do something constructive, and add it! —Sladen (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Calm down, it was only a suggestion. I don't care whether any of this is in the article or not. It'll all be superceded once the show comes out anyway. – Smyth\talk 12:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Logo format
The logo that is currently being displayed is heavily compressed. Would it be viable to recreate it as a vector graphic? 92.28.27.1 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a non-free image so should not be converted to SVG as this violates fair-use provisions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"Duration" column
today added a "duration" column to the episode list. As well as screwing up the column formatting, this information is at best inconsistent with the way episode tables are created. The infobox includes a  field, specifically for the inclusion of an average runtime for all episodes, and it's therefore not required in the episode table for each individual episode. I removed the information, but it was restored without explanation. I've asked Dyolf87 to discuss the edits, and gain consensus for inclusion, but he has again restored the content and made no attempt to discuss. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The available cites give a ~60 minute target and explicitly note that the first episode was an exception and longer. I don't think (at this stage) the variation in running time (based on a sample size of 1…, itself known to be an exception) is significant enough to warrant devoting valuable column width in the episode table to it.  Kudos to  for repairing the formatting.  —Sladen (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

country of origin
Sorry if any of this formatting is incorrect with this comment, but I wonder if the show's country of origin should be listed as United States? It is funded by an American company and distributed globally on an American platform, despite the nationality of the presenters. Any feedback or other thoughts are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can see from the citations on W. Chump and Sons that the production company is based in London. Do you have reliable sources that state otherwise?  —Sladen (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazon is an American company the last time I checked. 51.174.227.172 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading Country of origin it suggests that "The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company" Wikipedia's Manual of Style at WP:TVLEAD doesn't cover this topic precisely, but neither does the MoS contradict this.  —Sladen (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've compromised and added both UK and US considering both are true – US funded, UK/World produced. Nbdelboy (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Variety cite used states "The deal was brokered by Amazon U.K. film and TV strategy director Chris Bird and Conrad Riggs, the U.S. company’s head of TV production. Bird said: “It would be crazy for us to interfere with a creative process that has been so successful in the past.” … The program will be U.K. based"; here it is Chris Bird from the UK being interviewed—despite Variety being a US-magazine.  I too, can WP:SPECULATE that in light of Amazon's tax arrangements and corporate structure, "money" is likely coming from Luxembourg… so based on the probabilities of Luxembourg/Ireland over the US, and lack of a cite either way, might it be better to stick to what we can cite per WP:RS, and leave it at the headquartered base of the production company?   —Sladen (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good shout. I didn't even think about tax arrangements/Luxembourg Nbdelboy (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (or anyone). It's been 5+ months now.  Please contribute constructively, by locating a source, when you believe something to be incorrect.  Please try to avoid deleting citations that are already present.  It is not a matter of winning, but simply of following precisely what the citations say.  —Sladen (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is primarily UK based. Whilst Amazon is American, the production company behind the series (W. Chump & Sons) is a registered company with Companies House in the United Kingdom. I have also noticed that on the official Grand Tour Facebook and Twitter pages, the links to the website is for the Amazon UK site. Also the show's launch date is written in the UK format on the trailer and social media banners. —Commyguy (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

, thank you for your enthusiastic contributions to this article in the last 24 hours:
 * Special:Diff/749858089 15:07 "Undid revision 749858089 by 151.225.83.147 (talk)"
 * Special:Diff/749937608 23:48 "Undid revision 749936982 by Commyguy (talk) Amazon Video and Amazon Studios are American. That covers it."
 * Special:Diff/749940941 00:16 "Undid revision 749940612 by Commyguy (talk)Production company determines country of origin. Amazon produces."
 * Special:Diff/749986094 05:47 "Undid revision 749943232 by Commyguy (talk) Let's be clear: AMAZON STUDIOS = UNITED STATES. Discuss on the talk page. "

The last of these edits indicates a suggestion to discuss the topic here on this talk page—I think this would be a really good idea. Could I also draw all contributors attention to the WP:3RR on a maximum of three reverts per person, per article, per day, which has already been exceeded here and usually results in a ban. —Sladen (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In the interests of moving things on constructively, Jeremy Clarkson appears to have put out the following, in conjunction with the episode filming in Stuttgart. Can anyone locate a WP:RS stating roughly the same?
 * —Sladen (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * —Sladen (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * —Commyguy (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Video interview was from a couple of weeks ago by the The Sunday Times:
 * (own transcription, corrections/improvements welcomed). —Sladen (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , 24-hours later and I observe that the account with your username account is back at WP:3RR. Please resist performing further reverts until you have contributed here.  —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , 24-hours later and I observe that the account with your username account is back at WP:3RR. Please resist performing further reverts until you have contributed here.  —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , 24-hours later and I observe that the account with your username account is back at WP:3RR. Please resist performing further reverts until you have contributed here.  —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get a ping, but wandered by. I'll desist if you abandon your nationalistic WP:OWN behavior, and your bully-boy tactics designed to splash my edits all over the place while ignoring the edit warring and false accusations of other (British) editors. You guys can lie to yourselves all you want that this isn't a British-American collaboration, but Amazon money says differently, as did Clarkson in the first episode. --Drmargi (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for responding here. Regarding "didn't get a ping", we can see from Special:History/User talk:Drmargi that multiple warnings about edit-warring have been given (and been manually removed) in the last week.  Special:Diff/750296591 removed the explicit guidance "Please try to discuss at Talk:The Grand Tour (TV series)." and "Please prioritise contributing at Talk:The Grand Tour (TV series), before making further edits.".  Per WP:BLANKING "If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents."  If you are able to locate reliable sources (WP:RS) as citations, supporting the text you wish to see in the article, then you are most welcome to add them. —Sladen (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

California filming
Here's a quick WP:OR overview of the California Dry Rabbit Dry Lake filming:


 * Saturday 24 September 2016: "Grand opening": ~2,000 invited guests; bussed in. Based on the reports I've read, this consisted of the Mad Max-style convey.  For each take the cars drove out in the desert, assembled and started driving back towards the stage/tent with the Hothouse Flowers then working up the crowd playing "I Can See Clearly Now" as the cars approached.  Later in the day the Breitling Jet Team did a series of flyovers until the required shots were got.  The main problems reported were the lack of toilets and shade.  In the Edinburgh Television Festival interview, Wilman stated that this episode had to be filmed out of order.  The Miramar Air Show 2016 was the same weekend, with the Breitling Jets performing at the airshow during the weekend as part of their American tour.
 * Sunday 25 September 2016: "Tent recording": ~300 invited guests; also bussed in; a sub-set of which made it into the tent. Clarkson states (00:52:02) "You know Carole Voderman, she rang me this morning, she was at an air show near by, and said can she come to the show?".  In the following shot Hammond is standing over [RAF Air Cadet Ambassador, Honorary Group Captain and Pilot] C. Voderman who is laying on the floor wearing a T-shirt with the words "Remove Before Flight".

