Talk:List of Top Gear (2002 TV series) episodes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Episode numbering and removal of sourced series numbering

The most reliable source for episode and series numbering is the BBC. They have identified the episode on December 21 as Series 15 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x2pq7 and the Middle East Special on December 26 as Series 16 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x31wf. Sense doesn't enter into it. The BBC is the final word. Drmargi (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The second link there states the episode to start on December 26, not December 16. So common sense is restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.110.161 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still missing. It does not make sense that the first "new" episode is associated with Series 15, especially as they open it with "We are back" and show a preview of whats upcoming in Series 16. -- 88.153.201.195 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Application of the smallest measure of common sense would have told the first editor that was a typo. Regarding the second editor's comments, I don't disagree. They start with the "we're back" business, it's clearly midsummer (and very humid) in VA indicating this was filmed for the winter, and the logic behind attaching the episode to S15 defies easy understanding. However, that's what the BBC says, and they're the reliable source. Drmargi (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The links you provided seem to now show that both episodes are now neither Series 15 nor Series 16 but of "Specials 2010," unless I'm not seeing something on those pages. 64.252.117.32 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's becuase the bbc have changed it, it's the same on iplayer, was series 15 ep7 a few days ago, now they appear to have bundled it, presumably along with the mid east trip, into 'Specials 2010'. 77.102.121.201 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Common sense does dictate that the episode aired on 21 December is part of a new series (series 16). The BBC has probably not introduced series 16 for reasons concerning pay for the presenters. To prevent argument it may be best to create a new sub series, as was done for the north pole episode. I would prefer to not see this part of series 15 due to the way the episode began with 'were back' and the montage of series 16 being included, and of course the last broadcast episode was in august! —Preceding comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Commonsense can't be a factor in light of WP:RS. The sources say/have said the episode run was part of series 15. Please do not revert that version until we reach consensus. I have also posted a reminder re: WP:CONSENSUS on your talk page. Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming apparent that this discussion is not going anywhere. Dispute the BBC originally branding the latest episode (21 December 2010) as series 15, episode 7, it is clear that it is not a continuation of the now finished series. As described by many people the episode started with Jeremy Clarkson pronouncing "Were Back" followed by a montage of what is to come in the future planned Episodes. The BBC has now re branded the episode as part of a series called Specials 2010, thus resolving the dispute from many that the episode of 21 December does not belong in series 15. When I updated the page last night I referenced each episode to the BBC website (), each newly identifying the episodes are part of "specials 2010". This is enough proof, as required by wikipedia, to end the dispute I feel, and would be grateful if every body else concerned about this page would agree. These episodes now not part of series 15, nor series 16, but instead a pre sereis 16 special mini series. Happy Christmas.217.42.38.6 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi Please would you discus the conflict of where the 2010 special episodes belong in the article, rather than constantly reverting to a previous revision. Im sure you can quote many pages at me, and others that feel the episodes are not part of series 15, but please read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", and the sources I have quoted for the reason that the episodes are not part of series 15 any more. There is no need to continue to revert the article. On another note, I do not have a user name because I do not seek glory for being a long standing editor. Every time I move to a different premises I receive a different external IP, and even receive a different external IP when MY router resets, and the DHCP lease needs to be renewed. Please do not assume that I am new to editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that, once a discussion is opened, the article stays at the version in place at the time the discussion is initiated. What you cite applies in difference circumstances (such as a long stable version that is reverted to a previously controversial version -- see updates restaurant status on Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares for an example). Rather than forcing an edit, and attempting to discuss via edit summary, which is what you are doing, you should propose the change to Specials here, be patient, and allow for discussion. Moreover, to make a discussion work and reach consensus, you need a stable version of the article. What your using as a source is the iPlayer listing. Do we know that's the same as the episode itself? The wisest move at this point is to wait to see how the remainder of Series 16 is promoted. Once we have a number for the first episode in January, this will all fall into place. You have to allow for the holiday, and the numbers of editors who may be taking a break as well. This process has its own timeline, and can't be bent to your will or your calendar. The ironic part of this is that there probably is a case to be made for either moving the specials into Series 16, or creating a separate section, but right now, we don't have a reliable source for guidance as to which is correct, if either. So we stay with what we have until the BBC promotes the remainder of the series.

The IP issue, etc. relates to my comments on your talk page, and can be discussed there. All I know is I see editing performance typical of a novice editor, and attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I said nothing about the need to register. But it does bear mention that if you want other editors to allow for your experience as an editor, you need to have a means to present a stable edit history, something you've chosen not to do. Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time I move the 2010 Specials to their own section. Honestly. It is my belief that the source (BBC) has updated their identification of episodes sufficiently to warrant a change to the layout of the latest episodes. I have indeed taken onboard your advice about Wiki protocol, and shall of course preach wiki law when I feel it appropriate. Perhaps I shall invest in a user ID in the new year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your belief, yes. Consensus? No. I'm glad it's the last time you're moving it, so we can let the article remain stable at the point where the discussion began until we see what the BBC does once they add the January episodes. Drmargi (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to wait until january to see how the next episodes are numbered? The episodes are part of their own mini series titled "Specials 2010" that comes between series 15, and series 16. They are attached to Series 16 because they showed a montage of the future episodes. Please can you discuss the reasons why you believe the episodes to be part of sereis 15, and not series 16 or their own mini series. As you may or may not be aware there are now 2 episodes "un categorised by series" as of tonight.Currently one is part of series 15, and the other is part of series 16. Is this part of your stable revision of the page? It looks daft if i am honest, and I propose that they be moved to a mini series between the main series'. Please discuss to reach an imminent conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.38.6 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this. The BBC are currently listing, both on the top gear subsite and on iplayer/tv listings, these episodes as "Top Gear - Specials 2010 - 1. USA Road Trip" and "Top Gear - Specials 2010 - 2. Middle East Special". That's straight from iplayer. Drmargi, you said above, "The BBC is the final word.". Currently they're saying these two episodes are under their own series, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is here? Bambers (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There shouldn't have been any fighting or exchange of egos(Amateur!) over this. If the most up to date BBC sources say that these two episodes are their own category, separate from the standard seasons, then this page should reflect that. If the sources change the categorization again at a later date, then this page changes again. No issue. 64.252.117.32 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To further illustrate my point, please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59/series . This page is a list of series of which to pick episodes from. "Specials 2010" is listed separately from the other series, and clicking on Specials 2010 leads you to the two episodes in question. Clicking on Series 15 and Series 16 does not. 64.252.117.32 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If the BBC was the final word on December 21, and they will be the final word on January 23, then by what logic are they not the final word on December 27? – Smyth\^talk 11:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed again. Why is it necessary to wait until 23 January when the BBC source above shows the latest christmas specials as part of "specials 2010, and not series 15 or series 16. I would like to re-create a new series titels 'Specials 2010' to contain these 2 episodes, unless anybody else would like to create a table. If however the BBC changes the identification of the episodes at the start of series 16 proper, then of course we can address this subject again. I suppose the only thing that needs to be waited for is the consent of Drmargi. 217.42.38.6 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, you didn't need my consent (I'm ignoring the cheap shot that comment actually was); I was unable to access this discussion for a couple days while I could only edit on my iPad, which restricts my ability to scroll down long edit windows. You have consensus that the episodes should be relabeled. That's how WP:CONSENSUS works; no muss, no fuss, no bully-boy editing or constant demanding editors do as you wish. Just leave the article alone, talk about it and see what everyone thinks is best. I still have reservations about the accuracy of labeling both episodes as specials separate from Series 16 based on the opening of the first episode, and I think this may very well start over again once the series resumes in January, which is why I recommended everyone be patient. Sadly, that's a scarce commodity in this day and age. The issue seems to be one of consistency of sources; the BBC is the final word, but even it can't even make up its bloomin' mind. The iPlayer listing (which I wouldn't give as much weight as the program guide) says one thing, the BBC program guide (mirrored by TV Times and TV Guide) says another, the content of the show says a third and the daggum Top Gear website, which could clear the whole mess up, says nothing at all. I think it's very possible these episodes could end up being labeled 16.1 and 16.2 before the dust settles, particularly given the preview video shown at the opening of what the broadcast itself would suggest is probably 16.1 (currently labeled the USA special) and the introduction of the Stig issue, which had long been touted as set to be resolved in Series 16. But for now, I'm happy to go with what the group seems to think is best, and leave the episodes labeled as they are, given the recency and ease of access of the iPlayer description.

