Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 11

Discussion - Should some of the Top Gear Specials that don't have Article pages dedicated to them, have them now?
Big question, and one I like to put into discussion - How many people think that the following specials - Middle East Special; Africa Special; Burma Special; Patagonia Special - should have a separate article page dedicated to describing them in detail, much like the other Specials of Top Gear that do have a page (such as the Polar Special for example)?

I, for one, believe that it should be the case, but would like to open this matter to discussion to see what others think. GUtt01 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do these specials meet the general notability guideline? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I know the Patagonia Special got a considerable amount of media coverage surrounding the filming of it, yet at the moment, the whole detail of the special's two parts are covered by the Short Sum section of the Episode Table for the Series 22 article. That summary as such, is too detailed; the article already has a 'Plot Length Notification' message at the beginning of it, and I plan to go in later and re-write it to be what a Short Sum is - a brief overview of just what they did, but not fully detailed about everything they did at each part of the journey. I figured that that should be covered by a separate article, and I know that some shows covered by Wikipedia have had some of their episodes covered in more detail in a separate article, such as the first episode of BBC's Hustle.GUtt01 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The media storm surrounding the Patagonia special is well covered in the Top Gear controversies article, any additional episode-specific article would simply be covering exactly the same ground. Others you have mentioned (Middle East, Africa, Burma, etc) would be very difficult to justify based on the aforementioned notability guidelines. Even the ones that currently have articles (Botswana, Winter Olympics, etc) do not - in my opinion - necessarily deserve them, they are very poorly sourced (worst offender being the Winter Olympics special article having only 3 references) and are not notable in themselves to warrant a whole article. But that's another matter. The best way forward I believe would be to create a separate Top Gear Specials article where they can all be dealt with in one place. Current articles can be considerably cut down and merged, and sections can be created for all the others. Aw16 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ending Music for Series 20, Episode 6
Does anyone know what the music was that played out the final episode of Series 20? I know it was something regal and British, but I wish to know what it is specifically, for a future edit on the Series 20 article of Top Gear. GUtt01 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that it's Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No 4 - and I wish I'd been in Milton Keynes that day. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Milton Keynes? Oh!  I almost thought you didn't know that they hosted those cars in London, but then I realised you were talking about all those F1 cars!  Thanks for the info; that will help me greatly.GUtt01 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , see: forums.finalgear.com/wts-tg-season-20/20x06-august-4th-2013-a-56472/. —Sladen (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to keep it simple, since the Final Gear site can be a pain to wade through, it's a combination of Elgar's Nimrod, then when they parade down the Mall, it's Pomp and Circumstance (aka "Land of Hope and Glory"). --Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The music I am needing to know specifically, is the one that plays out over the end credits of the episode the concluded Series 20. Is it the combination you stated? GUtt01 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM! This is NOT the place to discuss this matter. Tvx1 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - the OP states specifically that he wants to know "for a future edit on the Series 20 article of Top Gear." perhaps it could be better placed on the actual series 20 article talk page, but that doesn't mean it falls into forum talk here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