It would be useful if all editors could assist in finding citations. Pinging and  in particular. —Sladen (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

-

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016
I would like to add two names to the cinematography section of the Grand Tour titles. I am one of the cinematographers who has been involved with the filming of this show since the start of filming. My name is Steve Lidgerwood, I would also like to add the other cinematographer who has been involved since the start, Casper Leaver. The 3 main cinematographers for this show are Ben Joiner, Casper Leaver, Steve Lidgerwood. I would very much appreciate our names added. Please contact Phil Churchward who is the Director of this series for confirmation. Kind regards, Steve Lidgerwood Camerajockey68 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , good to hear from you, and firstly and a personal appreciations for contributing here, and congratulations to yourself and the other location cameras operators on capturing the raw footage that produced the magnificent final rendering. The bar of what can be done has clearly been increased going forth.
 * Now, on the matter of what to include in an article—Wikipedia is a summary information already available elsewhere, rather than a repository of original thought, ideas of research. This means we try to find reliable, third-party publications (eg. newspaper articles, see WP:RS), and ensure we follow what those say.  It is also means that we try to distill and filter out the most important information, and then direct readers to other locations for fuller details—be those the citation sources articles, or to eg. IMDb, which is much better suited to recording the dozens of people involved in a production.  In this case Ben Joiner is explicitly credited (and reported on elsewhere, eg. ) as DoP, with the rest of the camera operators/cinematographers listed under following groupings (eg. for episode 1: Kennedy, Leaver, Lee, Lidgerwood, Wilkinson), plus the dozens of special/mini/vehicle/aeriel.  And ditto for sound, Russell Edwards gets a credit as "Film Sound Supervisor", followed by the other sound recordists.
 * Perhaps there are other ways you could contribute to this article—would you be able to do a skim through and note anything that sounds incorrect, or could be improved. We would still need to find reliable citations, but at least we would be knowing what to search for.  Once again, thank you so much for taking the time to write here, the production is really rather good—and aside from a mere couple of minutes of cringe—lends itself fairly-easily to repeat back-to-back watching.  Ahem.  —Sladen (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ attempt at personal promotion without a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured cars section
Might it be worth having a "featured cars" section to the "Episodes" table? The episode summary has now become quite lengthy as a result of mentioning every car that takes part in the show (except for the 40-strong convoy). Dyolf87 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I expect this is going to take up even more space; eg. the names of the guests can be abbreviated to their surname, whereas the featured vehicles would (looking at the current text wording) end up getting duplicated in long-form. —Sladen (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why a separate field to show the cars featured in an episode, in list form, would be better; the episode summary can then be condensed to what's necessary. This is a car show after all. In the future it would be easier for people to identify an episode by being able to easily see the featured cars. This would be more useful than a "recording date" field which gives no valuable information. Dyolf87 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be worth re-evaluating this in December 2016 when more summaries will hopefully have been created. At the moment the recording dates/scheduled recording dates are one of the few bits of concrete information that we can share with our readers.  Those interested in the show are likely to be familiar with previous productions by the presenters having had a very short turn around of only four days between studio filming and broadcast.  In light of this, the availability of the recording dates helps provide context for in some of the (delayed-) topical content discussed (cf. in Episode 1, the Brad Pit/Angelina Jolie story that was in the news ~21 September 2016; or Carol Vorderman's presence at the Miramar Air Show ~23 September 2016.  Such information is likely to remain useful to our readers seeking to grasp the background in the future—just as it is likely to be useful to our Wikipedia editors seeking to grasp the background now. —Sladen (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Prior to the BBC's decision to drop Clarkson, I was considering reformatting the Top Gear season pages to compensate for the amount of information that we were trying to jam into the episode tables. For MythBusters, where we had quite a lot happening in each episode, we ended up with this format, which could be adapted to suit this program. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016
TYPO: In 'Episodes' > '2', replace Jordon with Jordan in the end of the description (Finally the presenters return to KASOTC in Jordon to review an Audi S8 Plus...) Simobk (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , ✅ in Special:Diff/751689926 along with thanks. Many appreciations for reporting this!  —Sladen (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Austria
I can find no citable evidence that the show is available in Austria. The references provided do not state Austria - in fact only one of three of the references gives any locations at all and Austria isn't one of them. Therefore, unless a suitable reference can be found Austria should be removed. Dyolf87 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Earlier in the week the Amazon UK Press Office put out the following:
 * Various publications—including a Daily Mail article cited in Special:Diff/751115310 —recycled these words verbatium. —Sladen (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , do you think this cite that you already found is good enough? Or do we need to hunt for another one?  —Sladen (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , do you think this cite that you already found is good enough? Or do we need to hunt for another one?  —Sladen (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Promotion
Could any other editors assist with finding WP:RS citations for the following, and getting the chronology right: What else have we missed (so far)? —Sladen (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Prius sculpture:
 * Berlin Hackescher Markt (red, H4MMOND)
 * London King's Cross railway station (white, M4Y)
 * Los Angeles Hollywood Boulevard/Hollywood and Highland Center/Dolby Theatre Oscars venue (blue, <tt>CL4RKSON</tt>)
 * Amazon Alexa special responses
 * Amazon Echo special alarm clock
 * Waze Clarkson, Hammond and May navigation voice directions
 * Amazon Prime The Grand Tour parcel tape


 * UK cinemas (Merlin-owned cinemas for sure) have been showing trailers for TGT. I don't know if these are possible to cite though. Dyolf87 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Charlize Theron
I have notified at Special:Permalink/751564100 about reaching 3RR again, and would like to find a way to break that cycle. So far I have been unable to find a WP:RS that makes a definitive statement either way, so lets do some WP:OR. The tabloid press has Theron departing from Los Angeles on 14 July 2016. And on the evening of 17 July 2016, she was opening the XXI International AIDS Conference, 2016 in Durban. Episode 2 was filmed on 17 July 2016 outside Johannesburg, which is the city that acts has the main hub airport for ZA.



The timing is plausible, and the filming date may have been setup around this. However, comparing images and video  with the the Grand Tour footage (00:45:32), the person being pounced on has longer hair. One possibility here is that it was planned, but ended up being a no-show. Speculating further, if this was the case, it maybe the reasoning for Episode 1 (filmed later) having multiple guests as a backup—eg. the Renner jump footage already in the can could be played back regardlessly, even if Hammer was not available, with Vorderman as an unplanned addition. —Sladen (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As there is no definitive source confirming she was in the episode and she wasn't credited as a guest, officially she wasn't a guest, and so should not be included. We can't resort to OR.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sladen, you're a tiresome bully with some major ownership issues where this article is concerned.  Your need to play hall monitor to keep this article as you want it are becoming increasingly problematic.  If you have an issue with me, you take it up on my talk page in a collegial manner, remember that we have a policy about templating regulars, and knock off using your bully-boy strategies to try to keep this article as you want it.  As it is, nothing gets into it without the Sladen seal of approval, and it's getting old.  Oh, and while you're at it, try remembering that this talk page is for improving the article, not bringing editors with whom you disagree to heel.  Any future posts such as the two up-page will be treated as a personal attack.


 * Neither Charlize Theron nor Armie Hammer appears on the show, and addition of their names is one of many misleading elements of this article. They were announced, but never clearly seen, unlike Jeremy Renner and the silly, self-indulgent appearance by the D-list "celebrity" Carole Vorderman, and their names are used in service of a tiresome joke, one of many Clarkson seems to need in his effort to use The Grand Tour to give the BBC the finger.  We should get "Matt Damon" before this is all over.  Do you really, honestly believe that they would fly Charlize Theron from Los Angeles, where she lives, to Johannesburg (one of the two or three longest air routes operating with first-class ticket running in the neighborhood of $30, 000) in order to shoot her from unidentifiable distance and pretend she was mauled by a fake lion, when any available blonde with a similar hair style and physique could have done that shot?  Likewise Hammer, who was "blown up" before he could be clearly seen.  Jesus people, IT'S A JOKE!  All the WP:OR above is laughable, particularly when some simple common sense is all that needs to be brought to bear on the issue. --Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The difference between Charlize Theron and Armie Hammer is that Hammer was actually credited as a special guest. Hammer was clearly seen too, while "Theron" was not. I wouldn't know Hammer from a bar of soap, but the person on-screen looks like the person in the photos in his article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's fine. He wasn't identifiable to me, but if he's in the credits, we're in better shape.  He's still in the article.  The material point remains the same; this is a joke they intend to keep running, probably long past its sell-by date, so that the BBC lawyers and the Amazon lawyers, and sadly, the poor hapless audience, know that they're not doing anything remotely like the Star in the Reasonably Priced Car segment any longer.  We get it. --Drmargi (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a cite that gives the legal background for the non-interviews, and which has been added in Special:Diff/751625510. —Sladen (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for contributing here. It is likely that the ZA filming date was picked precisely because of the dates of the XXI International AIDS Conference, 2016 (when Theron would already be in ZA), just as the California date was picked precisely because of the dates of the Miramar Air Show, 2016 (when the Breitling Jet Team would already be in the air a relatively short distance away), and the Lapland date was picked for November (when there is already snow on the ground).  —Sladen (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * After the Whitby filming reports—with Simon Pegg and the ice-cream, and Jimmy Carr and the jet-ski, one could conclude that all cameo guests get killed off. For Theron not to appear, therefore appears to be an exception.  Based on the research above, it would seem that the present wording "A person introduced as actress Charlize Theron" is probably as accurate as we can get—but it would be good to able cite it either way.  —Sladen (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Research/speculation/WP:OR needs to be kept here on the Talk: page, and off the article.