While we're on the subject of cheap shots, User:64.252.117.32, there was no "exchange of egos" (whatever that might be) over this, and I would suggest that before you take a pot shot at other editors, you be sure you know what you're talking about -- there's a huge difference between labeling someone an amateur (which no one did) and giving someone whose edit history suggests is a novice editor the benefit of the doubt when they repeatedly fail to follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is also a difference between "fighting" (which is what little boys do on the playground), argument, and discussion designed to reach consensus within Wikipedia guidelines. As soon as everyone got on board with the last of the three, we had a speedy resolution, one which could have been reached civilly and without the petulance displayed here. Drmargi (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

s16e01 so-called US Special

#	Total	Title	Reviews	Challenges/Features	Guest	Original airdate
1	126	"Series 16, Episode 1"	None	Jeremy, Richard and James set off on a road trip up the east coast of the United States in a Ferrari 458 Italia, a Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG and a Porsche 997 GT3 RS	Danny Boyle	21 December 2010 (2010-12-21)

what's the deal with this episode? does it exist at all? someone keeps putting this! please verify!--Infestor (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, and we discussed it. But a new editor has brought in a source from Top Gear magazine indicating the Christmas episode is the beginning of season 16. That takes this one back to Season 15. Another editor changed it back, and no one objected, so there it stayed. You might want to review the above discussion; the BBC and other TV media identified this one as 15x7; the BBC later lumped the two together as "specials" when they moved the episodes to the iPlayer. The December issue of Top Gear magazine seems to have cleared up the confusion. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks. the official identification for BBC is that US special is 15x7. --Infestor (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask, having not read Decembers Top Gear magazine, does the magazine specifically say the Middle East Christmas special is the start of series 16? We must bear in mind that the Middle East christmas special is actually part 2 of the christmas special(s). My interpretation is that if the christmas special is the start of series 16, then both the episodes aired 21 December and 26 December should belong with series 16. 217.42.38.6 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor posted the source, so I went to the local bookstore that carries the magazine to look. I'm afraid it does say S16 starts on December 26. Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Got any idea of the page number? becuase I cannot find this in the magazine. Also in terms of sources I would put the bbc above TG magazine given that much of the magazine production is fairly independant from the tv show and the december 2010 issue would have gone to print in mid november. They won't even have finalised the christmas TV schedules by that point. The top gear site constantly refers to the two episodes as an xmas double bill and their series guide only has the 6 episodes in series 15. I see no solid evidence for the usa road trip to be in series 15, seems it's more a question of if it's part of series 16 or not. Unhelpfully the TG site does mention in one of its news posts "The pertinent point remains: two new shows coming up, the first on Tuesday (that’s TUESDAY, not Sunday) 21 December at 8pm on BBC2, the second on Boxing Day at 8pm on BBC2. Then we’ve got the new series proper starting early in the New Year." Bambers (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I wish I'd noticed. I didn't purchase the magazine; they're rather pricey over here, and not interesting enough at the price, so I just read it at the news stand.

If we're ever going to solve this problem, I think what we've got to do at this point is shift gears. We clearly don't have consistent reliable sources, which is why we have the problem we do. We've got the BBC program guide and other TV listings identifying the first episode as 15x7 and the second as either a special or 16x1, and I think we'd all agree that seems a bit absurd at best. We've got the iPlayer describing them as "specials" in what's probably the iffiest of the sources. The Top Gear website is silent on the matter thus far, but we've got the magazine identifying the second episode as 16x1 (bear in mind, another editor originally posted that source; I just checked it) and the corresponding time issue cited, which I hadn't considered. And then the episode content itself suggests they're 16x1 and 16x2. No wonder we can't make sense of this, and that WP:RS is failing us as a means to sort this out.