New page
Should there technically be a new page, Top Gear (2016 TV series), considering they're rebooting the show post-Clarkson? Would be the same then as when Clarkson took over in 2002. If not, why not? Nbdelboy (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Different show; different hosts; different network.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We have scant knowledge. What's the rush?  The show will launch soon. We can decide once we have enough to go on to make an informed decision, and for the article to have enough content to avoid AfD.  We're not close at present. --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmargi you read my mind! But I will add my thoughts anyway. 7&amp;6=thirteen, only one of your statements is correct. It is the same show and it will be run firstly (and primarily) on BBC Two. Yes, there are new hosts but no other television programmes have separate articles just because they have a new on-air team (Countryfile seems an obvious example, amongst many others). Besides, we've had this discussion before, and until it is on air we simply cannot speculate (WP:SPECULATION) that it will be significantly different when it returns. It would all be guesswork, as no details (other than two of the apparently multiple hosts) have been announced. If when the show returns there are significant numbers of users supporting a move then perhaps we should consider it, but until then the consensus has been that we keep the article as it is. Aw16 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until there is a lot more information about the new version, we just can't create an article without a lot of original research and jumping right into WP:CRYSTAL. We've discussed this previously and I don't see that anything has changed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a new article either. The reason why we have an article for the original incarnation of the show and the 2002 onwards incarnation is because they were fundamentally different. They had completed different formats (both in style and running time and the original show didn't even use a studio), presenters, timeslots and so on. We haven't got any news that any of these aspects will be completely different for the next season of Top Gear. One presenter will even remain: The Stig. By the way, Jeremy Clarkson didn't take over in 2002, he had already been part of Top Gear since 1988. And it seems to the "multiple hosts" claim is nothing but guesswork. It's just based on one article from the Guardian which is in turn based on speculation from the tabloid The Sun. None of it has been confirmed by the parties involved and part of it, Coulthard being a presenter, has now been proven wrong. The only thing that has been officially announced since Chris Evans being confirmed, is Matt LeBlanc being a presenter as well. Tvx1 21:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I haven't been following the program's decisions much since Jeremy's big meltdown.  I agree.  Better to wait for particulars before engaging in idle speculation.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't suggesting we put a page up in the mainspace right away, though I understand the misconception – apologies for not being clear. I was just wondering if there is need to start drafting a page for the rebooted series, if it isn't being done already? There are two pages to separate the earlier version of the show and the Clarkson version, so according to that logic there surely should be a page for the Evans incarnation too? Evans is heavily involved in the show's direction, just like Clarkson was for his version. A fresh page would also save having to clutter up the infobox and other areas of this page with all the new information too. Nbdelboy (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because the logic you're applying to suggest a new article is not the same as the one used for having different articles for the original and the current incarnations. They had a completely different format, concept, show length, timeslot, style and so on. We have litterally no idea whatsoever whether any of these aspects will be changed for the new season of the current Top Gear. The only thing that they have announced so far are two new presenters: Evans and LeBlanc. Tvx1 02:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can draft a new article in your userspace, but whether it will be used is another matter. At this time there is simply not enough information on the new version to be able to create a draft without delving into original research. Another editor has tried, and failed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another reason why we have separate articles for the two incarnations is because the producers reset the series counter to 0 with the 2002 relaunch, giving a clear signal that it really was a new show. If the upcoming series will be series 23, it's a no-brainer what we will do with the article. Tvx1 19:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree too. It's likely the show will be very different and will only contain the same name and The Stig and that's about it. New hosts, new format. It just makes sense to make it a new series.--82.40.171.48 (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "It's likely the show will be very different" is pure speculation at this point. We don't create articles on guesses. We need reliable sources backing up everything, and we don't have them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

-- Would it be beneficial to add sub-headings to the History section so readers can quickly access the information they want? They will then be able to clearly see what the original format was like, how it came to an end and new hosts. --LegereScire (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say I completely support the creation of a Top Gear (2016 TV series) page. With new presenters (7 of them), a new format, and a new production team, it makes sense. --Unframboise (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What new format? How do we know that the basic format was changed when not a single new episode has aired? If the new season is simple marketed as the 23rd series of Top Gear, then no their isn't any justification for a new article because the producers themselves don't consider it a new show. After all, we didn't create a separate article every time A Question of Sport changed presenters, team captains, decors or rounds, did we? Tvx1 21:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Evans confirmed his team would shake up TG’s tried-and-tested studio format. “We’re going to change that,” he said. “I can’t tell you into what. I know, by the way, but I can’t say at the moment" . If no new page is created (for whatever reason, it seems odd to keep the same one for what is being considered a "new format"), then this page needs to be re-organised into sub-headings to better reflect the two distinct phases. --Unframboise (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there is no verifiable new format to comment upon. That much is evident from the quote you've used. Until such time as we've actually seen an episode, the status quo reigns. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't generally have different articles for different formats of a show. We have different articles for different shows. The 2002 series was not series 46 of Top Gear. It was series 1, thereby showing they were different shows. If the 2016 series is series 23 of Top Gear, that shows is still the same show. Tvx1 00:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts i would also support a new page for the 2016 version, on the basis that the 2002 version was very much Wilmans and Clarksons baby,  with Top Gear only being re-commissioned back in 2002 because of their ideas. With them (and Hammond and May) gone I would like to to see a new page so that we can differentiate between the successes and failures and the highs and lows of the two (three if we include the all ready seperate original show page) versions. I understand that as yet no new programme has been broadcast and we can presume that Jessica and Stig will be kept, but Jessica was on the original series. There is a new Executive producer, and along with the Stig 6 new presenters. The BBC won't want to change everything as they did in 2002 due to the huge money making machine that Top Gear has become for them so they might well keep it as series 23, however i don't feel that is reason for Wikipedia to keep carrying on with the same page. Also I note below a conversation about not showing what the outgoing team went onto as its not something Wikipedia do, but the original Top Gear show page does say what the likes of Tiff,  Quentin went onto to Fifth Gear. RJHobbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJ Hobbes (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As has been explained previously, we don't have enough information about the new series to create a new page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

