Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 5

Too long template removed
I've noticed that an annonymous user recetly removed the article too long template from the article, and I can't see any consensus on doing so in the talk pages. Even so, nobody's put the template back on the article. We should put the template back on the article until it is agreed that the template is no longer needed. Looneyman (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the be all and end all, you know. There is a sham consensus here relating to all sorts of weird and wonderful things being omitted from the article, it doesn't make it right. Emma368 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the key thing here is that you want something "weird and wonderful" included in the article, there is (rightly) a consensus against that, and you therefore think it's a sham.... Halsteadk (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Dp76764 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dave, I'll tell you what isn't right. Impersonating an admin in a pathetic attempt to close off your own sockpuppetry case when the edit history clearly shows it was you who posted it. Honestly, just how stupid are you? DrFrench (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Be careful - we're talking about a user who is cunning enough to create another sockpuppet which is "topgeardoG" spelled backwards! But seriously - consensus is all we've got.  I don't see how any halfway reasonable decisionmaking process would have produced a different result.  If we used simple majority voting, the result would be the same - is Dave seriously advocating "he who shouts the loudest" as an approach to writing an encyclopedia?  In the event of a dispute, we have to have some means to decide - and what we do is to talk about it - and try to get everyone to agree.  Generally, the decision isn't made until everyone agrees. - BUT because we cannot allow a single disruptive editor to throw the process off the rails, our consensus procedures allow us to ignore 'disruptive' editors.  Since DaveSmith33 got a LIFETIME ban for disruptive editing - and has now created at least two and probably three more sockpuppets to try to bypass that ban - I think it was fair to use the "one disruptive editor" rule to ignore Emma368's protests and proceed with an essentially unanimous decision.  I don't see how anyone could reasonably suggest that wasn't fair.  At any rate - Wikipedia has its rules - and when you sign up, you agree to abide by them. QED - game over - that's all for tonight folks.  From here on in - Dont Feed The Trolls applies. SteveBaker (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * SteveBaker, just a quick point. There isn't enough evidence to say for certain that godraegpot is a sockpuppet of Emma368 yet.  One/two edit(s) and a coincidental name is not enough to go on (at least, in my opinion).  Let's just say that they're different people with the same opinion until we see the evidendce to prove that they are the same person.  At least godraegpot hasn't been disruptive yet. Looneyman (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Godraegpot starts putting back that same edit about TDG - then gets involved in a revert war about the same thing - then after reverting FIVE TIMES in 24 hours (WP:3RR violation) adds a complaint against ME under 3RR after I'd reverted just once. There is absolutely no doubt that this is the same person.  There cannot possibly be another person on the planet who is so single-mindedly obsessed with getting one sentence about a dog being a TV presenter into this wikipedia article.  The amazing coincidence that this "new user" pops up just one hour after Emma368 get a block is even more evidence - that the name spelled backwards is 'topgeardoG' is even more evidence...nah - there is no doubt whatever.  Remember - Emma368/Davesmith33 is already a convicted sockpuppeteer. SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabine Schmitz
Why isn't she mentioned in the article, or at least in the box at the bottom under related articles? Emma368 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

She's listed in the Episode guides in series 5, 6, and 7 in regards to the episodes she showed up in. Dp76764 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, Jon Bentley gets a mention in the infobox and what has he had to do with the current format? NOTHING. TGSM (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you actually had a clue, you'd have realised the template covers both the old and new formats... DrFrench (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and I see a reference in there crediting Bentley with "discovering" Mr Clarkson; I'd say that's a pretty hefty influence on the current format. Dp76764 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear Dog
I haven't been here for a while, but it appears the same old argument is raging re: Top Gear Dog. Is it not time a consensus was established at last for this? Godraegpot (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been established over and over - non-notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (I firmly believe Godraegpot is a Sock of Davesmith33/Emma368 - both of whom have been blocked from editing indefinitely - he knows this already and is trying some scheme to throw the admins off his scent - sadly, they are NOT STUPID and can figure this out just like the rest of us have.)