I had a serious think about this, and have somewhat changed my tune. I suggested once upon a time that an argument could be made for labeling them 16x1 and 16x2, and that we wait until the next episode hits the BBC program guide to see how it's identified. Folks don't seem to want to be patient enough to do that, so I'm going to suggest that, in the absence of not just reliable but consistent printed and electronic sources, that we consider the show's content itself to be the most reliable source, and list the episodes accordingly. That would mean 16x1 and 16x2, with the Middle East Special imbedded in Series 16 much like Bolivia or Vietnam, rather than treated as a free-standing episode, like the Polar Special. Identifying the two as Christmas specials never worked for me because the one with the US road trip clearly was a regular episode, similar to the trip from San Francisco to Bonneville. Clarkson also notes Middle East is their annual Christmas episode (I'll have to check his actual words, but that's the jist of it) at the end of the previous episode, suggesting it's not a free-standing episode. What we've got to do for the moment is leave the article alone and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS here. Drmargi (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This entire discussion makes little sense. User:Drmargi start's it off with the statement that The most reliable source for episode and series numbering is the BBC, quoting a BBC website that says nothing of the kind. Perhaps it did once, however I don't understand why he is perpetuating dated information that the BBC has long since corrected. The website clearly makes no reference to either Series 15 or 16 for either of the recent Christmas specials; however the website is secondary information. The primary information are the episodes themselves. And the December 21st episode clearly states that it is the start of new material, not the continuation of the previous season. The episode was clearly recorded long after Series 15, and the studio segments appear to have only been done recently. My inclination is that it is obvious that both episodes will be considered to be Series 16. However, the only secondary source indicates that they are stand-alone specials (ignoring the primary source that suggests they are the start of a new series). Listing the December 21st episode as Series 15 in contradiction of both the primary and secondary sources, and relying only on tertiary sources, makes no sense, and will only serve to confuse those using this resource. One question I have though - what exactly is one the Season 15 DVD that is being released next month (though given that it's only reported on Amazon as being on 2 discs and 58-minutes shorter than the Season 14 DVD, I could take a guess ...) Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that what I said about the BBC was posted over a week ago, and things change -- at the time I put the link in place it clearly identified the first episode as 15x7, and I wasn't the first or the last editor to act on that basis. The iPlayer listing has clearly muddied the water considerably. I wouldn't characterize what the BBC did as correction; it's a different kind of listing now, that's all. Please see my latest thinking above your post. r:DrmargiDrmargi (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems bizarre to me to suggest preserving the article in a state that no one supports. Listing the last 2 episodes as specials until we can figure it out seems to be the neutral solution compared to listing them as either Season 15 or Season 16. And I say this as a neutral editor with no past history with this article. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful ... [[User:Drmargi is removing my edit that the December 21st episode is not Series 15, citing WP:Consensus, yet at the same time he is arguing above that it isn't part of Series 15, and there appears to be no one claiming that it is ... let alone no consensus that it is. Am I the only one who finds this more than a little odd? Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this more than a little odd and i am only reading this discussion. I don't watch the show or read the magazine or edit the articles relating to Top Gear. Reverting to something you know is wrong because there is indecision between the sources and indecision about which source to abide by can make for a lively discussion. This is even better than when itv orders a 13 episode series of Law & Order | UK and then when it comes time to broadcast it they split it up into a 7 ep series & a 6 ep series and there are references existing from the same source which group the episodes differently; and itv repeats this odd behviour each year. About this show, a two episode group which is shown well after the end of series 15 and which at its end promos the forthcoming series 16 to me sounds like a two-part special, like the last David Tennant episodes of Doctor Who are between series 4 and series 5. With the Top Gear website showing series 15 ending in August and their blog describing these as Christmas specials and the BBC & iPlayer likewise treating them as specials has anyone considered the publication deadline of the magazine and it simply being that the magazine was printed with the then-current take on it at the time the article was written but by the time it made it to newsstands the info was outdated? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
And since i notice that there are claims the website is silent on this matter (ie there is nothing in the episode guide) here are a couple of blog posts from the Top Gear website which are blatantly clear about these being a 2 part Christmas special. http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2010/12/21/the-first-of-our-christmas-double-bill/ & http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2010/12/21/xmas-double-bill-details/ and these have been around for more than 10 days now so i don't know why i, the outsider who has no interest in the show, am the one who is pointing these out to people who have an interest in the show. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"The iPlayer listing has clearly muddied the water considerably. I wouldn't characterize what the BBC did as correction; it's a different kind of listing now, that's all." Iplayer also said it was 15x7 initially, that's why I labled it a correction. Actually the whole of the bbcs site appears to run from the same database, so when the episodes were changed to specials 2010, everything that links to it, updates automatically. This includes iplayer, the channel listing guides and any program subsites. Anyway since 15x7 makes no sense and is backed up by nothing I'm changing this back, at least it looks vaguely reasonable then until the next episode determines whether these two are part of 16 or their own seperate double bill. 77.102.121.201 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC) bah, not logged in. Bambers (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the change to the iPlayer listing, but regardless, we've got a couple options under discussion here. Please try to be patient and give us time to sort this out. Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

However, the only option that you keep reverting the article to, is one that no one seems to support. In terms of Law&Order Uk - I haven't looked at that article, but in some markets outside of the UK, it was broadcast as a single series, week after week - long before the second bunch of episodes aired in the UK. Clearly the entire bunch of episodes were produced as a single series ... this is not the case here, as much of the Top Gear December 21st episode clearly was only recorded recently - months after Series 15 aired. I see no reason not to remove the reference to Series 15 lasting until December 21st 2010 in the article. Does anyone actually disagree with this? Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You revert to the point where the article was when the discussion started -- I've been consistent about that. Law and Order has nothing to do with this discussion other than to serve as some sort of example (I think). This configuration also makes the (sourced) episode count for S16 work, based on what's being posted in the main article. Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert to the point where the article was when the discussion was started. Why have you said I did that? And why would one do that, that makes no sense, and would violate several Wikipedia tenants. The article should be adjusted so that it doesn't show something that we all know to be wrong; and should remain neutral. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned L&OUK as an example of where different sources, all from itv, will say different things. A comparison of the confusion. That is all. Nfitz, i don't know any other way to say it but 'aaahhh, yeah'. This constant reverting to 21 December = s15e7 in the face of majority of and all of the most recent references as well as those which never changed from the primary source which calls it the first of a 2 part special, and the sheer number of people moving the episode out of being labelled s15e7 speaks to the erroneous nature of the version that Drmargi keeps reverting to.
So you want consensus that it is s16e1 & s16e2. Theoretically everyone here could agree on that. Things go forward. Then series 16 starts and there is now the fight over whether to call that now-future episode s16e3 and leave the 21 December ep as s16e1 or to change it to be a special and the now-future ep be s16e1. Nothing calls the 21 December ep s16e1 but some tvrips you could download; they are notorious for messing up when a special is shown as it is outside of their episode numbering format. I would direct you to Flashpoint if you want to see grossly mis-labelled tvrips. topgear.com itself has always maintained the 21 & 26 December eps are specials. bbc.co.uk had it different at first but later fell in line with the topgear.com stance on the matter. I would point out that basing the episode list on what someone else wrote in the main article violates every rule of using WP as a source for itself. Synchronise them yes but don't use one article as the reason for making another read a certain way. This shouldn't be this difficult. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• My edit - which User:Drmargi keeps changing to something even he seems to think is untrue - wasn't to make the specials either Series 15 or 16; simply to list them as 2010 specials - which is what BBC is currently listing them as. Surely that's the safest thing to do. I fail to see why User:Drmargi keeps trying to change the page to say that it's Series 15. And I'm unsure how he thinks this will be resolved, given that everyone seems to agree that the December 21st episode isn't Series 16. Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• has anyone actually watched this us special? because there is a preview of sason 16 in it, along with the iraq special and all. in all the other seasons, the preview was in the first episode of that season, not in the last of the one before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.208.32 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes this point has been made earlier, additionally delerious&lost, I had mentioned the magazine publication date above and the TG site saying it was a double bill, though I didn't quote the blog posts. Why drmargi keeps reverting this to 15x7 is a mystery, yes there isn't a consensus on exactly whether these two episodes are their own mini series or just a start to series 16. I actually suspect it will turn out to be the latter and there will only be 5 more episodes in jan/feb/mar, it's mentioned somewhere on the tgsite that 16 will have 7 eps, however the bbc currently say otherwise. Thing is, there is a consensus, in addition to a small mountain of evidence that there is no 15x7 so the episode list should not reflect this. It's better to be possibly a little incorrect than obviously wrong and only agreeing with outdated media and tvrips published before the bbc changed their minds. Bambers (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wake up, refresh my watchlist (wish i could remember why it is here for me to have seen this discussion in the first place) out of pure curiosity and Drmargi strikes again. Will all edits be reverted? 55 reverts or edits that effectively reverted changes about the episode/series numbering done by Drmargi since mid-December including 8 this year alone. None of them that i saw were reverting vandalism; they were reverting to the preferred content of Drmargi pending this discussion (which Drmargi started a fortnight ago). It is only Drmargi who is doing this reverting (though some have reverted Drmargi's reverting of their own edits). Yes there is this discussion here but the reverting has gotten to the point of being an edit war to promote this discussion which is oddly enough supporting the edits that are being reverted. Even Dramrgi has declared to be now against s15e7 [1] despite continued reverts which speak to the contrary. Anyone else confused?
Per the topgear.com blog i first support calling these specials that fall between s15 & s16. Second to that i could support calling them s16e1 & s16e2 pending further details on the next episode. Given all the information i am aware of i must oppose s15e7. Either they are both specials or they are both series 16. Either way this has not made me a fan of the show; I'll take the bus. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand now going back and forth...semi-protect the page for starters. I don't think we can say the US Special is part of Series 15. The delay between the last ep of S15 and the first special was months...indicating a new series (also a good argument for calling them seasons and not series). Jeremy also starts by saying "we're back", which he only does when a previous series has ended. Also, the preview of S16 is shown in the US special. The way we have it now someone is going to watch the 3rd episode of the series and expect to see the preview. Finally, on the piracy front the specials are consistently listed as S16E01 and S16E02. Thus my vote is leave them as Eps 1 and 2 of Season 16. It's definitely not apart of season 15 and leaving them orphaned as specials makes searching for them much harder, as well as implying a disconnect between the specials and what's next, which isn't true. MrCrackers (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Like everybody else, I agree that they're not part of season 15. But we can't mark them as part of season 16 either at this time, aince the BBC has not made it clear what they consider to be connected to what, still less what the episode numbers are. – Smyth\^talk 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually could not care less where they are listed, but came across this discussion whilst looking at the official topgear site which states it is 15x07: Search for "Series 15 episode 7" and you will find amongst other results http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/01/06/series-15-episode-7-outtake-more-from-danny-boyle/ 20:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoundDog (talk • contribs)