BBC now advertises the new series as "Series 23" and puts in the same list as the other 22 series. There is no mention of any episode of the 1988 version of Top Gear. That's a clear indication that they consider the new series to be part of the exact same program as the previous 22. Tvx1 17:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So what did we learn from the first episode of the new series:
 * It's billed as series 23 of Top Gear.
 * It's still broadcasted on the same channel.
 * It's broadcasted in the exact same time slot as the previous 22 series.
 * The new episode's running time was exactly the same as the previous episodes.
 * It still uses the exact same theme tune.
 * It's filmed in the same studio as the previous 22 series.
 * They still have the same test-track, even though they expanded it with a rallycross section.
 * There still is a celebrity laps section, albeit tweaked.
 * There still are car review and challenge segments with a similar style as the previous 22 series ones.
 * Three of the four former presenters have departed and have been replaced by just two new ones. Only one, The Stig, was retained.

All this evidence is enough to conclude that this is still the same program and creating an article about a "2016 TV series" would unnecessarily confuse our readers. Tvx1 20:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just my 2¢ but I generally think it's a better idea to have a whole new article, I know it's confusing but IMHO what with the presenters and and full history of the prev presentersit seems more confusing to have it here than it would at the 2016 darft one, I know it's at the same studio etc etc but I honestly believe moving it would be a best solution. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * * We should only really create a new article for Top Gear ("Year xxxx TV Series) only when - and this is important - the show has been relaunched with a new format. The reason this article is known as Top Gear (2002 TV Series), is because it was a relaunch of the original version but under a new format, which gave strong reason for this article's creation. To create a new one titled "Top Gear (2016 TV Series)" when all the elements of the format are the same with some bits only tweaked, does not warrant a strong enough reason for such action to be taken. GUtt01 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Top Gear presenters nominated for deletion
has been nominated for deletion. Anyone wishing to comment may do so at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 28. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Series 10, Episode 1 & Series 10, Episode 5 articles, nominated for deletion
Both Top Gear (series 10, episode 1), and Top Gear (Series 10, Episode 5), have been nominated for deletion; the latter has had an extension for further discussions, as no clear consensus on it was reached. Anyone wishing to comment, may do so here: Articles for deletion/Top Gear (series 10, episode 1), and here: Articles for deletion/Top Gear (Series 10, Episode 5).GUtt01 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

errors on page
Gary Hunter was the Executive Producer of the first 5 series of the 2002 re-launch, not Andy Wilman who was Series Producer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter007 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a reliable source for that?  Murph 9000  (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ''This message moved from User talk:Murph9000
 * Hi Murph9000
 * Aerial the BBC staff magazine http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/19587160
 * 'He oversaw the redesign and relaunch of Top Gear and exec produced the first five series of the revamped show which brought together the successful presenting team of Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May.'
 * Or his IMDB page http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1400771/
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.238.126 (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Murph 9000 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That seems like legit info to me.  I'm not making the change right now, however, but leaving time for any other comments on the subject.   Murph 9000  (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Presenter Timeline

