Jump to content

Talk:The Stig/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Archive 2

Page was 95K. So, I've thrown them into another archive.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch TV programme shows Ben Collins unmasked

This youtube video, at around 0.55 mins shows Ben Collins in a car with the stig suit on but no helmet. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VihIf1Fi-BM I can't edit the article so I thought I would place it here for discussion. #Bluebrainfreezy (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original Research. Read it, and come back when you have more credible proof. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. In fact if anyone else is thinking of watching the video - DON'T BOTHER, it shows nothing of the sort. The shot in question is the guy doing the Megane crash test (who is wearing a white shirt). Halsteadk (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that video kind of ancient history anyway? It looks like nonsense to me. Drmargi (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's actually reference #28 in the article. The link is to finalgear.com. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Identity Section

In series 13 episode 1, the Stig was revealed to be Michael Schumacher. 

    He may have been a stand in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.106.205 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless it should be noted that the Stig was indeed revealed in the show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.219.84 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No he wasn't. Learn to spot the difference between a joke and a fact. Enough. Halsteadk (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph Outing

So, now that the Telegraph has allegedly outed Ben Collins as The Stig, I believe this article should be altered to reflect that fact. It may not be the complete truth, but the Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. What say you? 76.10.169.241 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read the Wikipedia article. Thoroughly. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeating of Telegraph Info

Guys, make sure you re-read the article before adding the Ben Collins Telegraph article. It's in there, we don't need people fan-wanking and mentioning the fact hundreds of times in the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

293: did your last revert[1] go one revision too far; it removed the "...open secret..." stuff from The Times. —Sladen (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In the mean time, as in doubt, I've temporarily partially-reverted the change so the Times/Telegraph paragraphs are back. The effect of that edit is now[2]. —Sladen (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Telegraph blurb is contained in reference citation #38 (same link). But the times one is slowly pushing the fact that we're gonna have a glut of Ben Collin material. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
So i've deleted the repeated info, and moved the Times blurb to where the other link posted earlier is. Guys, this is why I said "Look carefully." I can see good faith in the first edit, but now I can't due to the reversions. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly fresh revelations.

The Finnish Tabloid Iltalehti's sports section notes that some British rag has "revealed" (I have zero knowledge as to how reliable a source is in question) that the very first Śtig was in fact Heikki Kovalainen, and that the other Stigs are in fact Russ Swift, Terry Grant, Dan Lang, Chris Goodwin, Julian Bailey and Ben Collins. Could somebody with access to British fish wrap verify this news has indeed been circulating there, and by a source of what level of reliability? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The way the Finnish paper has interpreted Kovalainen as the "first" Stig has been taken out of context, or mis-translated: in the context of the Mail's story, he is described as "first" only as in being first in their list, and it then clearly states Kovalainen appeared once in 2004. Re the Daily Mail's reliability, I think the fact that they said the guy who appeared at the National Television Awards was identified on the basis that someone left the building wearing an "I am the Stig" t-shirt, shows just how reliable a source it is. I can think of more apt types of paper, but you wouldn't wrap your fish in them... Halsteadk (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I kind of think that way about the rival Finnish tabloids too. So what we have here is a chinese whispers version of tabloid journalism. That's settled then. Too bad people who read that article in the Finnish tabloid may have that information stuck in their heads. Not everybody has the good sense ;) to check wikipedia articles, nevermind their talk pages... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

collins

if you'd add lots and lots of alledged evidence for why the stig is ben collins, you'd end up with an article that provokes a proof by verbosity bias, that'd not be in the spirit of good information, would it? all the guesses by newspapers and so on might be very reasonable, but they're guesses never the less, until we find evidence that stacks up reasonably well, it would be wrong to cite any of them in any more then a mention of the name and a reference to the article. as it is now, it reflects the available information wonderfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.66.254 (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Stig Return?