I am back to being totally amused by this. The blog on topgear.com had been the sole consistent source declaring it to be a special and now there is a post on the blog declaring it to be part of series 15 now that everything else had conformed to what early blog posts had called it. Top Gear is messing with us all. They call it Ψ while everyone else called it ξ and they get everyone to call it Ψ and then they turn around and call it ξ. I say we call it Φ and be done with it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does feel like we're being messed with. My current favorite is the BBC site referring to the next episode as "Season 16 proper"...so does that mean the two we have were "unofficial" S16 starts? Personally I think they were calling them 2010 Specials for advertising more than anything else and they'll eventually become S16E01 and S16E02. But I'm standing down given the official word is they are standalone; which makes little sense IMO given they showed the S16 preview already. We also have the business of the Sereies 16 page being all over the place which I'm not even going to try sorting out.MrCrackers (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you, the reason I put them in as specials 2010 is because I didn't have a source to do otherwise. My suspicion was that the new episode would start at 16x3 resolving the issue neatly. However, suprisingly, (or not given current form!) the beeb has gone with s16ep1 (out of 7 interestingly) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y469f Bambers (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Strikes me that they have made two specials, one budgeted as part of series 15, and one as part of 16, and broadcast them prior to the start of series 16. The above edit war has just made things more confusing, as every time I visit the article things have moved and changed their names. Perhaps we all need to get some perspective? 71.105.101.61 (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@ 71.105.101.61 - The sources keep changing. No, really it is not a joke. The sources can't remain consistent. If one says "Hi" the other says "Hello" and then the one says "Hello" and the other says "Yo". That has the one now saying "Yo" whilst the other says "Hi". A big, frustrating loop of unending reclassification. Thanks to the edit request below i noticed that topgear.com now has placed the specials as s15e7 and s16e1 in their episode guide. I mean, come on. What will it be next week? topgerar.com and bbc.co.uk have been all over the place in what they are called, one following the other, and for maybe a few minutes here or there they are the same but they are each chasing the other so the synchronised naming never lasts more than a fleeting moment because they don't know that the presently have it synchronised. I call it Φ = series 7 episodes 12 & 13. At least i promise not to change my mind about calling it that. So in one sense i am more reliable than BBC and TopGear.com :P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least reach consensus that the US Special isn't part of series 15? I'm really getting tired of it constantly being moved there and having to be moved back. Unless you can provide 2 independent and current sources proving it, even the vaguest common sense dictates it's not remotely part of series 15 (cause, you know, they've always ended a series by showing the preview for the next series *eye roll*). ****Watch the end of 15x06. Jeremy states unequivocally it's the end of the series and the voiceover following says the same. That's the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned.MrCrackers (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You have a reliable source that says it's Series 15, and not for the first time. Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I We have a presenter which stated directly Ep 6 was the end of the series. We have the voiceover, which is done by the BBC and not the Top Gear team stating the same. We have common sense which shows no connection between Series 15 and the USA special. We have the series 16 preview being shown at the beginning of the episode. Oh and then we have the Top Gear site singing a different tune every week. But somehow we're ignoring real evidence and considering your source "reliable"? I refuse to consider it part of series 15 unless you can gain consensus that it actually is. Making a notation that its placement is disputed is sufficient IMO.

Regardless, I've added BBC sources which have supremacy over Top Gear sources (BBC controlling production of Top Gear) indicating that series 15 ended with episode 6. I've also changed the article to show that the US and Middle East were not part of "Series 16 Proper" (according to Top Gear site) but instead "Specials 2010", which was consensus prior to S16E01 airing. I'm satisfied with how it is now and would like to propose the current page for discussion before this turns into more of an edit war.(before MrCrackers (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone actually notice that the US Special starts with an overview of series 16? 195.241.35.98 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Read above, it's been mentioned 3 or 4 times. MrCrackers (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Se 15 Ep 1, Reliant Robin year correction

In the description for Episode 1 of Series 15, it said that Jeremy drove a 1981 Reliant Robin. A 1981 car would have a suffix "W" or suffix "X" registration. The Robin Jeremy drove had a prefix "M" registration (1 August 1994 – 31 July 1995) and I confirmed on DVLA's vehicle enquiry page on the DirectGov website that the car was manufactured and registered in 1994. I have therefore corrected this error. (Also note the new-old-stock Ford Fiesta front lights and Ford Escort van rear lights that were fitted on these 90s Robins) --86.169.37.122 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Varrbacon, 25 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} All of the names of the episodes are incorrect, they are just listed as "Series 1, Episode 1" when in fact the name of that episode should be "The One With Stig Cheating a Speed Camera." On the official BBC Top Gear website it lists all of the episodes in order, with their names, and it should here too. Here is the link to the website where everything is listed correctly. http://www.topgear.com/uk/tv-show/series-1

Thank you and good luck.