I'm honestly not sure if it's her or not, but I'll throw in my thoughts. The woman who is attacked by a lion looks a lot like Theron, even though she's not clearly seen, her stance, shape, frame all look like her. Secondly, is it me or do these "windows" look like screens? I mean, if it is a screen then Theron could have filmed it pretty quickly and then gone on her way. The rumours of Theron and Matt Damon have been around for a while and neither actor have denied it, but nor have they confirmed it. Either way, without evidence she should not be included in the article. Dyolf87 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Individual Pages
Due to the episodic nature of The Grand Tour (as opposed to the formulaic, "factual" nature of Top Gear - if that makes sense), as well as the fact that each episode has it's own title, should pages for each individual episode be created? For example, a page for "The Holy Trinity". I feel like enough information could be included in the page, as well as a "Broadcast" and "Reception" section. If this is to happen, it's probably best to start now to avoid creating a backlog of pages. Just an idea. 109.158.3.113 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Episode Pages
It'd be far easier if pages were created for each individual episode of the show. This'll avoid cramming all the information into the summary section of the episode table. The Grand Tour is different to Top Gear in that each episode has it's own title, and is much more episodic than the old show. It'd be create if somebody could respond and comply with this, thanks. 109.145.35.179 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is everybody deliberately ignoring this? Even a simple "no" wouldn't go a miss. 109.145.35.179 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , no people are not "deliberately ignoring". The first clearly says "Just an idea"; neither contains a question.  If it is felt that there is sufficient citation material to produce a dedicated article, then people are most welcome to create one.  Please try to do this without forking or creating a messy copyvio, as has been the case with The Grand Tour (series 1).   I suspect it may be easier to wait a little and reevaluate. —Sladen (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Should pages for each individual episode be created?". I would say this is a question. I was hoping that may post would evoke a discussion which would then lead to the pages being created or not. 109.145.35.179 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving from "The Grand Tour (TV Series)" to "The Grand Tour (2016 TV series)
This was unnecessary for two reasons: 1. There is not ambiguity between the two shows. The 1997 series is already clearly marked for deletion (see The Grand Tour (1997 TV series)) and will then not exist. 2. The 1997 series is not current, this one is current and is the only TV show currently running under that name (with a Wikipedia article). Therefore I suggest moving it back. Dyolf87 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . It is apparent that Google Snippets  http://www.google.com/search?q=the+grand+tour+episodes  is returning the metadata of The Grand Tour (2016 TV series), mixed up with episode listings of The Grand Tour (1997 TV series).  This demonstrates that merely a name and the suffix "TV series" are not enough to prevent confusion—requiring WP:DISAMBIGUATION.  Once all the Wikidata metadata is populated and the second (disambiguated) article is expanded, hopefully Google Snippets will also be able to clearly differentiate what people are looking for today (The Grand Tour (2016 TV series)) from what what they are not looking for (The Grand Tour (1997 TV series).  To expand the other article, will actually need some work.  For the period c.1997–1999, reviews were still in paper-based newspapers, rather than online, for armchair researching.  So one probably needs to visit a real library!—It would be great if other editors could help, work on disambiguation activities to ensure that readers can directly find what they are after.  —Sladen (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Episode footnotes
Does "Hammond's description: "It was like an eighteen-century Cannonball Run, only with old-fashioned morphine instead of cocaine"." really warrant a footnote under the episodes table? Dyolf87 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We have Wikiquote, which is a much better home for this sort of thing. Would you be willing to contribute there too?  —Sladen (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Interactive maps in Episodes section
The addition of these maps seems pointless - they do not provide any useful information and only serve to make reading the episode summaries more difficult. Unless a good case for their inclusion can be made I highly recommend that they be removed. Dyolf87 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , per WP:GEOCODE "By adding coordinates, a Wikipedia reader can easily view the location on a street map, nautical chart, topographic map, by satellite photo, realtime weather map, and many other options. Coordinate data makes an article eventually appear in various services such as Google Maps Wikipedia overlay, Google Earth, and Wikimedia's map service. —Sladen (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Their inclusion, due to the ugly symbols, distracts from reading the episode summaries, which is the function of the article, and when clicked most of these map locations show very little information, the locations are linked to the related articles, which should suffice.Dyolf87 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , could I encourage you to contribute your thoughts at Template talk:Coord. This will hopefully lead to improvements for the whole of Wikipedia at once.  —Sladen (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is one case where I have to agree with Dyolf87. It's unnecessary and inconsistent with every other episode table in Wikipedia. These are supposed to plot summaries, we don't need to include what amounts to minutiae. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , if there is another show you've been working on that travels as widely as The Grand Tour, perhaps we could both work together on getting another article fully WP:GEOCODEd too as practice. In Special:Diff/752281118 I have hidden the (inline presentation of the) geocoordinates for the moment.  If an editor wishes to change Wikipedia policy across the board, I would encourage discussing this at WP:GEOCODE—it is perhaps parallel to Do we add inline citation URLs as metadata?, Do we add Infobox metadata?, Do we add categorisation metadata?, Do we hyperlink articles together?, Do we add maps to articles?, Do we add images to articles?.  For the separate discussion of improving presentation, I would encourage contributing at Template talk:Coord, and I concur that there is room for improvement—I have already left a suggestion, and it would be wonderful if you could too. Every little helps. —Sladen (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When we geocode articles, we usually add one or two coordinates, as necessary, in order to identify the location of the subject. We don't add locations for everything. What you have done to the article is the geocoding version of overlinking and MOS:EGG. Most of the links are completely unhelpful to readers, and the coordinates seem OR at best. It's just not encyclopaedic. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:GEO
Special:Diff/757402270 ("completely unnecessary code only serves to unnecessarily increase the size of the article") removed the WP:GEO data from the article. This WP:GEO metadata has been restored again in Special:Diff/757403978. When editors disagree with Wikipedia policy and wish to see it changed, discussion can be started at Village pump (policy). —Sladen (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Use of coordinates in this manner is not policy and not mandated, and it is certainly not used in any TV articles that I have seen in 11 years of editing Wikipedia. Your edits were opposed in November, originally by and you have never gained consensus for their inclusion. You need to do that before reinserting the content, which seems to be mostly, if not completely, original research. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lap table
Earlier, I modified the lap table to avoid use of bold text, with the edit summary "MOS:BOLD/MOS:ACCESS - better to use a note". I thought that was self explanatory, as it linked to the relevant parts of the MOS, but apparently it was not obvious to some, as reverted the table, claiming that it was "idiotic". Compliance with the Manual of Style is not idiotic. MOS:BOLD very clearly says to "avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text", which is how it is used in the table. More importantly, the use of bold to identify cars presents an accessibility issue. Some screen readers will be unable to parse the bold text and vision impaired readers will see a note that says "Entries in bold were tested on-screen", but they won't know which cars are in bold. Use of notes is far preferable for this reason. Wikipedia has to be readable by all readers, not just those with 20:20 vision. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for using "idiotic" . I have far from 20:20 vision, but I do have dyslexia. Seeing a whole load of references (which is all notes are) jumbled into the table makes it harder to read, far more so than bold text. It seems that it's impossible to make articles fully accessible to everyone, someone with some impairment will be affected. For my part I would argue that the bold text is easier to read than scattered notes. – Dyolf87 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Notes and references are used throughout all articles. Use of notes for the lap table is no different to use of notes in the episode table, or use of references in the text. If you have dyslexia then perhaps you should take this up at MOS:ACCESS, but for now, we should be following the guidelines that we have, which say NOT to use bold for emphasis. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What about use of emphasis tags? – Dyolf87 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could the issue be avoided completely by including an additional column (episode number shown on-screen, or blank otherwise)? —Sladen (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable enough to me. – Dyolf87 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I considered something similar but abandoned that idea. Including the episode number seems a better option. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/757738493 re-introduced an external explanation. Could Special:Diff/757887745 be improved further as a possible alternative?  —Sladen (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WE don't need, or normally use, leading zeroes in episode numbers and "n/a" is self explanatory, so the note that was restored is unnecessary. "Not shown" is excessive. We don't need to spoon feed readers. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