 * The claim Davesmith33/Emma368/Godraegpot are making is that "truth" should beat "consensus". I happen to agree with that - but the Wikipedia policy is that consensus wins.  The reason the policy is set up like that is to answer the question: "How do you decide what's "true"?"  All we have in evidence in this case is an off-hand comment by someone on a show that is predominantly about humor.  You can't "prove" that they meant it in all seriousness - and it's a fairly safe assumption that the BBC wouldn't agree to formally making a dog a presenter on the show.  Evidence for that is in other shows that had 'pets' - Blue Peter, for example - which is not predominantly about comedy and never made the claim that their dogs and cats were anything more than pets.  But even if all we have is our 'gut feel' as TV watchers - there is no reference you can find that says this was intended seriously...all you have is Davesmith33/Emma368/Godraegpot's assertion that it must be true - versus absolutely 100% of the other editors of this page who believe that it cannot be true.  So what do you do?  You ask for a consensus discussion and you abide by the results - unless/until such time as definitive, referenceable evidence becomes available.  Meanwhile, in this case the majority is correct.  Since the absence of a fact is a lot less serious than an incorrect "fact" - we're better off leaving things out than putting things in that are dubious or debatable.


 * I don't understand why Davesmith33/Emma368/Godraegpot (who was a pretty decent Wikipedian for 7 solid months of editing motor racing and olympic athlete articles) should suddenly decide to spend 14 months fighting tooth and nail to get this one ridiculous line into this article - but the consequences of that single-minded effort are clear. This user is banned for life from editing Wikipedia.  Every new sock will spend it's few hours of existance fighting for that existance and then be snuffed out by another lifetime ban by a patrolling admin.  After enough socks have been through the mill - someone will block Davesmith33's IP address - then it's game-over for sock-puppetry.


 * Quite why Davesmith33 finds this a useful or interesting use of his time is anyone's guess - but I've been a Wikipedian since almost the beginning - I've done 11,000 edits and produced several featured articles - and I've seen an awful lot of people walk the path that Davesmith33 is now traversing. It's sad - but I can tell you that it's 100% inevitable.  This person isn't going to be around here much longer...and for what?  Because he truly, deeply believes a dog can present a TV show?  No - because he doesn't understand that when absolutely EVERYONE says he's wrong - that he probably is wrong, and should back down gracefully.   Sadly, the time for that is gone - and Davesmith33 should realise that for the remainder of his life - he'll be disbarred from being a part of the noble effort to produce the greatest work of human knowledge there has ever been through all of history....and all this over some stupid misunderstanding over a dog.   It's pathetic - and it should never have gotten this far. C'est la vie.  SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record: "I firmly believe Godraegpot is a Sock of Davesmith33/Emma368 - both of whom have been blocked from editing indefinitely" - Emma368 has only been blocked for two weeks, for disruption to the sockpuppetry case. Talk Islander 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And this begs the question: why is there still no action on the sockpuppetry case? It's no longer appearing on the main page but has disappeared into an archive without action. How might we press the issue and get resolution to something that has gone on too long? Drmargi (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Blue Peter pets are mentioned in their particular article, so the Top Gear pets also should be. DoctorFrench (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The facts that are notible for being included are decided by consensus, one of the fundamential principles of wikipedia. A consensus was reached long ago that Top Gear Dog is not notible enough to warrant a mention in the article. Looneyman (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A consensus can only be come to if everybody agrees, they don't at the moment - which is why we are having this whole debate. Simply deleting other peoples work is not the answer. DoctorFrench (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Consensus means MOST people agree, not ALL people agree. Dp76764 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day that is WP:POINT, the only thing that matters is FACTS - TGD was introduced at the start of series 8 as a new team member, the same as TGSM the other week, therefore she deserves a mention. As long as TGSM remains there, TGD should also be there.  If TGSM were to be removed, then the same rule can be applied for TGD. DoctorFrench (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TGSM actually contributes something AND there was a reference cited about him! TGD's 'membership' was a joke.  You do know they crack jokes on this show, right? Dp76764 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's one rule for TGSM and another for TGD? FACTS ARE WHAT WE DEAL IN, NOT POINTS OF VIEW. DoctorFrench (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