Varrbacon (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It already is semi-protected until the end of the month. And I don't care what the catchy name of each episode is. For reference/searching purposes I just need series and episode number. Maybe throw in a link at the top for people who care but otherwise it would be a waste of space without contributing much.MrCrackers (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Varrbacon is correct here--we cannot make up our own titles (which is what in the article now). I just checked three similar pages (List of Friends episodes, List of Star Trek episodes, and List of Mad About You episodes), and all use the actual show title. The issue has nothing to do with what you (a reader) need--it has to do with providing correct information. We couldn't for example, just list Shakespeare's plays as "The First Tragedy" and "The Fourth Comedy" just because we wanted to. I don't see anything on the official website that calls those "catchy titles"; they appear to be the real show titles. Personally, I think someone with a closer connection to this article should fix the problem, because it is admittedly a lot of work. Varrabacom, if no one else does the work, you will be able to do it once protection expires; since this is a topic I am not interested in, I can't bring myself to spend the hours needed to do it myself. I'm leaving the request up so that hopefully someone will start to tackle it; I'll check back in later and see if anyone has done it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think the link provided is proof that those are episode titles as opposed to 5 word summaries. The BBC refers to episodes by their series and episode numbers, not by any title.MrCrackers (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think that it is more than just a summary of the episodes. The title of the episode should be "101 - The One With Stig Cheating a Speed Camera." Then you would be able to find it by searching for Top Gear 101, as well as have the correct title. Plus, why would they have a 5 word summary literally right above the summary to the episode. It is obviously a title.Varrbacon (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MrCrackers, can you show any reason why you think those aren't titles? It's certainly not a general BBC policy—see List of Dr. Who episodes and List of Fawlty Towers episodes, for two examples from other BBC productions.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they were being cheeky as well as providing a quick means of determining what an episode was about without having to skim the summary itself. Just see http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59 where they don't use any "The One...." titles but rely completely on the series episode labeling. The war over the most recent episodes has shaken my confidence in the Top Gear site as a reliable source, so unless we can find another source or it being directly stated "Episode Title" then I wouldn't agree with making such a bold edit of this article. Even the Top Gear site doesn't label what the 5 word blurb officially is. If we also look at a google: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&&sa=X&ei=yL4_TfrAEIqCsQOzsKCWCA&ved=0CB4QvwUoAQ&q=top+gear+the+one+with&spell=1&fp=ff7438fb088773d1 we can see that "The One With" isn't particularly common usage outside of the Top Gear site. The reason why I'm opposed is because this page has already come under fire for being too long. Something like a production code would be equally as unhelpful as "The One With", but "The One With" would add a ton more length.MrCrackers (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The point you make about the BBC site makes more sense. Does anyone have a copy of a DVD of a complete season? That seems like it would provide a definitive answer. I'm guessing that they don't have titles, since when I look at the amazon.com listing, in the "View it Now" section, the only titles are "Episode 1", etc., whereas other shows (like Friends) do list full titles. As a side note, your concern about the length of the page is irrelevant--if those are really the titles, we must add them; we can't have wrong information for "length" concerns. The only question is whether or not those are actually titles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked Netflix, they have the episodes listed by series-episode as well whereas Mad About You and Seinfeld is given actual titles. The BBC America site uses series-episode format as well. If the DVD did have the titles I would still change the article to something like "Episodes are given titles[external link] on both the DVD and Top Gear homepage, although in most places the titles are not used [cite BBC]". An arguable point is that so long as we can show the blurbs aren't official titles, the information shouldn't be included in the episode tables since its format already lends well to quick skimming and a 5 word blurb wouldn't contribute further in that regard (under the category of Fancruft). MrCrackers (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done:Well, I'm pretty well persuaded that the "official" titles are just "Season X - Episode Y". If someone can provide a reliable source that definitively defines the ones on the Top Gear site as titles (and not just pithy summaries), then we could reconsider. I'm going to go ahead and untransclude this request (and take this page off my watchlist, because all the noise down below gives me a headache ;) ). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should the USA special be counted under Series 15 or 16 or neither

• Season 15. This business of is it 15 or is it 16? has been such nonsense since the beginning. One minute the various editors want to go with the BBC, the next minute, it's the show, the next minute it's the Top Gear site (which had not identified the episode until Season 16 started), with no consistency. And now we have one editor declaring himself final arbiter of what takes "supremacy" and reverting two reliably sourced edits placing the episode in Season 15, per the show's own website. Worse, the justification for the reverts is little more than what the hosts said and the BBC iPlayer (which has changed more often than I change my socks.) Top Gear's episode guide for Season 16 is now up, it places the January 23 episode at 16.01, the Middle East special as a special and The USA Road Trip as 15.07. Regardless of where it's placed, it's never going to be perfect, but the show's own website would clearly be the most reliable source for what's accurate. Drmargi (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Series 16. - Specials 2010 In response to Drmargi. First, enough with the accusations and aggression, I'm not calling myself the final arbiter on the matter. It is my opinion that the BBC has the final authority on all things Top Gear (seeing as they finance, broadcast, and produce the show), and therefore in the case of conflicting information we should default to the BBC. Next we have "the show, Top Gear site, and the BBC". Both the show and the BBC agree that it is not apart of series 15. 2 out of 3 sources agreeing would seem to indicate the Top Gear site is wrong. However the BBC also classifies the USA special as well as the Mid East special as part of Specials 2010, in multiple locations as current references show. I furthermore recall Jeremy saying something to the effect of S16E01 being the "official start" of the series. However, because the series 16 preview was shown in the US Special, I believe the 2010 specials must be placed underneath series 16.

Addendum taken from above talk comment: We have a presenter which stated directly Ep 6 was the end of the series. We have the voiceover, which is done by the BBC and not the Top Gear team stating the same. We have common sense which shows no connection between Series 15 and the USA special. We have the series 16 preview being shown at the beginning of the episode. MrCrackers (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the Request for Comment   Whatever consensus is reached i can pull up a completely acceptable and definitive reliable source to say consensus is blatantly wrong. This really will go nowhere so long as the BBC has its two websites of relevance to this out of sync. Given that, there is no point to bring forward. No matter what is done, "Such a solution would leave readers confused and misinformed at best, which is no where near ideal." There is no stable and generally accepted version to leave the page at and even if there was people would make edit requests and be able to back them up with reliable sources. Having a popularity contest to pick which quasi-concurrent declaration from the same company is more valid than the other is ridiculous. http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear and http://www.topgear.com/uk are both owned by the BBC. I oppose for the inherently skewed outcome, the premise being flawed, and the general relegation of one site to unacceptable which inherently then makes both unacceptable due to them being from the same publisher - and who wants to call the British Broadcasting Corporation an unreliable source? :P
  Hopefully these are less upsetting comments than my previous draft. I am using a lot of words. I do that. Too bad. There is no resolution here unless you want to find some way to get the nice people at the BBC to listen to one of us lowly folk. I have never watched an episode of this show; for that reason i said the episodes themselves are apparently out of sync with the websites. Somewhere along the way this got into my watchlist and i noticed it about a week into the fiasco. How it turns out i don't care so long as it is not inaccurate. A Request for Comment might as well be called Pick which BBC-owned site is inaccurate. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 7:40, 27 January 2011,(UTC)

Discussion of RfC

-Deliriousandlost, you seem to be using a lot of words on this talk page without actually contributing or suggesting a resolution to the situations present. It would seem by your logic we should leave the two specials sitting in an untitled box somewhere between 15 and 16 and hope the BBC and Top Gear page come into alignment. We have no information even suggesting they're aware of the disparity and/or working to resolve it (if ever). Such a solution would leave readers confused and misinformed at best, which is no where near ideal. If the sources are conflicted, then why are we not expressing this in the article itself? I made this addition by adding a "Misc" column, but this was reverted by Drmargi. I believe Drmargi misinterpreted my addition as using the article for a talk page, when I was merely trying to point out to a neutral reader that our sources conflict.