TV series
How can we call this a TV series if it's not televised? Tvx1 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that funny contraption I watch it on is called a television. --Drmargi (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

MOD 70
, can you suggest how to proceed with Special:Diff/759880623 ? Barbados sponsors the vessel in question, which belong to Team Concise:



"Concise 10" (on the stern), "Ms. Barbados" (on the sides), and "70" (extremities) can be viewed. Concise 10 is one of a series of MOD 70 trimarans built to the same specification to compete each season in a series of races, as per Formula XYZ car racing. The individual vessel, vessel type, and sponsor of the boat are all visible. "The Barbados Tourism Product Authority" is credited at 1:00:35. (The Barbados Tourism Authority was split into two in 2014: Barbados Tourism Marketing, Inc. + The Barbados Tourism Product Authority). —Sladen (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:SYNTH - "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Sources must explicitly support claims. You need a source that specifically says that the a MOD 70 vessel named Concise 10 was used in the series. What you've provided is classic OR. The same applies to "Toly Arutunoff". As far as reliable sources go, the person spoken to is just some old bloke in the audience. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't see a/any proposal to introduce WP:SYNTH material. The edit Special:Diff/759808983 made a correction from "catamaran" to "MOD70-class trimaran".   The background is placed here for other editors who might be wondering why the correction had been made—had the text been cited in the first place, no such an error could have been introduced, and no such correction would have been necessary.  The two (2)  remaining AC72 and seven (7) MOD 70 yachts are the largest racing ships in the world, and so instantly recognisable: far larger than the AC45 boat James May previously experienced in New Zealand.  In addition to naming Concise 10, the even bigger Carnival Liberty is seen at 00:35:17 and 00:37:00 (also no research required).  —Sladen (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding "MOD70-class trimaran" without a reliable source explicitly confirming this is classic WP:SYNTH. All that was mentioned in the episode was that it was a "sailing boat". Everything else you had to research for yourself and you have combined sources to imply a conclusion that is not mentioned by any of the sources, which is the very definition of WP:SYNTH.
 * The two (2) remaining AC72 and seven (7) MOD 70 yachts are the largest racing ships in the world, and so instantly recognisable - Maybe instantly recognisable to a sailing fan but to the average person they are not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Season pages
Shouldn't we start a new page for Season 1 just like with Top Gear? I think there's enough content... Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Viewership figures
An IP editor has been adding viewership figures for some period of the show that are problematic for two reasons: a) they're for the UK alone (so what?) and b) they're sourced to the Daily Mail, which is highly unreliable, per a recent discussion. The Grand Tour is streamed internationally, and it is widely known that Amazon and Netflix do not release viewer data. That makes these figures both questionable and trivial. This isn't Top Gear; the relevant audience is an international one. Given the cited article provides no source for its figures, I question their veracity. --Drmargi (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't disagree with any thing that you've said. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking and link rot
Earlier today an editor made a series of edits that removed a dead link and added links to country names and "Los Angeles". I removed the links as WP:OVERLINK says "The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...)" are not usually linked. This is reflected in MOS:TV, which says "Avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features, locations and nationalities". The editor restored the links, claiming "The places are not linked anywhere else in this article and they are most certainly not overlinked", which entirely misses the point of WP:OVERLINK. I again removed the links but, while I was trying to explain WP:OVERLINK on his talk page, the editor decided to edit-war rather than respect WP:BRD and restored the links. Since then he has been rather uncivil, and has since terminated discussion on his talk page in a rather uncivil manner, so I have opened a discussion here. Regarding the deleted link, I have also explained that Link rot says "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer", to no avail. Note that I verified that the Instagram post was valid on 5 March 2017, which resulted in this edit. At this point, I have not removed the links again, or restored the cited content. Hopefully the editor will see his error and will revert the changes himself. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