As shown in this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lkh0uWFg9c), The Black Stig could be back! I think this is surely worth a mention in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.224.176 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

*Not really sure why media like The Times has apparently taken it as any indication of even growing speculation.[3] It's clearly just 10 blokes having a laugh on a beach, but fair play to them especially as they've got some publicity! But it's definitely not material for this article, at least until the BBC acknowledges it. Halsteadk (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

press conference

is the press conference the stig recently gave after a show of top gear live of any relvance for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.70.29 (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stig's Communist Cousin

I don't have an account and can't be bothered to make one and autoverify it just for the sake of this one edit, so I'll leave it here: In episode 12x01 during the series preview a red Stig can be seen riding a motorcycle. Jeremy introduces him as "Stig's Communist cousin". This whole segment (as supposedly it involved a chalenge of some sort) was later cut from the series, as noted on "Vietnam revisited" gallery on Top Gear website[4]. It may reappear, as the same page also hints that it shall be included on a DVD (though what DVD they had in mind I do not know). --212.76.37.158 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They had in mind the DVD release of the longer edit of the top gear vietnam special. Floker (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Users keep reverting any mention of this and asking for a source, although in both cases a source of the episode number or a DVD extra has been stated. Could someone please explain why stating the episode he was mentioned in is insufficient to support a statement that he was MENTIONED? Sources do not have to be linkable external web pages. Halsteadk (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources. Again, cite sources, or it gets deleted. Merely stating the episode isn't enough. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sources have to be verifiable. That is the issue. The episode, as aired, did not have this segment. The DVD as yet is not released (as far as I know). So neither of those would be good sources.-Localzuk(talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? The Episode I can see, but the DVD of the actual race, with all the extras that producers try to lure you in with because they need to make the money back somehow isn't exactly reliable? Am I reading this right?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said at all, and I really can't see how you've managed to read that into what I said. I said the segment in question was not shown in the episode on tv (ie. the episode didn't contain this 'communist stig'. Therefore, the episode could not be a source for this. I then said that the DVD has not been released yet. ie. it doesn't exist. So, it isn't a source, let alone a reliable one. How did you not understand that?-Localzuk(talk) 10:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
3 cans of Monster Energy Drink?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
well the dvd exists now - its in the shops. communist stig does exist. mentioning the first episode of series 12 (where he appeared in the preview) and referencing the DVD must surely be enough to allow its mention 128.243.253.112 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel something has been missed here. S12 Ep1 *mentioned* this Stig during the series intro, so surely this episode is sufficient source to say that this Stig has been *mentioned*, but nothing more (because as has been said the segment never aired)?? If the episode is not a sufficient source to cite what happened in it, then what is the valid source for all the material in the episode guides? Halsteadk (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

completely agree with you on that and as he's on the DVD deleted scenes then thats surely got to be enough isn't it? also i know it won't be a reputable source but those segements are on youtube too (just such stig communist cousin) 128.243.253.103 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How To identify the Several stigs

There are several drivers who play the stig. But there is a clue that goes outside hinting who the driver is. The key is in the helmet.

There are two men who play the White Stig in the Top Gear TV Show. The First can be recognized by being tall, athletic (fit) and mostly flat stomach, Most Importantly the Helmet around the area that covers the mouth is in the shape of a triangle with a high relief of two horizontal shapes above the mouth and three vertical shapes from mouth to chin which gives the impression of a larger face. you can see also see two slim "air intakes" more or less in the cheek area (each side) one small other large they are not straight but diagonal. No advertisement on the helmet, except for two little logos in the sides of the visor. You can see it here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tellycars/2587450803/ and here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/halfbyte/1531969252/ and here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/halfbyte/2101913963/ or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78O4ZEXjw1c or : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_prr2MVczc

Whenever Perry McCarthy drives he can be recognized whenever he's playing the black stig for Top Gear TV Show (not anymore since season 4 or so) or playing the white stig for the Top Gear Magazine, He's recognizable by the little bigger stomach than the TV stig and for the helmet which around the area of the mouth has a slight depression with the shape of a pentagon, also you can see three (not two like the TV stig) "air intakes" around the cheek area (both sides) but these ones are straight not diagonal, and an additional 4 "air intakes" around the chin area, plus an advertisement logo in red letters that reads SIMPSON. (you can see how the overalls fit differently respect the TV Stig) You can see it here: http://vimeo.com/2893229, and the black one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00481/stig385_481471a.jpg some press have shot McCarthy on the street pointing to others drivers names: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wapster/3138364230/

there is a third guy (most likely played by Ben Collins) that uses a helmet similar to Perry McCarthy's for playing the white stig in close contact events and in the Top Gear TV show. The helmet is: around the mouth it is a pentagon but with a relief not a depression and three equal sized "air intakes" around the cheek area, still with the name SIMPSON in red letters. This guy is no athletic Nor former-athletic-with-big-stomach, this guy is thin (or at least thinner than the other TV Stig and McCarthy) and the overalls look not is tight in the arms as with the other two stigs: see here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/njsphoto/201240956/ or here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:The_Stig_British_International_Motor_Show_.jpg or more famously here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnmWpSCXPbs this is : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7fWGohtTmI