-Furthermore, I disagree with your statement that "they are both apparently out of sync with the content of the show itself". The BBC site is in agreement with the content of the show regarding the USA Road Trip not being apart of series 15. The purposed of this RfC was to attempt to bring consensus to a solution in absence of agreeing sources. Nearly any dispute resolution process (ie RfC) can fall under the category of "Original Research". In fact, I initiated the RfC process to reach *official* consensus over whether to agree with (place "supremacy") of either the BBC website or the Top Gear website in deciding the series number of the USA Special. The issue along with others has been discussed at length in the main Talk body, yet I felt it had become too lengthy (time-wise and content-wise)and pluralized for any real consensus to come from it. Yes I'm aware that both are owned by BBC Worldwide, but, even at that, the BBC site is refered to as "The homepage of the official Top Gear website". Furthermore I've made my position clear that I believe the TopGear.com site is not a reliable source on the subject at hand.

-Therefore your claim that a RfC here is inappropriate I believe to be untrue and invite any administrator to comment as well now that the issues have been laid out. Frankly I think your cry of opposition to a request for comment is an uncalled for attempt to stifle discussion. If an outcome of the discussion is "Original Research", then so be it, but it is unfair to cut something off before anything has resulted.

-I'll admit readily that any consensus we do reach will be inherently tainted for the reasons you've mentioned (conflicting sources), however I feel that taking no action in absence of attempting to reach and/or find agreement through consensus or additional independent sources is a wrong action.MrCrackers (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I point to WP:BURO and WP:IGNORE MrCrackers (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd give much weight to the (now inappropriately placed) comment by Deliriousandlost. Wikipedia has the RfC process as a mechanism of dispute resolution without parameters or pre-qualification, just the recommendation an attempt at discussion on the talk page be made first. That's happened here, therefore RfC has been applied appropriately. In no way does RfC supercede WP:RS or WP:VERIFY; it simply allows for outside perspectives that will lend themselves to resolution of the disagreement. You think the TopGear.com website isn't reliable; I feel it's the most reliable source. We're at impasse, so let's hear what others have to say that might allow for resolution. Nowhere in any of this is anything that remotely suggests WP:OR. I would suggest that, if the RfC above is to be taken seriously, this discussion should halt here, that the furious editing stops, and that everyone concerned lets the outsiders weigh in. Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Drmargi at least I've been able to agree with you about something today. I won't be making any further edits regarding the USA Road Trip (issue at hand) until some sort of consensus has been reached. If we don't receive any written objections or objecting edits to the way the article currently stands then I believe WP:CON has been met. Offhand I suspect the article will have to be protected again at the end of the month to prevent a futile attempt and discussing a moving target MrCrackers (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And I don't. You've got to consider the IP edits that are currently locked out as opinion on which version is correct, and you've GOT TO GIVE IT TIME. The reason we've had this problem is people won't leave it alone. That's what I was trying to convince people to do -- leave it at one version and TALK. Don't push it, don't edit over and over and over -- just leave it alone. You may need to walk away for a week or two. Drmargi (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making significant changes to your comments after the discussion has moved beyond their original versions. I've already said before this blurb that I'm leaving the episode dispute in question alone, so I'm not sure why you are digging in on an issue that doesn't exist. Furthermore, I haven't been editing the disputed portion over and over. Most of my edits have been done to bring all aspects of the article into consistency as well as some un-related polishing. I want to make it clear that I'm going out of my way to be beyond civil and polite with this dispute and solve it according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I don't appreciate your implications that I've been aggressively pushing my opinion or edit warring with no facts to back them up. MrCrackers (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Delirious I think you're still missing the point. If Wikipedia didn't use consensus to accept certain "definitive" sources while downplaying others than there would likely be significantly less progress made as a whole. For example, if a paper encyclopedia has an error on a topic would that topics corresponding Wiki page grind to a halt? No. So how is this example any different than the current situation? Anyways more to the point, while both sites are owned by the BBC we have no information regarding who actually edits, writes, and controls publication of the content. For all we know the BBC Top Gear page is written in China whereas the TopGear.com page is written in South Africa. "Generally accepted" "popularity contest" and "consensus" are all different ways of saying the same thing. And coming to consensus that TopGear.com isn't reliable on this one topic doesn't make the entire source unreliable (see paper encyclopedia example). Your objection to a simple solicitation for comments with the hope of reaching consensus is doing nothing more than taking pre-emptive prejudice against any results and is unproductive in provoking relevant discussion. For all we know an editor will come up with a third independent+reliable source that will solve the issue cleanly. Regardless, an RfC has nothing to do with the integrity of the article directly so therefore your complaint has no merit. If the RfC comes to an agreement, the article changes to reflect, and you disagree with the changes *then* you can start complaining.MrCrackers (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that with these being from the same publisher they live or die together and so does all of their associated use. The publisher is where the reliability lies, not the individual authors. By challenging the reliability of the publisher against itself you doom the whole. Hence i oppose the RfC. Let BBC folk have some time to realise the mess they are making and sort it out. Maybe find a "contact us" link somewhere and tell someone or a few people. In the mean time the article inherently will be messed up and people will edit war over it. So long as they cite a valid reference either point is valid and there isn't anything you can do short of having the whole of the BBC become unreliable to change that.
I am not objecting to the concept of a request for comments. I am objecting to the scope of this particular request for comments. It really does nothing different than the preceding discussion where the changes of the sources were essentially tracked by various people. As to any secondary source that is in blatant contradiction with the primary source, are we to assume the primary source is lieing when the secondary source makes no such claim in backing up its varying data?
And would whomever is moving my comment in the Request For Comments out of the Request For Comments please stop doing that! delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 1:36, 27 January 2011, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−7)