TGD is on the same level as Top Gear Stuntman and so if TGSM is included, so should dog. A reasonable consensus is that if TGD is not included, then TGSM shouldn't be either. You can't have it both ways. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Emma, TGD and TGSM are NOT on the same level. TGSM gets a 5-minute feature every show (in this series), when did TGD ever get a feature of its own? TGSM is mentioned in the credits, TGD was never mentioned. These things are known as FACTS. Halsteadk (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you've all got your own way and had the article blocked from editing. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Key term here, Emma, WE. Everyone apart from you (and, of course, your sock puppets) disagree with the whole motion. Can't you please accept this and move on? Also, I think this repeated attack on certain users is just disgusting and childish. I hope you take a look at yourself and find a better use of your time. I mean, isn't it just a tiny bit sad that this seems to be what you're doing with your time? LicenseFee (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Train crash stunt section
Wanted to note some issues with this section as we can't make changes for a couple of days: This section currently appears to have been written by someone who has an axe to grind against TG - it's marginal whether it's fair criticism of the show at all, although I won't go as far as proposing the section's removal. It's not as if they deliberately planned it to coincide! Halsteadk (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "stunt" seems to be the wrong word (either that or the article defining "stunt" is wrong), it was a demonstration / experiment
 * there is a large amount of unreferenced opinion / own interpretation in the latter part of the para
 * the word "condemned" is far too strong and is not borne out by the reference.
 * I have now addressed the items above (although the second one has either already been improved or didn't seem as noticeable this time). Halsteadk (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent disagreements regarding TGD, TGSM, The Stig & Sabine Schmitz
I have written to all concerned on their talk pages asking if they are interested in reaching a negotiated settlement with regard to the above issues. This is a genuine call for a truce and hopefully the beginning of the end of the disagreement. A consensus does not exist as shown by the last few weeks/months.

I would be prepared to back down on the issue of The Stig being a presenter in return for a mention of some description (which I'm sure we can agree on) for both Top Gear Dog and Sabine Schmitz somewhere in the article. Also, for the inclusion of Sabine Schmitz in the infobox at the bottom. Not too much to ask is it? SabineSchmitz (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we begin the discussion, I'd like to make an agreement that no edits are made to either the Top Gear pannel or the Top Gear article on the matter's you've mentioned until the dispute is resolved fully.
 * I can already think of one idea for the Sabine Schmitz issue. Maybe we could create a seperate article for notible guests that have appeared on Top Gear and include her there.  Of course, this will only be done if the majority think it's a good idea. Looneyman (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A 'List of Top Gear guests' article would be a nice thing. As it is, if you want to know if someone has been on the show, you have to search each of the series episode guides. I'm sure there are plenty of other shows that have a 'list of guests' article, so hopefully it wouldn't be against policy. As for the mentioning TGD in the article, where exactly does that seem appropriate to add? Honestly, the dog doesn't seem to have ever been a serious addition to the show and has contributed very little to the content, so I'm not sure where a mention would be appropriate. Suggestions? Dp76764 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Top Gear Test Track has a list of all the guests.  Warren -talk- 22:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No edits will be made until an agreement can be reached. SabineSchmitz (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to reach an agreement, but I start off from the following position:
 * What the credits say, goes. That means that Clarkson, Hammond, May, Dawe and the Stig are listed as presenters, and they are the only talking heads (or silent helmets) in the infobox. TGSM, should he appear consistently this series, should be in the article somewhere.

I believe that TGD should be left out totally, as in all honesty I do not feel she had any notability whatsoever for mention in the main article. She could me mentioned on some list article, and on that caravan thingy. Sabine... I don't know. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be ok for the dog to have a line or two in the History section (only place for it in the current structure) stating that it appeared in a small number of episodes, is Hammond's pet (that will need careful referencing as it wasn't stated in the show itself), BUT making it clear that it has not appeared in the last two series. It must not use the word "presenter" as TGD was NOT introduced as such, and should not put it on a level with TGSM. TGD should NOT appear in the introduction, infobox or template at the bottom as mentions there suggest much more significance. Re Sabine, I like the idea of a Top Gear "guests" article, as Dp76764 says the current structure may be easy to find out what happened / who appeared in a particular episode, but not when (or if) someone appeared, which isn't all that helpful - we should offer more than an episode guide. Alternatively, it could emphasise people who have appeared more than once, and not just as a star in a reasonably priced car - so as well as Sabine, Jimmy Carr would be another candidate as he hosted a "best of", maybe the guys who did the rocket powered Mini and Robin. However, listing all would mean there's less chance for disagreement on who to include (unless there were clear criteria). Halsteadk (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever everyone feels like doing is fine. Where people are lying, cheating, edit warring, and perjuring other users, I step in. Where they aren't, I'm fine with being entirely hands-off on the whole issue. I don't know diddly about Top Gear, just about WP policy and procedures. Anything conducted above-board is fine with me. - Vianello (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As others above have said, I'm happy with TGD being listed in the article in the history section. However, the following points should be adhered to...