So, anyone who's registered can add it to the article since it is locked for anonymous users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.15.84 (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

the stig is always commented as an it , so i suggest he is changed to it SkyPaulusPlus (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not always the case, the Stig is often referred to as "he". Halsteadk (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4286448/Who-is-the-Stig-The-answer.html There you go confirmation who it is add it to the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.221.233 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This reference is already covered under "Identity". It is a reference to a claim of identity from rather questionable sources interviewed by the Telegraph, not a proven actual fact. Halsteadk (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tame Racing Driver

It is not "untame racing driver", it is TAME racing driver, please stop changing it. As quoted by the BBC: "Every performance road car that comes to the Top Gear test track eventually ends up in the hands of our tame racing driver. Some say that his face appears on high-value stamps in Sweden and that he's afraid of bells. All we know is, he's called the Stig." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.22.34 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Schumacher

honestly, does the fact schumacher came on top gear 'as the stig' need to be included different 4 times in the article? chocobogamer mine 20:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the article, it is possible that it's all a massive joke about the controversy. There's evidence that it was all a big joke in the show, paart from the afformentioned point that Michael Schumacher was listed as a guest and not the Stig, it's also evident when he tried to go around the track in the Suzuki Liana. Mainly that Stig already took the Liana around the track in episode 2 of series 8, posting a time of 1:44.4. Though I do agree, it doesn't need to be mentioned as oftena s it is. Looneyman (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher did not do a lap time because he already did one in the previous series (as The Stig). The lap at the end of the show was obviously a joke (Schumacher can actually drive a normal car). Schumacher being the Stig was confirmed almost immediately afterwards by BBC Three news. Criffer (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What was their source of the confirmation? --Tango (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's blatant OR, but he just didn't look like The Stig to me - his posture and gait was all wrong. It's possible that was because he wasn't making the effort to be in character, but I'm putting it firmly in the "evidence against" column. I reckon we'll find out tomorrow sometime when somebody makes a statement to the press. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we could tone down the "elaborate" and "massive" terminology in relation to the scale of the gag too... Halsteadk (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As stated in the introduction by May and Clarkson, no one is allowed to take home his Ferrari FXX but Schumacher (it's the only black one without a stripe as mentioned here. And as he was already there to drive the car, why not go all the way and say he's the Stig. It's so obvious, really. 82.176.160.13 (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the mention from the lead, and transferred it into the Identity section. The speculation from Jalopnik should remain given it does fit in with the section concerning the press throwing around theories about who The Stig is. As for the others.....I say leave it in for the time being and let the hype die down abit before we aggressively edit it further to fit it into the article. For all we know, it's gonna be the "Running Gag" in Season 13 (Like Hammonds alleged "fetish" of Teeth Whitening (Season 8?), the scorn and anticipation of the Dacia Sandero from season 11 and 12, etc.) --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Are we sure it was the Stig who drove the FXX and got the best lap time? It might have been Schumacher. It would seem he is the reason they got the car tested in the first place, and they decided to play a prank on people telling them he was the stig, since Ferarri obviously would only trust Schumacher with the car. That's my view at least. It seems quite a coincidence that Schumacher was revealed as the Stig, the same show they got a car who most people would think of impossible to test. --Suzpaz (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should not say it is a fake,but maybe say many people think it is a fake. However,ur right,The Stig is definatly not Michael Schumacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15wuh1 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Ferrari wouldn't let the actual Stig drive the FXX so they sent Schumacher with his own black FXX to wear Stigs costume. TG decided to use this to get publicity for the new series by saying the Stig would be 'unmasked', the lap at the end was just there to prove he isnt Stig. 80.0.209.179 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

<snip!> I've removed what was copy-and-pasted here verbatim from a web article. Those texts are copyright of whoever wrote them and cannot be posted verbatim into Wikipedia, which is GFDL and CC licensed. The remark from 293 below refers to the original post. Zunaid 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Captain Obvious.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are a couple people on here who believe the Stig to be Schuey. If you check out the Top Gear site and watch the interview with Michael in which he talks about lapping in the FXX it becomes pretty obvious he isn't actually the Stig. He talks having to take a few laps to learn the layout of the track, something the real Stig simply wouldn't have to do. So there it is, full and properly sourced evidence for something which was already pretty obvious. Here's a link http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/schuey-in-the-FXX Tocheb73 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point and the Telegraph confirms your assumption - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5603990/Seven-million-watch-Michael-Schumacher-unveiled-as-The-Stig.html


The credits for the first episode of for season 13 has Schumacher as the quest, and "the sting" is still written as one of the hosts. In fact, the episode finishes as Hammond saying "we [or you, it is indistinguishable] made it up" and Jeremy saying "and that is the bombshell". It is clear that Schumacher is not the sting.