'Season' vs 'series'
The article currently uses both the terms 'season' and 'series' when referring to series/season 1 or series/season 2 etc. The term "season" is more American and the term 'series' is more common in the UK. As the article is written in British English I propose that all references to "season" should be replaced with "series", except for quotes. Dyolf87 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * When I go on my Amazon Prime to watch it (in UK) it's listed as "The Grand Tour 2 Seasons  2017 " and "Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May return for a new season of the world's greatest show about three middle-aged men..." etc. Unless reliable sources refer to it as "series" then changing is problematical. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It would not be problematic in the slightest. Amazon choosing to use the American "season" on their service is not surprising. Both terms are understood well enough in both countries and around the world. This is a question of keeping the Wikipedia article consistent with British English. Dyolf87 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed episode tables
The section for episode details is getting rather long now that the second series has started. It would be best to either make the tables collapsed by default or move them to their own Wikipedia pages "The Grand Tour (series 1)", "The Grand Tour (series 2)" etc. Dyolf87 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:SCROLL, collapsing content is an accessibility issue and we don't do that anywhere in episode lists. As for splitting seasons out, I suggest you review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television where I specifically raised the issue of The Grand Tour. The short version: We should only split per WP:SIZESPLIT. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Series section naming
The examples in Manual of Style/Television are for "Series 1" for the series-specific section headings. Both Special:Diff/814730797 and Special:Diff/815397065 have reverted/converted these to use "Series one", with a comment in the source pointing to MOS:NUMERAL. What is the ideal outcome here? (List of Top Gear episodes uses one particular style; are there any other examples of the other style?) —Sladen (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reiterating what I said on Aussie's talk page, I've never seen the section headers for episode tables listed as "Series/Season TEXT". It's always been "Series/Season NUMBER", and WP:TVSEASONYEAR supports this. As for supporting examples, as far as I can tell, every television series I have listed at User:AlexTheWhovian/TV uses the number format. --  Alex TW 02:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of articles using that format, which is provided for by MOS:NUMERAL, in the many years that I've been editing. The examples used at WP:TVSEASONYEAR talk about numbers greater than 9, which is also supported by MOS:NUMERAL. The heading format was originally established with this edit, albeit with incorrect capitalisation. Note that MOS:NUM says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason", which is why I was maintaining the established style amongst all of the ridiculous edits being made to the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any using it in the years I've been editing. As linked, I've got about 200 series listed in my television articles list, and I don't believe that any of them use the text-over-number format. I'd say that more articles using the number-over-text format would count as a "substantial reason". --  Alex TW 04:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the WP:NUMERAL begins with its scope, which is stated to be "in article text". (ie. WP:PROSE, not table contents, nor sub-section headings).  —Sladen (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember Alex, I've been editing a few more years than you and I've pretty much seen it all. It used to be quite common, especially in UK articles. Don't assume that because you haven't seen it in the articles you've edited in the past 3 years that all articles are the same. Before I started editing most articles weren't transcluded, series overview tables (where they existed) had a different format and even headings were different. A lot has changed in 12 years but we still have different styles. I honestly don't know how many TV articles I've edited. I'm pretty sure I've edited in the tens of thousands of articles but don't know how many of those were TV articles. Sladen, Headings are generally considered to be part of the article text. MOS:NUMERAL isn't used selectively. Nor are the other rules and guidelines. It's interesting to see something as minor as this getting people upset, while they don't seem to get as annoyed by silly edits and the persistent addition of unsourced content that plague this article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . Is it acceptable for the section headings to stay as "Series 1" and "Series 2"? —Sladen (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you were above the whole notion of "Oh I've been here longer so I know more thank you, neener neener". Shame on you. The length of time you've edited is irrelevant, and quite frankly, I'm rather insulted that you felt the need to bring that up as if you're more superior. Especially when you added it as an afterthought. Shame. I don't give a damn what happened twelve years ago, nor do I give a damn about what used to be common, I care about what's being used today, and in the vast majority of articles, that is the numbered version. --  Alex TW 23:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of acting all "holier than thou" and writing insulting posts and edit summaries, perhaps you could try to read replies in the correct context, especially when you are accusing somebody of doing exactly what you have done. You wrote I've never seen any using it in the years I've been editing. As linked, I've got about 200 series listed in my television articles list. My response was simply a counterpoint to this, explaining that we've been undertaking changes for a long time before you started editing and there are a lot of articles that have never been updated to the new practices, and which continue to use the older practices because they are still supported by the many "non-TV" parts of the MOS. I was simply saying what I've seen, which you don't seem to like. If you don't like what others have experienced, that's really too bad. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what MOS:NUMBERS states ALL series' and seasons go by number (See this, this and this - All random articles and all go by the number), In short if you want text then start an RFC. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what is used in the article. An editor established a numbering system supported by the MOS and I was simply maintaining that in accordance with an Arbcom directive, while trying to keep the crap out of the article. And no, not ALL do what you say, just most of them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what is used in the article - If you couldn't care less then leave this discussion and stop creating unnecessary drama, As for "And no, not ALL do what you say, just most of them - You can get all pedantic over the wording as much as you like point is there is consensus to use the numbering system throughout all articles on here - If you're unhappy with that then go to MOS:NUMERAL and start an RFC. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you couldn't care less then leave this discussion and stop creating unnecessary drama - I was asked questions so I've got a reason to be here. Why would I bother going to MOS:NUMERAL to start an RfC to get support for something that is already supported? And, please be less aggressive in your posts. It really doesn't help the discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because without sounding disrespectful it's clearly not supported otherwise this would be the common thing on every article, I'm not being aggressive I'm simply giving my 2¢, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Commas
How many commas, should be included in the WP:LEDE, one, two, three, or four? Edits; Special:Diff/815540732 added additional commas, Special:Diff/815541006 removed three commas, and Special:Diff/815542355 added them again. —Sladen (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of how many commas are acceptable. In a list you keep using commas until the last item, before which you use "and": item 1, item 2, item 3, item 4, item 5 and item 6. British English does not use a comma before the "and", but Oxford English prefers it: item 1, item 2, item 3, and item 4 (see Oxford comma) - but outside of Oxford English this is seen as bad practice as a comma shouldn't be used as well as a conjunction. Commas should be included where there is a break in the flow of a sentence. Your opening sentence above contains an erroneous comma: "How many commas, should be included in the..." which should have been "How many commas should be included in the..." This article requires the use of British English but not Oxford English. Dyolf87 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

West Oxfordshire District Council
The word "the" is being added before West Oxfordshire District Council. This was reverted in Special:Diff/816646861 and again in Special:Diff/816721106. Same editor. For reference,, normal usage would need something specific afterwards "the West Oxfordshire District Council planning committee", "the West Oxfordshire District Council mayor"; but not "the West Oxfordshire District Council alone". —Sladen (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In this case, we're talking about "the West Oxfordshire District Council". Is there a problem here? Weslam123  (talk &bull; contrib) 06:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * , yes. Which is why the edit has been reverted by multiple editors.  —Sladen (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Do explain. You're complaining that I'm using the definite article "the" improperly, since there needs to be "something specific afterwards". Which doesn't make sense, since there is "something specific afterwards", and I'm following your rule perfectly. "West Oxfordshire" is the proper noun here, and "District Council" is the "something specific afterwards". West Oxfordshire District Council links to West Oxfordshire. So what's the problem here? (Also, I wouldn't exactly consider "multiple editors" to consist only of two people) Weslam123  (talk &bull; contrib) 07:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , common noun + proper noun used with article: "the district council enabled", "the district council of West Oxfordshire enabled"; proper noun + common noun used without article: "<u title="proper noun (abbreviated form of name)">West Oxfordshire enabled, "<u title="proper noun + common noun (full name)">West Oxfordshire District Council enabled". But not "the <u title="proper noun (abbreviated form of name)">West Oxfordshire enabled" (abbreviated), therefore not "the <u title="proper noun + common noun (full name)">West Oxfordshire District Council enabled" (full form). —Sladen (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "the district council enabled" is correct. "the West Oxfordshire district council enabled" is also correct, because "West Oxfordshire" here is being used as an adjective to describe "district council". I really do not understand what's the issue here. Weslam123  (talk &bull; contrib) 08:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "I really do not understand what's the issue here.". Thank you for the confirmation.  Hopefully we can now return to the original wording?  —Sladen (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Now the has re-added the "the" Special:Diff/816723451, with an explanation supplied on a User talk page (not the article Talk page) in Special:Diff/816723981 .  —Sladen (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Could I make a suggestion, just in the hope of this resolving itself? Perhaps someone with access to one might want to get out a book of British English grammar, and cite it as an explanation why the use of "the" in this context is incorrect. As an American English speaker, I'm finding the explanation why the definite article is incorrect confusing, and I know British English well enough to know which is the correct form. I believe Weslam123 is from Singapore, and might not be sufficiently familiar with the rules of British English grammar to understand why what is correct in, for example, American English (where the definite article is used in this context, which he/she may have heard in any number of American television shows) is not correct in British English. That seems to be the log-jam here.