A suggested way of wording it would be this... "Starting from series __ (Not sure when TGD first appeared), Richard Hammond started bringing in his pet dog, dubbed Top Gear Dog, into the studio and to some of the outings on the show" Looneyman (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TGD should not be listed as a presenter.
 * TGD should be listed as Richard's pet dog (but as said above, citations will be needed)
 * It has appeared in a small number of episodes, but not in the past tow series.
 * TGD appeared in series 8, and only series 8. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think she appeared in series 9 as well, or whichever series it was when they tried to turn a reliant robin into a space shuttle and planted teh 'petrol' seeds. Looneyman (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Top Gear Dog's IMDB page says six episodes of Series 8, and that's it.  Warren -talk- 22:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looneyman is correct, TGD was also in the episode in Series 9 when they became farmers for the day. Halsteadk (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes... a filming of One Man and His Dog... :-)  Warren -talk- 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabine Schmitz has appeared in two episodes of Top Gear (though a third is scheduled for series 11). There are several people who have appeared twice (Alan Davies, Trevor Eve, Rob Brydon, Simon Cowell, Gordon Ramsay), and Steve Coogan has appeared three times, one of which he was actually in one of the films -- series 5, episode 4. Jay Kay has appeared twice, and participated in one of the films. Nobody would seriously consider listing any of them in the Top Gear infobox; Schmitz is no different -- she is a guest, not a presenter.  Warren -talk- 22:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * TGD should be discussed in Top Gear (series 8) article, maybe a sentence in the history section, but not the infobox and I'm still on the side that TGD shouldn't be listed at all. I mean the only thing the dog ever did was show that a Ford Focus hatchback has a big enough trunk to fit him/her. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information and with including TGD or not brings no added benefit to the reader anyway. If you want to see the dog go watch TG, this article isn't about a dog, it's about TG. Second, Sabine, shouldn't be listed in the infobox either. Are we going to list Simon Cowell because he's been on TG twice, or Kristin Scott Thomas because that's Clarkson's favorite actress? They are not presenters or cast members of the show. List them in their respective TG Series articles. They are guests/extras on the show. Third, Stig is a presenter, as is stated by the credits. And the arguement that he/she/it/what doesn't talk, doesn't hold any water, look at Charlie Chaplin, he never talked in any of his movies, show he not be listed as an actor in them? Fourth, TGSM is just that a stunt man, not a presenter but a stunt man like every other stunt man in the world today. El Greco(talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief, man. "Not an indiscriminate collection of information"?  Quit with the wikilawyeresque bullshit, okay?  The fact that Top Gear Dog was presented at the beginning of Series 8 as a new addition to the show doesn't matter because it's indiscriminate cruft?  By what measurement?  The fact that she was introduced and appears in seven episodes, including their films, is a reasonable thing to mention; the fact that she didn't appear in the studio after Series 8 should be mentioned as well.  It's only a couple of sentences we're talking about, here... why are you being so adamant that this detail not be mentioned at all in this article? Your examples -- Simon Cowell and Kristin Scott Thomas, are both mentioned in the article, because they have each contributed something to the show beyond simply appearing as a guest.  Why not Top Gear Dog?  Nobody's proposing that this article be about a dog, so quit with that hyperbole -- that's bullshit, too.  Warren -talk- 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wasn't replying to your post but replying to the question proposed by User:SabineSchmitz. Hence the indent to separate my comment from yours. But to your reply, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is justified and called for. TGD doesn't even have an article, because she doesn't fit WP:NOTABILITY. You want to add how many times Clarkson says how hard can it be, in an episode or a series, too? And as User:DrFrench said below, "Above all, this is an encyclopaedia not a fansite - and the article must strive to be encyclopaedic. Unencyclopaedic information should not be included merely to placate a vandal." El Greco(talk) 23:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Response to Warren's post, clashed with El Greco) Clearly none of those Warren lists are "presenters", and I think we should stick to the principle of going by what it says in the credits on that, which has been tried and tested. (Though if someone from TG is reading this and decides to list the dog as a presenter next week that could be something of a problem....) I could see a potential case for having a line in the TG template (at the bottom) for "recurring contributors" or something like that for people like Schmitz, Coogan, Jay Kay, Jimmy Carr who have done more than just be a star in the car but it might lead to more arguments than it solves! (I don't think being the star twice is necessarily grounds for inclusion in that, as I think that list of people might continue to grow.) Halsteadk (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I am pleased that Dave has indicated he wants to give up edit-warring and actually work towards consensus, I am still suspicious. The behaviour he has shown recently (and a year ago) is not acceptable. IMHO Dave has lost the right to have the presumption of good faith. Before I am willing to even consider his input to any article, I think he should do a few things to make amends;
 * 1. Apologise to all those he has insulted; by posting an apology here, on his own User page and on their talk pages. I and others have been subjected to a number of personal insults that would not be acceptable in 'real life' - and equally are not acceptable here.
 * 2. Make a complete and frank statement on his User page and the sockpuppetry case page admitting to and apologising for past misdeeds - such as creating multiple sockpuppets and impersonating other Wikipedians (including impersonating me and an admin).
 * 3. Make a statement on his User page that he will accept, respect and abide by any commnity sanction imposed as a result of the sockpuppetry case - including any ban, whether it be time-limited or a ban on editing certain articles.
 * 4. That he will stop blanking his user page.
 * 5. That he understands, respects and will abide by the five pillars of Wikipedia - in particular that he will respect other editors, respect their opinions and respect community consensus in future.
 * 6. That he makes a statement on his User page to the affect that accepts any future violation (e.g. any insults, edit warring or other disruptive behaviour) will lead to an immediate block and that he accepts the authority of any admin in this matter.