Grammar correction to Black Stig section.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the section, Black Stig / The Stig (Series 1&2), there is a small error which I am not authorized to correct.

The passage reads: Clarkson then described the Stig as having a very small brain, who had worthless opinions, and a disorder described by Clarkson as "Mansell Syndrome".

The passage should read: Clarkson then described the Stig as having a very small brain, worthless opinions, and a disorder described by Clarkson as "Mansell Syndrome".

"who had worthless opinions" is incorrect.

Mclarkson (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

checkY done ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just done a minor correction to the above bit. Looneyman (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Long Hair

In the episode in which they take a derv beemer round the 24 hour le mans, I remember there was one clear shot where the Stig had long hair poking out the back of his helmet. This was after the car broke down and they were obviously in a hurry to get it/him back out. Unfortunatley I can't find a clip of this video to prove it. Nor can i find any other mention of it it anywhere.

The real Stig possibly revealed?

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/06/the-stig-finally-revealed-on-top-gear.html I recently saw this and thought I would share with you guys :) I am new here and so I don't want to edit the main article and mess anything up :) --Lapchair (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's what we've all been discussing over the past couple of days. It's not new. Looneyman (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In the First Episode of Season Thirteen it was reveled that The Stig is in fact Michael Schumacher.

See three of the immediate four discussions above. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lapchair and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for adding the link: as the other posters have said, there's already been quite a bit of debate about this issue already, but additional sources are always welcome for articles and if you're not sure where they might fit into an article, adding them to talk pages is usually a good starting point. Happy editing!
~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Schumacher talks about lapping in the FXX and it becomes pretty obvious he isn't actually the Stig. He talks about having to take a few laps to learn the layout of the track, something the real 'Stig' presumably wouldn't have need to do." - This is opinion, speculation and editorial. It has no place in an encyclopedia. 78.105.127.160 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a better account of the stunt. 78.105.127.160 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet again someone who believes everything they see has changed it,
"In the first episode of the thirteenth season of Top Gear, White Stig unveiled his helmet to reveal himself as Michael Schumacher.[12]"
grrr :@ --84.67.83.99 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It does impress me how many people believe Schumacher is the stig... I guess it is some sort of indicator of the average en.wp user's intelligence. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I've sucessfully reverted it back to what it was. Looneyman (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd be a wee bit careful about saying the talk page "proves" Schumacher is not The Stig. Given the Wikipedia's stand on original research, and the level of speculation gathered here, I think I'd find another way to justify a revert. You haven't proven anything we're perfectly honest, just gathered some evidence calling the Schumacher as Stig thesis into question. Mind, I'm NOT suggesting the revert is out of order; quite the opposite. Im just think it should be justified using a bit more accurate and appropriate language. Drmargi (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I did used the wrong wording. I was trying to point out the links that had been provided here. Looneyman (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My comments weren't intended as a criticism, just a suggestion. I get what you were trying to do, and agree with it completely. I can just see some jarhead using your claims of proof to revert your edit or add the Schumacher thing again. I'm remembering the whole debacle with Top Gear Dog and Sabine Schmidt last summer, and can see us potentially going down the same road again! Let's not give the true believers any fuel to justify repeated additions of the so-called revelation. Drmargi (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the old Top Gear Dog scenario with one person stiring the pot leading to a sockpuppet case. I remember that and I can see your point. Let's not feed the trolls then. Looneyman (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As 293.xx says in one of the discussions above, there's something to be said in letting the over-excited fans calm down and in a few weeks everyone will have forgotten about it and facts and balance can be returned on a more permanent basis to the article! I would just revert obvious rubbish but don't waste time in lengthy arguments - that was all the sockpuppet in the above case was doing, just wasting everyone's time and trying to wind people up (and unfortunately that part of it worked). Halsteadk (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That's probably pretty wise thinking, Halstead. At least that whole sockpuppet business was entertaining (I passed an amused hour in the American Airlines Lounge at LAX reading it all the day I discovered it.) This is the same kind of annoyance as all the entries after the new Doctor Who was announced. The dust will settle, and then the article can have a good editor give it the once-over to fine-tune the Identity section. Drmargi (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stig Parody