Meanwhile, Wesley123, you really should stop restoring what native British speakers are telling you is incorrect grammar until you can establish using a reputable grammar guide that your correction is accurate. As I noted, I know British English well enough to know basic rules for the use of the definite article, and in this case, "the" is incorrect. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  10:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If "the district council enabled" is grammatically correct, why isn't "the West Oxfordshire district council enabled" grammatically correct as well? "West Oxfordshire" here is just an adjective for "district council", so the exact same grammar rule should apply. Also, I would appreciate it if you left out your poisoning the well attacks. Misspelling other people's usernames is rather rude too, as is reverting all of someone's edit because you disagree with just one part. An American teaching a Singaporean how to use British grammar is rather ironic, I think, considering that Singaporean English is based off and is very similar to British English, which maybe you could have checked first, before starting to make claims about how I'm not familiar with how British grammar works, and accusing me of watching too many American shows, which I absolutely have no idea how is related to this at all. I would suggest for you not to pretend to know things about Singapore, when I doubt you've ever heard of that country before. Also, Sladen has never mentioned any argument at all about how the usage of "the" in this context is incorrect in British English, in which case if he just told me that, then I'd accept it and let him have his way. Your argument here is completely different from Sladen's; he's saying that I'm wrong, you're saying that I'm using the wrong ENGVAR. If you can show me a reliable British English source which backs up your claim that "the" in this context isn't used in British English, I'll accept your argument. I apologise for potentially being rude in this reply, but it's irritating when someone comes along with a highly aggressive comment, when their argument can be made in a much less provocative manner, like "Hey, I think you might not be aware of this, but actually, using "the" in British English is incorrect, according to [sources here]." Also, "you really should stop restoring what native British speakers are telling you is incorrect grammar". Who exactly are the "native British speakers" here, if I may ask? I'm rather confused, because nowhere in Sladen's profile does it say that he's from the UK. Weslam123  (talk &bull; contrib) 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What is this?
I'm supposed to go to another article to learn what this show is about, what kind of intro is that? "motoring television series" isn't enough to explain why this article exists, it's not encyclopedic. 50.70.234.111 (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception
Currently the last part says: Radio Times has criticised the programme's "Celebrity Face Off" segment for featuring only male guests in series two, stating "The Grand Tour’s first celebrity guests for series 2 have been revealed – and there’s not a single woman". Should this be removed seeing as its been confirmed that Paris Hilton will be a guest?--EnderAtreides117 (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅, have tried to simplify it in Special:Diff/821102607 . —Sladen (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Series Overview
Can a series overview table be added now? Seems about time. I'll leave it up to someone else in case there's a specific format needed. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , what content would you recommend adding? —Sladen (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * kindly went ahead and uncommented the existing table in Special:Diff/821107680 . —Sladen (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Silvija Jurin
For those who wonder about the name of the Finish Line. Hektor (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Jurin is already named and cited in the article. Is a change required?  —Sladen (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