If he does all this and if he shows by his edit history that he has become a constructive Wikipedian, then (and only then) will I be able to consider his input as being worthy of consideration. To be frank, right now I don't trust him. And I don't believe he will abdide by community norms if he doesn't get his own way. As for this article, I think I have made my position fairly clear in the past. The dog is not notable (and is definitely not a presenter), is not worthy of its own article and is not worthy of inclusion in this article, although could be mentioned on the relevant episode guide pages. Sabine is not a presenter and does not deserve to be included in the main article or the Top Gear template, although should be included in the Top Gear challenges page and the relevant individual episode pages. The stuntman is not a presenter and not notable enough to be included in the template. The stuntman is probably not notable enough deserve his own article at this time. It's unclear how notable the stuntman will be in the long term, so should probably be kept out of the main article for the time being. My suggestion would be to add a 'stunts section' to the Top Gear challenges article for the time being, and split it out at some point in the future if necessary. The article is too long and accumulates fancruft and trivia far too easily, so before adding anything to the article everyone needs to consider "Is this really notable and important to the overall development of Top Gear?". Looneyman's suggestion of a page for notable guests deserves serious consideration - but we do need to work out the best way to do it. Most Top Gear guests are there solely to be the 'Star in a reasonably-priced car' - and these are already featured in the relevant section of the Top Gear Test Track article. Above all, this is an encyclopaedia not a fansite - and the article must strive to be encyclopaedic. Unencyclopaedic information should not be included merely to placate a vandal. DrFrench (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We have a complete consensus about what to do about TGD - the only person with a contrary position have received an indefinite block - and then proceeded to rampage around with sock puppets. If you think I'm giving in to an abusive editor in the face of such solid consensus, you are out of your mind. No compromise of any kind is either possible or necessary. SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's try to be objective here. The source of an idea isn't in of itself relevant here. Whether or not the originator of a suggestion is a nice person, or trustworthy, or otherwise a "good citizen" doesn't impact the legitimacy of their thoughts. If the consensus to include this dog or whoever else (like I said, I know zip about this) is reached in some form, it's not "giving in" to anyone. Nor should going with an idea depend on what hoops of penitence someone does or does not jump through (however appropriate said hoops might be). Let's just consider the thought on its own merits or lack thereof. Where it came from isn't important, unless you suspect it's part of some ulterior motive or conspiracy. Deal with further trouble if it comes up, similarly on its own plane. - Vianello (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on previous experience with this editor, I suspect it's part of some ulterior motive or conspiracy (e.g Dave promises to stop disruptively editing this article, if he can have his way.) DrFrench (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to play fair and I could have gone off on one again thanks to Islander blocking SabineSchmitz. If others play by the rules, then so will I. As stated above, this is a genuine attempt to resolve the situation. Administrators who are involved in a content dispute should not be allowed to block users who they are 'personally' involved with, e.g. Islander. DrFrench, I will agree to those requests once a proper consensus has been agreed here, which will also show that I am being genuine as it looks as though we may be here for some time.