Moving beyond the impasse of BBC vs TopGear.com, the content of the show itself has said (presenter and voiceover as mentioned before) 15x06 was the end of the series. A statement like that would have to run through both the entire Top Gear production team, as well as the BBC directly in order to be aired. Unless we can find a statement on anything BBC owned saying "sorry that was a mistake" or even in replays of 15x06, why would we not take that as being the definitive fact deciding the placement of the USA road trip? This alone combined with agreement from the BBC page (ignoring connection to TopGear.com) to me is ^^ample^^ evidence that the Top Gear page is wrong in this instance (WP:BRAIN). Furthermore my logic is that if we can agree the USA Road Trip is not apart of Series 15, that would immediately disqualify the TopGear.com page as a reliable source thus clearing up the controversy immediately. But apparently people don't agree and thus the Request for Comments. Regardless I don't think it is right to leave the article to devolve into an edit war under the hopes that the BBC will sort their mess out. If we reach a consensus that we can't say what is correct one way or the other than the article should reflect that and get consensus that WP:IGNORE should apply regarding original research for such a special isolated case. MrCrackers (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One version of your comments spoke to bbc.co.uk agreeing with topgear.com that they are specials. The topgear.com episode guide was vacant on the matter but the topgear.com blog called them specials. At that time bbc.co.uk was calling it s15e7 and i-am-not-sure-what the iPlayer was agreeing with the bbc.co.uk episode guide. Then bbc.co.uk came in line with the topgear.com blog. Then there were new posts on the topgear.com blog which called them s15e7 and a special. Then bbc.co.uk called the two specials outside of either s15 or s16. Then topgear.com came out with the episode guide calling them s15e7 and s16e1 and bbc.co.uk added on its own s16e1 which is the episode which follows the two 'specials' that are moving around. There might be a few changes i am missing from that recap. I would have to say it is fundamentally flawed to call the official site of the show inaccurate in its coverage of the show and thus i can not support discarding the info from topgear.com. I haven't seen the episodes but from what those who have viewed them are saying the episodes themselves have not matched up with what is/was available on bbc.co.uk, the iPlayer, and topgear.com most of the time. If you are to use the episodes themselves then there is {{cite episode}}. Such reference is not in the best of tastes to apply to mention of the episode itself in an episode list but is rather intended to be used for mentioning something of note that happened in a particular episode. Tricky. Ignore-all-rules to allow consensus to determine the organisation of the information is what i see as fundamentally original research and the endorsing of personal points of view in an article.
That said, it wasn't too difficult to compose an email and send it to the 'contact us' for each site asking that as they are both owned by BBC that the data be synchronised so that this can be resolved. Here's hoping they listen to me. If anyone else also emails them then maybe it will get noticed and we change bring about the needed change to avoid having conflicting primary sources. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 5:37, 27 January 2011, last Thursday (3 days ago) (UTC−7)

To throw another wrench into the works, the BBC Top Gear page (not TopGear.com) is listed as "The Official Home of Top Gear". However, I don't think sifting through conflicting sources is performing original research, otherwise we could describe any form of selecting references (referencing) as performing original research without discussion ||| I'm with you in hoping you get a response but I bet they get a billion "oh I love your show" emails and thus ignore everythingMrCrackers (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about it being a billion emails but yes i do agree the chances of my emails being noticed are nigh nil. Still, it was trying something rather than not. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

TopGearbox lists the America Special as being Series 16 Episode 1, before counting on from there. I know it isn't an official TopGear website, but numbering the episodes in this manner really does clear up a lot of the confusion. I am not a professional wikipedia user/editor but I feel someone needs to make a decision otherwise this debate will continue on forever. If not we'll have a series which does not have a "Here's what to expect over the coming weeks" introductory video and two other episodes sitting out in the breeze alone. The preview video in this "special" showed footage from every single episode coming up in Series 16. So as far as I am concerned they're all part of it - with the reason for the delay between them caused by the BBC's Snooker schedule. My two cents. Surelysean (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a few days I think that one solution to this introductory video "sitting out in the breeze" might be to make an annotation that the USA Road Trip episode includes the series 16 preview montage. That way even if the episode ends up as 15x07 (please, God, no!) it won't be confusing where to look for "the start" of S16.MrCrackers (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. re "RfC: Should the USA special be counted under Series 15 or 16 or neither?" Well, we sometimes come up with situations like this in regard to, for instance, birthdays, e.g. "Irina Kolpakova (born in Leningrad on either May 22, 1933[1][2] or May 22, 1935[3][4]) is a Russian ballerina". Could this type solution be used here e.g. something like "USA Special is part of either season 15[refs] or season 16[refs] of Top Gear..."? 22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Season 16 issues

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_episodes#Series_Sixteen

Perfect the way it is 173.49.130.9 (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

S16E03

I just did a quick edit on the dates of series 16. Both episodes 2 and 3 were listed as airing January 30th. According to the BBC's programming, episode 3 airs February 6. Jdsouza (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing Yugo model

While I understand the desire to identify the model Yugo used in 16x3, providing a source in Serbo-Croatian (not German) which includes the words "Top Gear", a brochure about various Yugo models that refers to a 2008 appearance on Top Gear, and a picture of what an editor believes to be the same model car (in order to visually verify it was the model used in the episode) does not rise to the standard of verifiability, nor are the sources reliable. The article refers to an old comment of Jeremy's regarding the Yugo, not to the episode, and when accurately translated, offers no information about the model used. Verification of the model must be done using a source that states the model Yugo used in this episode, not a picture that requires the reader to have both seen the episode and remember the car accurately. That may be adequate on a fan site, but doesn't approach verifiability here, no matter how satisfied a given editor may be that he or she has identified the model accurately. Drmargi (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the source? Translation courtesy of Google: "in one of the new episodes sit in "Zastava" 55th scale model" [...] "This time his persecution of the Albanian mafia in fast cars Rolls-rojs and Mercedes, as he tries to escape in one of the former Yugoslav najpozatijih car." MrCrackers (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PS - The brochure is dated Nov 11, 2010 , not 2008 as you say, and the translated website is dated January 28, 2011. MrCrackers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

Old version under question: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Top_Gear_episodes&oldid=413384877#Series_16_Episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCrackers (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and not translated via Google translate. I had a native speaker translate. Drmargi (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Although completely the definition of original research, what is the translation then of the 4th, 5th, and 6th paragraphs? MrCrackers (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references

I'm not sure why but since I last looked at this article every reference has been removed with no justification for the change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless there's a specific problem with the reliability of the source, is there any reason a reference should be removed? MrCrackers (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Series Seventeen

I think that Jeremy Clarkson was talking at the end of the Series Sixteen, was talking about the release of the tribute-DVD about Ayrton Senna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al3x3 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It was part of the news segment and it's not affiliated with Top Gear (see Top Gear (series 16)) MrCrackers (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a release date: https://twitter.com/#!/JamesMayFansite/status/73633589106970624 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.243.196 (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

major issues

Netflix recently released all the series on watch instantly and their line up of episodes is vastly different then what you say is what... bunch of incorrect info here. -1 for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.226.7 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tell us what some of the problems you consider to be present then, rather than doing a drive-by moan - but bear in mind this is meant to be a record of the episodes as originally broadcast on BBC2 in the UK, not whatever is available on Netflix. Halsteadk (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Series 17 Episode 1

Series 17 Episode 1, cars reviewed can be linked to: Marauder, Mini Countryman WRC, BMW 1M— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frereleo (talk • contribs) 09:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Season 17 Episode 5

It states June not July, could this please be corrected by the powers that be, I would do it, but since its semi-protected and/or I'm not logged in I can't do it. Thanks, Conza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.120.236 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Stephenb (Talk) 11:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Previewing" episodes

Was there ever any consensus on whether un-broadcast episodes should be fleshed out? I'm pretty sure it was discussed somewhere, but I can't see where.