New pages
Hi, should a page for Series 1 and Series 2 be created for The Grand Tour? As well as a "List of The Grand Tour episodes" page? It'll stop this page becoming too cluttered and packed and all that can remain in this article would be the series overview table. Now that there's two full seasons/series it seems appropriate (obviously the episodes boxes can just be moved over). Thoughts? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , might it be worth waiting just another couple of weeks, until there are actually "two full series"? —Sladen (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now then? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Likewise I didn't want my additions to "conversation street" making this entry from becoming very long. I even went as far as creating a new page just for part of the show. The new page I created was refused and the wisdom of the moderators suggested that my additions be left on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at Draft:Conversation Street I see that the reviewer stated A draft about a segment of a show is unlikely to meet Notability. And this doesn't, as it has no sourcing. This was a quite reasonable reason for rejection of the draft. All topics added to Wikipedia must meet the general notability guidelines and the draft didn't, nor did it attempt the establish notability by including citations, hence the suggestion to include it here. I do tend to feel that a lot of information in the draft is little more than fancruft. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel, that once Season 3 has aired and finished completion, then the article can be placed on two separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCorleone7 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Series 3
There are a few sentences with information related to Series 3, currently included as a subheading under the Episodes heading. Since this information does not really relate to specific episodes of the upcoming series, it would seem to me that it does not fit here. But when I tried to figure out where else it could go, I did not find a current section that was an obvious place to move it to. Is this me being too worried about the main heading or is there a better place for that information on this page? - Cafemusique (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The info there is not the type that will last once we start having Series 3 episodes (eg when we know where we can place those test drives into a given episode). They're probably fine where they are now until then. --M asem (t) 13:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Production - British or British-American?
I thought I'd open a discussion here since nobody else has bothered and there are still obviously some people who have differing opinions. For my part, it seems clear that the program is produced by a British company for an American company so I don't have any doubt about the British part. The American side seems a bit more obscure. Amazon (the American company) has funded the production but in several interviews the hosts have said Amazon has given their company pretty much free reign to produce as they wish. Obviously, there are going to be some conditions placed upon W. Chump & Sons but they don't necessarily make it a British-American production. I haven't actually seen any US sources claiming US involvement in the production so "British-American" doesn't seem valid at this point. For the record, I have just asked all three hosts via Twitter if they can clarify. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I view the production as British being Chump & Sons, and that Amazon is just the viewing platform. It's a British show - IMO.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazon is not just the "viewing platform" because they are also providing all the funding. At the VERY least, they are a co-producer. Also, "AussieLegend", nothing you said confirms in any way that it is solely a British production, and neither do the citations in the article. They only show that it is British, not that it is NOT also American. Saying that it is British does not somehow mean that it can't also be American. And giving them "free reign" does not somehow negate the influence that Amazon has on production. That is a ridiculous suggestion. Until someone produces evidence that says SPECIFICALLY that it is solely a British production, my edits that state it to be a U.S./U.K. production should not be changed, since it is clear that an American company is a major part of the production of the show; therefore, the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Also, why is a joking tweet being used as a citation. That is embarrassing that you consider that to be a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources confirming that Amazon is a co-producer or that the programme is a US as well as British production? Your edits provided none. I would direct you to our policy on verifiability which states quite clearly "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Your edits were disputed and so require an inline citation. Until you can prove that the programme is co-produced by Amazon with the inclusion of a citation, they can't be restored. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are providing ALL of the funding by nature makes them a co-producer. Again, it is CLEAR that an American company is a major part of production. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove that it is not American, because it is clear to everyone who does not have a bias towards one way or the other. It is an AMAZON show funded SOLELY by AMAZON, that means it is at least a co-production. Unless you have evidence otherwise. Which you don't, yet you are ironically scolding me for not providing any, and all you provide is a tweet that was a joke (which will be removed as soon as this page is unblocked, since a joke will NEVER suffice as a reputable citation - and you ironically provide a link regarding verifiable sources lol). Yep, I'd say you have just as little evidence regarding your position as I do. Actually, you have LESS evidence, as nothing you have said or shown has said that it is NOT an American co-production in any way. Also, the first citation doesn't even say that it is a British production!! Saying that it is "based in the U.K." is IN NO WAY the same as saying that it is a "U.K. production". Countless American shows and movies are "U.K. based" yet that does not mean that the U.K. is necessarily even a co-producer (See: Game of Thrones, The Crown, Star Wars/Marvel movies). So that argument holds absolutely no weight. Also, the other citation, the tweet, doesn't even say specifically that it is a British production either! Saying that it is a "British show" does not mean that it is necessarily a British production. You could technically say that Game of Thrones is a British show, yet it is solely an American production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Sources must explicitly support claims. The fact that Amazon provides the money does not mean it is actually involved in the production. You would do well to familiarise yourself with WP:SYNTH.
 * Also, the first citation doesn't even say that it is a British production!! Saying that it is "based in the U.K." is IN NO WAY the same as saying that it is a "U.K. production". - The programme is produced by a UK company in the UK, there is no doubt of that, so this tack is irrelevant. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My statement was regarding the validity of the source (you again ignore all my points). Saying that it is "U.K. based" is not the same as saying that it is a U.K. production. I provided clear evidence why that was the case and you just ignored it and spouted some nonsense at the end. This citation says something completely different than what you are suggesting, and you are conveniently ignoring that with your irrelevant final statement; therefore, it will be removed since it is not evidence of U.K. production as you mistakenly suggest (actually, you never even suggest that, you just deflect to something else). Again, your statement at the end applies to COUNTLESS shows and movies that are solely American produced or are American co-productions. And if there is no doubt as you say that it is a U.K. production, why can't you provide a SINGLE source stating SPECIFICALLY that it is a British production? Yep, you don't have one, so there IS doubt of that claim when there is no evidence to back it up. As you yourself said, "Sorry, but it doesn't work like that". All of your statements are so completely filled with hypocrisy that I am starting to doubt that you even read YOUR OWN posts, let alone mine. Proving my point, I just read through that link you sent about WP:SYNTH and you violate it multiple times concerning this article and these sources, as neither citation EVER EXPLICITLY state the conclusion you draw; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Do you really not realize that you are doing exactly that right now, trying to say that all the so-called evidence from these sources points to a conclusion that is never EXPLICITLY STATED! You are also violating the main subject of that "original research", as you are stating things that are your own allegations for which you have no proof. The level of hypocrisy you exhibit is honestly astounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Citable information available at the moment is consistent with what the presenters/producer/crew have stated: W. Chump & Sons supply the finished result to Amazon Video, and get paid. Following 'The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the "country of the principal offices of the production company"'Country of origin reaches the same conclusion (W. Chump & Sons offices on Power Road in London). Please provide a URL link(s) if there is other reliable material.   —Sladen (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, no citation states SPECIFICALLY what country produces the show. Information from the two sources is being combined to reach a conclusion that is not EXPLICITLY stated in the citations themselves, thereby violating the Wikipedia guidelines regarding WP:SYNTH. Therefore, no citable information exists that states whether it is a British production, American, or U.K./U.S co-production. And I have seen no cited information whatsoever that states the claim that you just made, regarding that W. Chump & Sons just supply the finished product to Amazon, and then are paid (which is highly unlikely, as this is not typically how production/distribution agreements work). So it up to you to provide a source for those claims, since there is NOT any cited evidence available regarding production country/countries. Also, the link in your article states right after the information you referenced that "no consistent reference or definition exists" for how to classify production country, and where the production company's offices are located is therefore not the sole determining factor that you claim it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * W. Chump & Sons have a commissioning agreement with Amazon. —Sladen (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My statement was regarding the validity of the source (you again ignore all my points) - I ignored that because the fact that it's a British production is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your persistent attempts to claim that the programme is also an American production.
 * Saying that it is "U.K. based" is not the same as saying that it is a U.K. production. - Nobody is saying that, except one citation right after it says it will be produced by a UK company.
 * I provided clear evidence - You've actually provided no evidence.
 * This citation says something completely different than what you are suggesting - Not at all. The tweet is quite clear. It says "it's a British show", which is pretty clear. That is reinforced by other citations as well as the episodes themselves which identify the production facilities and, more importantly, the statement that W. Chump & Sons Ltd produces the programme.
 * it will be removed since it is not evidence of U.K. production - You've already been blocked once for edit-warring and personal attacks. Do you want to be blocked again? I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO before making that decision.
 * if there is no doubt as you say that it is a U.K. production, why can't you provide a SINGLE source stating SPECIFICALLY that it is a British production? - There's one right at the beginning of the article, apparently the same one where you apparently got "U.K. based" from. It specifically says "A new production company set up by Wilman, Clarkson, Hammond and May called W Chump & Sons will produce the Amazon show." And then there are the episodes as already stated.
 * Yep, you don't have one - No, actually I do. See above.
 * Do you really not realize that you are doing exactly that right now, trying to say that all the so-called evidence from these sources points to a conclusion that is never EXPLICITLY STATED! - Again, "A new production company set up by Wilman, Clarkson, Hammond and May called W Chump & Sons will produce the Amazon show."
 * The level of hypocrisy you exhibit is honestly astounding. - Please be civil!.
 * no citation states SPECIFICALLY what country produces the show. - Again, "A new production company set up by Wilman, Clarkson, Hammond and May called W Chump & Sons will produce the Amazon show."
 * no citable information exists that states whether it is a British production, American, or U.K./U.S co-production. - See above.
 * there is NOT any cited evidence available regarding production country/countries. - And again!
 * I hope I've addressed all of your points, or at least the main ones, this time. To anyone else I apologise for the repetition but it seems necessary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in that citation does it EXPLICITLY say that the U.K. is the country of production, only that a U.K. production company is being used. You are violation the rule regarding WP:SYNTH in that you taking information from several sources to draw a conclusion NOT STATED EXPLICITLY in ANY of the sources. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I repeatedly provided clear evidence. Saying it is U.K. based does not EXPLICITLY say that it is a British production. Saying that it is a "British show" is not saying EXPLICITLY that is is a British production. Saying that it has a British production company behind does not mean the same as "this show is solely British produced". How do you not understand something so basic? With this evidence, you are violating the rule YOU YOURSELF cited (hilariously); you are taking information from several different sources and drawing conclusions that are not EXPLICITLY STATED! You can't take evidence from three different statements and then draw your own conclusions. That's not how it works. And yet you keep keep giving me statements that only tenuously connect to your argument which NEVER EXPLICITLY back it up. I get it, you keep drawing your own conclusions based on statements that mean entirely different things, but that does not constitute evidence and the suggestion that it does is completely laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've provided NO evidence at all, just made a lot of unsubstantiated claims.
 * Saying that it is a "British show" is not saying EXPLICITLY that is is a British production. The citation in the article says "A new production company set up by Wilman, Clarkson, Hammond and May called W Chump & Sons will produce the Amazon show. The program will be U.K. based". W Chump & Sons is a British company, it's based in the UK, and the source article says the program is UK based. So, does this mean it's a French production? No! A Russian production? No! A UK production? Yes! You seem to be the only one who refuses to see this.
 * not mean the same as "this show is solely British produced". - You're still missing the point. There are citations in the article that say it's a British programme. I've mentioned one of them repeatedly, so we have verifiable evidence that the programme is produced in the UK. However, there is not a single source to support the claim that it is also a US production. With no sources to say that it is produced anywhere else, "The Grand Tour is a British motoring television series" is a perfectly accurate statement to make. That's not the same as saying "The Grand Tour is solely British produced". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And you are still lacking any basic reading comprehension it seems, because I never said it WAS or WASN'T a British production, just that those citations never EXPLICITLY state that. Because of that, you are violating WP:SYNTH since you are taking different things from two different sources and drawing conclusion that aren't EXPLICITLY stated. How many more times do I have to capitalize that word before you understand what it means in relation to these citations and how that makes them invalid. We are talking about two different things (YOU: "country of production" - ME: "these citations don't support your statement as per the article on "No Original Research"). This is simple, I don't know how you don't understand it. Please don't deflect again like you always do ("It's clearly a British production because of all these things that don't necessarily mean that it's a British production!"), actually respond to those concerns that were noted and tell me why using these citations to back your conclusion DOESN'T violate WP:SYNTH.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you are still lacking any basic reading comprehension - I'm so sick of this that I'm not even going to bother responding to anything in this post except this one point. 73.34.105.30 has used this insult so many times now, here and on his talk page, that it can be considered to be a personal attack rather than just being uncivil. I have warned the IP despite him being blocked for two weeks. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't like my words, but like this most recent response, you repeatedly ignore everything of substance in my comments and choose to focus on something else (because your arguments are VERY weak and have no merit). I don't know what else I can take from that tact, except that maybe it is just your poor attempt at ignoring actual relevant arguments. Answer my comments regarding the dozen sources that say the EXACT same thing as your ONE relevant source. You can't, because they would completely destroy any further arguments from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