Moving on to the comments above, nobody is saying TGD and/or Schmitz should be listed as a presenter. I used a comparison with The Stig which has been blown out of proportion. There was a one liner in the history section at one-point in the past which at some point has been removed without consensus. There is not a consensus as shown by the comments above, people appear to suggest that TGD should be listed at some point, although point out she hasn't appeared very often. The one-liner from memory was something like: "At the start of series 8, a new team member was introduced - Richard Hammond's pet dog Top Gear Dog" That could easily be edited down with a bit added pointing out she hasn't appeared on screen for a while, but is still present at the filming.

The idea of a notable guests/contributors would solve the Sabine Schmitz situation and Top Gear Dog / Top Gear Stuntman could easily have a more thorough description here than is possible in the main article. Schmitz wasn't a normal guest, she was more of a guest presenter or guest contributor. Not sure if that's the right wording, but she wasn't (and isn't) just a guest.

SteveBaker, we do not have a consensus as people above are suggesting that TGD could be accomodated somewhere within either the main article or on a sub-page. A consensus has never existed re: TGD. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Peter has an "other contributors" section for people who haven't been guests, but have contributed to the show in a major way. This is the type of page that would be suitable to resolve this dispute. Those who think Dog, TGSM, Schmitz, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Leo Houlding, Jimmy Carr, etc. have had too minor a role to play can have their way and keep it away from the main article, but there is a place for those who do want them to have a mention. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been away a couple days, and came back to read all the recent activity in one stretch, which shapes my impressions. While I both commend and support Sabine/Emma/Dave et.al's effort to mend his/her ways, which I hope will continue, two things trouble me about what lies behind the offer to come to a so-called negotiated settlement. First, HRHSabineSchmitz continues to operate on the foundation that there is no consensus regarding the status of the dog, Sabine, TGSM and The Stig by casting what is both clear and substantive consensus as some sort of "gentleman's agreement." Leaving aside that I am a woman and strongly resent the racist connotations implied by the use of that term, I think any effort by HRHSS to reform his/her actions must begin with acceptance that consensus has been reached. The references to "others" who disagree simply does not hold up when we know the other (singular) is him/herself alone in many guises. Secondly, the continued justification of his/her vandalism and sockpuppetry by describing his/her repeated bans as unfair and originating with one biased admin must stop; it is disengenuous in the face of his/her actions, and clearly does not hold water in the presence of the many admins supporting both the original ban and the bans of multiple sockpuppets. That said, were HRHSS able to put this behind him/herself and come in with a new proposal for reasonable and appropriate mention of Schmidt, TGD, etc. I, for one, would give it fair consideration. But any such consideration must come along with the actions of a responsible editor, not the drama and nonsense of recent days. Convince me this isn't yet another game to force something on the article that doesn't belong there, and I'll get behind it. Drmargi (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Drmargi, responding to your points. Firstly on the consensus, the reason I say there still isn't (and never has been) a consensus on this subject is quite simply because there hasn't been one. If you look at the comments above from Halsteadk, Looneyman and Warren, without putting words into anybodys mouths, they all appear to suggest that they are not opposed to a mention for the dog in the article. However, it isn't just the dog that we are talking about here, it is other notable characters who are being totally ignored.

On the second point, that is being dealt with on the appropriate pages.