I note that all of series 17 has been completed, yet hasn't been broadcast yet. As I write, we're up to Rowan Atkinson. As they haven't happened in a broadcast sense (even though they have been filmed,) should they be descriptive?

Technically they aren't correct, as things may happen to change the broadcast - (heaven forbid) a star could die, or something equally controversial meaning that the episodes are altered, or even something trivial such as the order may be changed.

Anyway, just wondering what others think. a_man_alone (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point and what you said has happened because episode six information was episode 5 but they changed the schedule and I altered it today (18/7/11). The only reason why I added was because the information was there and I never took into account the possibility of this happening I presumed that when the information was released then they would not change it but I was proven wrong. I too would also like to see what others think on this matter as I have not had a lot of experience of dealing with episode information. --Jonny109 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I understand people's eagerness to report what's going to be on the show, I do agree with the OP that before an episode has actually aired anything can happen. Perhaps we could make a (sub)section of upcoming (but not yet aired) episodes or something. After all, most of the time the material is properly sourced and not (necessarily) OR. But as long as it hasn't been aired on the BBC we're talking about future events, so matter-of-factly giving information about episodes that are yet to air (and are therefore subject to change) maybe isn't the best idea. --Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 00:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I say leave it alone. If the future episode info is properly sourced (which it usually is), then it has valid placement in the table. I think people should inherently realize that the air dates are in the future and obviously the info can change. EDIT: Should also add an example argument. If Obama said he was planning on resigning next week, should that not be included in his article because it is in the future because Obama might die or change his mind?MrCrackers (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not actually the same, the Obama argument, because it hasn't happened. The events in the Top Gear episodes *have* happened, they just haven't been broadcast yet. That's the crux of my argument - I don't dispute the validity of them, just the fact that they haven't been broadcast, and so the details surrounding their revelation to the public may change. a_man_alone (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's already covered by #1 under WP:CRYSTAL "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient". MrCrackers (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of verification: several changes have been made to the description of the last (yet to air) episode. Apparently the sources weren't that reliable after all? Just a thought... --Skysmurf^Talk_Contribs 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fabadabean, 1 August 2011

The "as-of" date of 27 February 2011 in the introduction should be replaced with 31 July 2011

Fabadabean (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done and updated the number Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Series 18 start date

Please can we make sure we're certain of our refs before publicising series start dates as fact! People will look here and assume it is a fact if it is here, and all we've based it on is some two-bit website with no basis to claim it starts on 12th Jan. The fact they're saying the main series will start on a Thursday, when TG is always on a Sunday, is surely even more reason to doubt it. Find a second ref that hasn't got it from the first ref. Why not wait until the Beeb itself announces it - ultimately it is them and only them that will know. We are not aiming to be the first to announce it, we are aiming to include it in the article when it is known! Halsteadk (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the article and removed the questionable and ever-changing start date. No one knows reliably until the Beeb makes it public, so let's take it out. Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Episode titles

Hey, guys. This article isn't exactly my territory, so I didn't wanna go change everything, but the Top Gear episodes do have names. Just look here at the BBC episode guide. They also have images that can be used in episode infoboxes. Rockhead126 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and for asking first. However... BBC UK, who actually make the show and are therefore the authoritative source, never use episode titles (except occasionally for specials). The titles you mentioned are probably "invented" by BBC America (for whatever reason) and don't carry any real weight. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Link in Season 17

For the last episode, the Peugeot Ion links to the Mitsubish iMiEV page Ryan R (M_3628905) (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cameron "guest" appearance

A couple of editors have listed PM Cameron as a guest or cameo (an incorrect use of the term) in the India Special. There are a couple of problems with this that I can see, so I have reverted the latest edit. First, the most recent entry describes Cameron's appearance as a "brief cameo", which is both a misuse of the term and redundant, since a cameo is brief by definition. A cameo is a small role played by a well-known actor in a performing art such as film or television, not a blink-and-you'll-miss it appearance as oneself on an unscripted reality show. Minor problem addressed, which leads us to the major problem: whether Cameron should be described as a guest of any sort, given the brevity of his appearance. The guest column is traditionally use to list "Star in the Reasonably Priced Car" guests as well as guests on the show who appear in a feature segment, such as the appearance in a segment about Ferrari made by Steve Coogan. To describe Cameron as a guest is both precious and misleading; his presence in the program can be footnoted, but more than that suggests a more substantive appearance than he actually made. Moreover, other comparable appearances, such as that of the President of Botswana, are not listed, and his was much longer than Cameron's. A bit of consistency, and consensus, is needed here. --Drmargi (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to cameo appearance it need not be an actor - the article specifically includes politicians. Wikipedia has presumably decided what constitutes a cameo so that we don't need to, so we should use that for consistency too. Given that TG and its main situations are clearly planned thoroughly (although not scripted word for word, and yes totally unplanned stuff happens too), I'm also not sure it can be described as an "unscripted reality show" in the way that a similar journey such as Long Way Round would fit the definition. Given the media reaction to Cameron's appearance since, it seems significant that he be mentioned. Given the environmentalist reaction to them driving across Botswana's salt flats, which the (vice-?)President clearly knew they were going to do and didn't appear concerned about, perhaps his appearance is significant too. Halsteadk (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cameron's appearance seems to qualify as an uncredited cameo but the "Guest" column has consistently been used only for people who have been guests appearing in the "Star in a Reasonably Priced Car" segment, so it's inconsistent to include him in this article. His appearance in the special is documented in Top Gear (series 18) and Top Gear: India Special, which is appropriate. He just doesn't belong here. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's my real issue: Cameron is not a guest, certainly not in the way in which guests typically appear on Top Gear. No one is questioning he appeared, so the three sources was killing an ant with a hand grenade. And his appearance should be noted; Aussie has suggested a couple good places for that. But as I said earlier, the guest column isn't the place, and listing him there is potentially misleading. We'll quibble over the misused, and it is misused, of cameo another day. --Drmargi (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I've made uncredited cameos in several national and international newspapers and television programs. My resume is going to be huge..... --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed with this - if that is consistently for the Star then he shouldn't be listed in the same place. Regards, Halsteadk (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

I try to add ratings to the existing tables for each of the episodes, but I can't seem to expand the tables. Could anyone do this for me for one of them, with 'Total viewers (millions)' and 'BBC Two Weekly Ranking' and I'll do everything else myself, or at least demonstrate how it's done. 94.173.99.52 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)