-


 * I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but I'm not seeing any sources from the IP stating this is American or is produced by an American company...... – Davey 2010 Talk 10:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "I didn't hear that" and everything to do with "I haven't seen sources SPECIFICALLY backing up either side's argument, so why is one side being given more credence than the other?" That is a very reasonable thing to point out, and you are purposefully being obtuse (I hope). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources supporting production of the programme in the UK have been repeatedly cited. That you claim not to have seen them demonstrates that 's assessment of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is entirely accurate. The thing that I find amazing is that your edits to the article were all about adding "American" without any sources but here you seem more interested in ignoring what is in the sources that demonstrate that the programme is produced in the UK. That being the case, if the programme is not produced in the UK and not produced in the US, where exactly is it produced? On the moon perhaps? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly not read? I clearly know about the sources as those are what I have been discussing and referring to this WHOLE TIME (see, I told you that you don't actually read anything). I'm saying that these sources do NOT EXPLICITLY STATE that it is a British production. I've repeatedly laid out the facts that the statements made in the articles/tweet are not the equivalent of saying that it is a U.K. production, yet you do not understand such an extremely basic concept. There is no EXPLICIT statement regarding production country, just a lot of things tangentially related to it, from which you are then drawing evidence to fit your conclusion. You even laid out that exact line of thinking. (The proof is in the following sentences - which I sadly have to label for you like some child) I showed several examples of how those statements do not equal the same thing as what you are concluding (HERE'S THE EVIDENCE - do I really have to label it before you understand what it is?) because those statements also apply to countless American productions (like GOT and the Crown) and because of that, those statements are therefore VERY CLEARLY not equivalent (because by your own logic and argument, those same statements also apply to GOT and GOT would therefore be a British production, but it is not), yet you just ignore that and keep restating the same citations that don't even fit your conclusion. Those are NOT VIABLE sources because they never EXPLICITLY STATE what you are saying they state. Please reacquaint yourself with the rules regarding WP:SYNTH because what you are doing is a clear violation of that, and I'm not sure how you don't understand that. It's clear that you have never taken a science class in your life, since you have this logic that apparently facts are supposed to fit your conclusion and not the other way around. I have found no facts either way so I am merely asking questions regarding statements that are not supported with evidence. I think that's kind of the whole point of this website, or else some self-proclaimed Wikipedia police like yourself would control all the facts that people get (and they would probably all be wrong given your proclivity for believing things unsubstantiated by any evidence, then forcing those beliefs on others). Also, I'm sorry that your country doesn't produce anything of import so you don't have to worry about changing stuff like that on Wikipedia, but don't disparage others for making sure their country does receive its due credit for goods that it produces. Also, I'm not even American, but good job showing that you clearly have major biases regarding the edits being discussed! Yep, I think you've shown that you can not provide a proper objective view regarding the page of this show and the information therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not about reflecting that a "country does receive its due credit", it is about reflecting and summarising what the body of available citations say. —Sladen (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I DON'T actually care what country it's from, I was jokingly saying that in response to his suggestion that it's some weird nationalism thing. But why should a country not receive any credit or mention on Wikipedia if it helped produce the product being discussed? Your statement doesn't make much sense and is kind of antithetical to the whole point of Wikipedia, as the only thing that matters is the truth. Also, have you actually read that article regarding "No Original Research"? Because there is no citation in this page that SPECIFICALLY states the production country (they state that it is produced by a British company, in the U.K., and that is as far as they go - but those same statements also apply to a number of American shows too, and therefore they cannot be the sole criteria when determining country of production.) You are taking things that "kind of" suggest that it is a British production and you are drawing your own conclusion since it is never EXPLICIT. You are thereby violating the rule regarding synthesis of materials, which states; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Also, I just found several sources stating EXPLICITLY that Amazon is ALSO listed as one of the production companies, meaning, by your own logic through defending the current citations that exist (since the closest they get is saying that one of the producers is a British company), that the Grand Tour is therefore at least an American co-production since an American company is listed as a producer alongside W. Chump & Sons. I can give you about a million citations that show you are wrong, while you can only provide two citations (one of which was a joke on twitter, and the other one supports my arguments since they were defended because they listed one of the production companies is British) and neither sources even refute my claim in any way whatsoever!      . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Which "company is listed as a producer alongside W. Chump & Sons"? —Sladen (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazon (since it appears you couldn't be bothered to read my previous comment or any of the numerous sources). Amazon is an American company, and the only citation that backs up your claim regarding U.K. production was used because "if a company from the U.K. is a producer on a show, it is therefore a U.K. show" since that is the closest any of the sources get to saying that it is a U.K. production. By that logic, this is clearly a U.K./U.S. co-production since Amazon is also repeatedly mentioned as a producer of the show. Otherwise you're at square one regarding evidence and citations, because if you dismiss these citations that all specifically state Amazon as one of the producers, you are thereby stating that YOUR OWN evidence also doesn't meet a high enough standard of proof. You also have significantly less citations, and one of them (out of ONLY TWO) is a joke on Twitter that needs to be removed immediately since it is not reputable and does not even say anything regarding production of the show. It says something like "It's a British show", but again, it was a joke Tweet from a notoriously humorous Twitter account, and it does not state anything about production, specific or otherwise. You could also say that Game of Thrones could technically be referred to as "British" because of the cast, location, and crew, but it is not a British production. Therefore, the suggestion that these statements are the same is extremely misleading and false. Also, neither citation ever contradicts anything in ANY of MY citations, as they never state that it is a solely a British production or anything close to that. Oh, and here's another website saying Amazon is one of the producers. Oh, and here's yet another one, this one's great! "Amazon Prime Video has a track-record of producing and broadcasting outstanding sports content including the successful The Grand Tour with Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May". Here's another one for you! "...His comment came when he joined fellow former presenters Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond as they arrived in an Italian town yesterday to film their new show The Grand Tour. The Amazon production was being filmed in Vicenza..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for spotting this. Reverted in Special:Diff/837286286 .  The only other edit by that account had already been caught and auto-reverted by Cluebot NG.  —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this yet, but two things jump out at me: the overwhelming "I don't want to see it" insistence that Amazon is the distribution platform despite the program being produced by Amazon Studios. Amazon Studios is the production arm of Amazon, and is American. You can play with tweets and convenient interpretation of British media reports all you care to in an effort to deny that fundamental fact, but The Grand Tour is funded by Amazon.com (and well promoted by no less than Jeff Bezos) and produced by Amazon Studios (as noted in the article) and that makes it substantively American. Frankly, if anyone is playing WP:IDHT, it's the Brits trying to cling to the show as a British-only enterprise. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  21:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , "Amazon is the distribution platform", don't think anyone is arguing against Amazon Video being the distributor. —Sladen (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about the dozen citations that say that Amazon is also a producer? Are you just going to ignore all of those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.105.30 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) The copyright message at the end is solely W Chump & Sons. If it was a co-production it would have multiple copyrights. 2) The production credit is 'A televisual production from W Chump & Sons Ltd. of London'. There is no co-production credit. 3) W Chump and Sons is registered at 27 Mortimer Street, London, England as can be seen at this UK government registry of companies: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09668527 .  So Amazon commissioned it, and the programme is produced solely by a production company with a registered address in England.2A02:C7D:14D5:D900:2508:964B:E4C9:5E14 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed it completely from introduction. Country of origin is completely irrelevant. Country of production is given in the box aside. That's enough. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Reverted, Country of origin is completely relevant and it being in the infobox isn't a valid reason to remove it from the lede. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Davey2010. The infobox and the lede are two different things. The lede is supposed to summarise the main points of the article in prose format. The infobox does that too but generally includes additional information in a pseudo-table format. That something is in the infobox certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the lede. The lede is mandatory, infoboxes are not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

List of episodes page
Should a list of episodes page be created? It seems a bit...busy on this page. What with the entire episodes tables for the first two series, it'd make sense to have a new page for them, and preferably an individual page for Series 1 and Series 2 just like Top Gear (and most other big TV shows) has. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We're now following WP:SIZESPLIT more when determining whether to split an article. As of now there is only 21kB of readable prose, which is well below SIZESPLIT's "Length alone does not justify division" 40kB boundary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)