Moving on to my proposals - based on the comments above from other users, this is what I am proposing:

1. A "Top Gear major/other/recurring (delete as appropriate) contributors" article, featuring those who have contributed to the program in a significant way, but can not just be classed as normal guests. The problem at the moment is that some people are mentioned and others who could be classed as being on a similar level, are not. The kind of people I would suggest off the top of my head are, TGSM, Sabine Schmitz, TGD, Jon Bentley, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Leo Houlding, Jimmy Carr, etc. There could be a paragraph or two explaining their contributions, etc. and a link to their relevent pages (if they have one).

2. This will solve the problem which we have at the moment of it being suggested that characters aren't being given enough of a mention, whilst at the same time keeping other people happy who say they have too minor a role for the main article.

3. The page can be linked to by a one-liner in the main article and an "other contributors" style button in the infobox.

4. This helps solve the problem of the main page being too long, because information on these characters can be moved to this subpage.

5. A seperate thought at this point to help shorten the article could be a Top Gear Criticism page as the criticism section is quite long, but that's another thing altogether.

6. Top Gear Dog is not and never will be referred to as a presenter.

HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to the first paragraph, this strident insistence there was no consensus when only you differed from the rest continues to trouble me. But let's move forward instead. I think what you're hearing now is a rather remarkable, given your actions, willingness on the part of a group of editors to give your ideas a second hearing now they are framed more reasonably. Not the same as consensus, but an opportunity for you to make change you'd like to see made in a reasonable way instead. As to the second paragraph, it sounds reasonable to me aside from the moving of Jon Bentley to the new article. If he was, indeed, a presenter at one time he needs to remain listed as such. I'd also like to see a firm statement that the nonsense regarding The Stig not being a presenter has stopped once and for all. --Drmargi (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

TGSM - um, has anyone else noticed that TGSM hasn't appeared since episode 2 - and there's been no mention of him in the show or on the TG website... If he doesn't reappear I think this is extremely significant to his placement in the article, and he's arguably less significant than even the dog. I reckon following Andy Wilman's "give him a chance" blog after the first episode,, and perhaps a slightly less than warm response to the second stunt, he's been quietly dropped... Well, time will tell if my thoughts are right! Halsteadk (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * TGSM gets half a sentence now, but his appearance is worth mentioning in the great context of the fact that Top Gear has started doing stunt films again after taking a break from it for a couple of years. All the information we have right now is that they plan on doing more with him, and he has appeared in two out of four broadcasts this series, so yeah, we'll see what happens.


 * Comparisons of the importance of TGSM to TGD are pretty silly, though. TGD is Hammond's pet, not a professional acting dog.  It's been said several times in interviews and such that TGD stopped coming to the studio because she doesn't deal well with the travel, not because there was some editorial decision to leave her out of the show.  Given that TGD did appear in an entire series, plus one film in a second series, it's worth mentioning her, if only because there are people who will come to this article wanting to know more, and not mentioning the dog at all would be confusing and unhelpful.  One or two sentences should be sufficient.  Warren -talk- 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Top Gear Dog is still present at most (if not all) of the filming. I've got no problem with listing The Stig as a presenter, although his/her/its presenting skills leave a lot to be desired!  I said right at the top that the "nonsense" re: The Stig being a presenter can stop as long as thought can be given to levelling up the playing field in terms of mentioning the other characters in the show. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know that "Top Gear Dog is still present at most (if not all) of the filming"? Where is this published? If you're going to claim "insider knowledge" then don't bother, as it's not verifiable. Halsteadk (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick Google will find the information you are after. I take it from the (lack of) responses above questioning the ideas I outlined, there are no disagreements with the ideas and so we can press on? HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Pirated Television Show?
The source is from 2004, and is based on only the editor of top gear magazine saying it. I am going to remove that statement, because it is not supported by the source given, and I couldn't find any new information that said it was the most pirated TV show in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theultimatejoeshmo (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * the above comment states that the magazine article is from 2004, and the source now given in the lede is from 2006... at any rate, saying the show was the most pirated in 2007 is patently unreferenced and is more the opinion of an obviously biased source (Top Gear magazine's editor). The source needs to mentioned in the actual prose, and the date needs to be fixed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)