 * Key
 * Main presenter of Top Gear
 * Co-presenter of Top Gear
 * Presenter of Extra Gear
 * Racing Driver
 * Back-up host/ Occasional & Test driver/ Reviews
 * Not on show
 * Star in a reasonably price car (guest)

Casualty fan (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will add that these sorts of tables have been discussed at WT:TV and there is consensus not to include them in main TV series article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And can I please agree! I'd have removed this table.  It is utterly unnecessary, and contains very little information for the massive space it takes, all of which is easily gleaned from narrative.  And that doesn't get near the invented roles some of these people have to justify all manner of additional coloration. --Drmargi (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually I don't mind tables like this as they can be informative however as noted above this isn't informative nor is it really useful (As Drmargi points out everyone had various roles etc etc). – Davey 2010 Talk 12:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear (2016 TV series)
I propose that this years Top Gear Series, along with future ones, be put to an entirely new page "Top Gear (2016 TV Series)"

It could then go over the history of the transition, all of the articles of controversy with the new format etc.

I understand the counter argument, which is the BBC is continuing to count the series from series 22 when it had ended with Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conza89 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at length. 2016 was essentially the same show with new cast. We don't create new articles just for that reason. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Man, reading the above, I just don't see the point of doing so. This is basically the same show. The only reason we would go for "Top Gear (2016 TV Series)" is if the show was cancelled and them got revived to a new format.  Aussie Legend  is absolutely correct in regards to this. GUtt01 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox (2017) - Years for Presenters of show
I know there was a discussion and a general consensus on this, but I feel that as we now have new presenters, that this needs to be put up for discussion again. Therefore, I would like to propose the following:

That the Presenters in the infobox have Years put next to their name to indicate the time they spent on the show (i.e. James May (2003 - 2015) ; Matt LeBlanc (2016 - Present)). I believe that the time is right for this to be done now.

Please respond to this discussion as soon as possible. General, overall consensus shall determine the outcome of the subject matter. Thank you. GUtt01 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This was part of a wider discussion and the consensus across the TV project is that we don't include years or seasons in the infobox. This consensus is reflected in the infobox instructions. If you want to overturn that, you'd need to take it up at WT:TV. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Presenters Overview
Is this a suitable table? 109.151.218.211 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. See the earlier discussion.Tvx1 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, a table of this kind is unnecessary. If you gonna do something like this, you need to get consensus first.  I would honestly go for No Table if such a matter was under discussion.GUtt01 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The much wider consensus across the TV project is that we don't include these tables in main series articles.


 * This is a much simpler table than the one in the above discussion, which is why I posted it. Your blunt "no", Tvx1, was rather rude but ok, I'll run with it. And I understand now, thanks. That's why I created the table in the talk page rather than the main page. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Reopen debate on presenters info in talkbox
"Per consensus, the outcome of an RfC on the talkpage, and the instructions for the infobox, do not add years. Only the names of presenters should be included here." I believe this debate needs to be reopened as the consensus was made in April 2015, between the end of the Jeremy Clarkson era and the new Chris Evans/Matt LeBlanc one. At the time, the debate revolved around only 5 presenters (Clarkson, Dawe, Hammond, May and the Stig) but since there have been 6 new additions (Evans, LeBlanc, Sabine Schmitz, Eddie Jordan, Chris Harris and Rory Reid) and Evans left the show after just one season.

The infobox is a mess because of this. Either years, series or 'former/current' need to be placed in small brackets after. Furthermore, the current formatting is not consistent with that of the writers/directors and does not make sense for this reason. In addition, in accordance with WP:TVCAST, the Stig should be above James May in the cast list as he has been around since Series 1 (albeit in the form of the 'Black Stig', however this is the same character as per The Stig).

I therefore propose this change:

Obviously the formatting differs for an infobox, but you get the gist. Thoughts? Hc94 (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see AussieLegend's reply to a similar comment two segments above. Nothing has changed in general consensus (throughout TV articles in general, not just TG) since then and so no change is required.Aw16 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you post a link to the discussions where this comes up? The consensus on the Top Gear debate in April 2015 was about a different issue as it was following Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal and no new presenters had been confirmed, and I can find no other evidence of a Wikipedia debate on this issue.
 * The problem is that the current system has two flaws:
 * 1. Why is it okay to list dates for writers and directors and not presenters?
 * 2. What use does ordering presenters by their first appearance have if there is no series/date system to contextualise this?
 * There needs to be continuity on this article (and on Wikipedia as a whole). The current 'consensus' is based on completely arbitrary reasoning and therefore should be fixed. Hc94 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See comments here. But to try and answer your points in order:
 * 1) Directors/writers should not have years in the infobox either. I had not noticed that they have and this will be rectified.
 * 2) This is a Wikipedia-wide policy that cannot be changed on an article-by-article basis. If you want to take it up further, then I suggest that you take your case to the TV project page here, as people continually bringing it up on the talk pages of individual articles is getting nowhere.
 * In addition, please see WP:Consensus as to why consensus is currently the best compromise we have of overcoming potential issues. Regards, Aw16 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There was also this discussion a while back. Nothing has really changed since that topic either.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Host Pictures - Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, and James May
As people may have noticed, the pictures featuring the three hosts (and that featuring Jason Dawe), were recently deleted for not being Non-Free use. Is there any chance someone could find a appropriate picture, either Free-use or Non-Free Use, that can enhance the article under the History Section, as a means of replacing the ones gone. I know that the User who removed them, Ytoyoda, discussed with me about this, and stated that it's not essential, but I feel that can help to illustrate what the written text states (apart from the citations, naturally). I hope someone can do this, as I don't know if I can put in a pic myself for this article, without putting forward something that could essentially be flagged for not being appropriate, not complying to Wikipedia rules and polices, and so forth... GUtt01 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018
under the heading 'New hosts and new era: 2016–present' please change the the image to this new one: https://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_1858w/public/news-listicle/image/tgtvs25.jpg?itok=XWInYND0 Peanutsboyko (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Uk viewers incomparable figures
In the episodes section it seems that the new presenters get more generous viewership figures, with series 23 on using 28 day data, but the old still using 7 day data. This inflates the figures for recent series. The figures should be consistent, especially as they're presented on a graph in the sub-article. 92.3.156.60 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead issues
The lead is overly long. It paints a rosy picture of success and influence. It completely ignores the recent decline, and it downplays the importance of its three main hosts. No, it hasn't had "several hosts". It's had Clarkson, Hammond and May plus various temporary and unsuccessful figures. In short, it's high time for a substantial edit. CapnZapp (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's but one example of the (very well sourced) sentiment the lead currently ignores completely: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/01/matt-leblanc-exits-top-gear-time-to-be-sent-to-the-scrapheap

Presenters
I feel like a section should be added focusing on the presenters. At present, the page is incredibly text-heavy and I feel like a timeline, or just a few pictures of the presenters with names and the years between which they presented the show, should be included. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Something like this? Obviously I need pictures of Dawe and Reid so I'm using Hammond as a temporary holder. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

❌ - Consensus was to include a simple list instead. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ratings fall
Didn't there used to be a graph? The lede is a bit unclear with 'several presenters' thing, there was a fixed line up for the vast majority of the show, which was only slightly different from the first season, then completely changed and the ratings collapsed. Something like [paraphrasing, IPs aren't allowed to edit anyways, don't just mark this with 'not done' template, it's obviously not an exact request but for discussion] "for most of the shows run & success it was presented by CHM & produced by W, all of who left after series 22. Series 23 featured an entirely new cast of hosts & a ratings fall, 24 change some hosts & lowest ratings ever, 25 change some hosts & even lower ratings, season 26 change some hosts & only 5 episodes & big fall in ratings." 81.156.177.161 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Number of countries is made up
In the article it now says "The popularity of the programme eventually led to Top Gear being broadcast internationally in 214 different countries by the end of 2014". The number of countries is made up. Even in the most optimistic way of presenting it, the maximum number of countries is 206. In the article it says 214. See for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states I suggest the sentence to be removed completely. Jopparn (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021
You should put Andrew in brackets beside Freddie Flintoff like this. Freddie (Andrew) Flintoff LD,s,slske,s (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That's not how middle names are usually mentioned, especially if they're little known. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Grouping
I think there should be grouping to show who was presenting with who:

Original Jeremy Clarkson (original, 2nd & 3rd)

2nd group Jason Dawe Richard Hammond (2nd & 3rd) The Stig (2nd & 3rd)

3rd Group James May

4th Group Chris Evans Eddie Jordan Matt LeBlanc Sabine Schmitz Rory Reid

6th Group (current group) Chris Harris Andrew Flintoff Paddy McGuinness

I have grouped them according to the dates used in the presenters section, it creates clarity as the presenters were not all presenting at the same time but does not go against the RFC consensus not to use dates ChefBear01 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in the infobox? That would create complication, I think.  There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the order we already have - it's chronological, and that's all that's really needed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There did used to be a table with all the presenter lineups visually but that was messy so it got removed. There is now a list of presenters with dates, so I don't think grouping would be necessary. QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022
119.73.117.164 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC) 33
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 08:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Car doors
Why doesn’t a car manufacturer design a car with rounded door bottoms. I have badly cut my leg on the bottom of the driver’s door whilst getting out. I use a waking stick and get out with right leg then lean over to retrieve stick with right hand to steady me on the pavement then pull left leg out. This time not quick enough as bottom of door gashed into my outer leg. Looking at the design of car doors it occurred to me they are like knives. Why can’t someone design a rounded edge door. You’ll probably laugh at this but I’m not the only one this has happened to. A couple of friends have done the same thing. They are dangerous. Any way it would be a sleek looking door I think. What do you think? 92.5.234.216 (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Who publishes Top Gear YouTube videos?
I quoted Gordon Murray effusing over the Lotus Elan's steering in the excellent recent video presented by Jack Rix. But for the citation, who is the publisher? To me "Top Gear" is an agglomeration of the TV show and magazine that puts bits on the web, but User:DPL bot understandably wants me to disambiguate. It seems like it should be Top Gear (2002 TV series)? + The YouTube channel's "About" says BBC Studios, which is the distributor of the TV series - But Wikipedia doesn't list Jack Rix as a contributor to that show (though IMDB does).

Is it Top Gear (magazine) which I think publishes videos alongside some articles? + A Top Gear web site article says "Top Gear magazine’s Jack Rix referees the biggest names in fast car making... don’t forget to check out the Top Gear Magazine Podcast." - This isn't a podcast, it's a video. - It's unclear if this content will be in the magazine.

Thanks for any advice. I'm going to list Top Gear magazine as the publisher for now, but this suggests that Wikipedia's distinction between the magazine and TV show is not adding value but rather confusing things. Skierpage (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Top Gear not a factual program
In the first line of the article, it says that top gear is a factual television programme. It's not factual. The criticism section even quote the courts "claiming the series is an entertainment programme and not an information programme." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.72.245 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @86.98.72.245 this isn't subjective matter, all tv shows are classified as different genres right from the outset and are produced within different finance, production & marketing departments. 90.249.6.186 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and Top Gear is not classified as a factual program. This has been established many times, like when they had issues with their Visa when in the US, because they were an entertainment show, under visas for a factual program, or in their lawsuit with Tesla. 174.94.67.227 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to your concern, and I think the Factual television article should have a sourced disclaimer that '"factual" programs are not documentaries' with similar text to the original post here. However, the article says the production company is "BBC Studios Factual Entertainment Productions", and that 'In September 2012 BBC Television's Top Gear series was officially named the Guinness World Records "Most Watched Factual TV Programme".' Controlling the narrative with euphemisms. Skierpage (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)