Can someone work this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTJrauGOow into the article. It's an Australian comdey program known as the Chasers War On Everything and they want to test to see if you can hitch a free ride if one of the presenters is dressed up as The Stig

Slightly amusing, but not really notable enough to go on an encyclopedia page - and adding a link to a TV clip which has been uploaded to Youtube would breach Wikipedia's rules on copyright violation. By the way, can you sign your posts at the end of your comment, either by by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) or by clicking on the signature button located above the edit window? That way, other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Cheers ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Origins/Perry McCarthy brouhaha.

Okay, I think a fair compromise needs to be in order. I'm gonna suggest thus: Origins of Stiggy needs to stick to "Top Gear Canon"; if it was in the Top Gear show, it goes into Origins. (The lead paragraph should stay because it actually provides a direct explanation of how The Stig name came to be from Jeremy's sick twisted mind.) Trying to ID who's Stiggy in the flesh should go into Identity so that we don't keep repeating info. Agreed?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good and quite obvious once you think of it. One of these days I'll WP:BRD the article and rewrite it, will try to come up with headings and/or an article structure that discourages these trivia listings. Zunaid 09:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Julian Bailey interview

In an interview with Motor Sport magazine this month, Julian Bailey says:


Taylor, Simon (2009). "Lunch with...Julian Bailey". Motor Sport. 85 (10): 78–84. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Perhaps this could be integrated into the article?--Midgrid(talk) 18:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The stig unmasked

Im not sure if this is anything special or will help the article but on the BBC youtube page the stig is unmasked, noy sure if it is fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifrtlC4NTys 98.117.34.180 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this suggestion is anything special, but how about reading the page? Or this talk page? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)+
How about moving the "reveal" higher up in the identity section (like, the beginning of the first paragraph) so that it is much more clearly pronounced in the article. Considering that most people would likely come across the Top Gear video rather then the other sources of speculation, this would give the section a bit better flow, and not to mention clear up a lot of confusion. The information about the on-show "reveal" is quite well hidden at the bottom of the paragraph, so if casual Wiki searchers (like myself) come across the article, it is pretty tough to pick out the two sentences that touch that clip. 159.127.66.112 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

HEADS UP!! BBCAmerica ran the Shumacher as "Stig" episode tonight, so we'll have another 'round of changes from largely US/Canadian IP's. Patience, fellow editors. These aren't necessarily vandals. Drmargi (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, Australian channel nine has just aired that ep tonight. Good luck with that. 20:35, 20 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.85.144 (talk)

List of introductions removed

Due to being a trivia-esque listing of miscellaneous information that has little bearing on the character. See WP:NOT (not a collection of random information). DP76764 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor placing those introductions has one block for abuse of editing already, for this same edit, and now has most likely violated WP:3RR again. We're getting nowhere with this. Drmargi (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It might help if editors put new warning messages on his page - none have been added despite him reinstating this 3 times since he was unblocked, so I have added the first. Without a series of warnings I doubt he will be blocked again (not expecting him to take any notice of the warnings). Halsteadk (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, he's put it back in 4 times not 3! Halsteadk (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Mea culpa -- I meant to put one in after I posted above, the phone rang, Doctor Who required extensive discussion, and I lost the thought. Half the time, I don't get them up because I can't find the right template -- user friendly the template system ain't. Drmargi (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn't for Twinkle I probably wouldn't either. Halsteadk (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bikini Stig?

In Series 10 Ep 09 (the dvd...not sure about broadcast), there are quite a few scenes of The Stig relaxing by a pool with a helmeted bikini stig swimming in the background and getting out of the pool. Shouldn't this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.94.93 (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that's notible enough. Looneyman (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stig has been identified

In a recent episode (I saw it on BBC America, so I am not sure what the original air date would be), it was revealed that the Stig was Formula One racer Michael Schumacher. While it is possible that this was a joke of some sort, it should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Had you considered reading the article at all? It is mentioned. It was a joke. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah... never mind... I see now that it is, in fact, mentioned... my appologies. However the mention is hard to find as it is, burried down near the end. My I strongly suggest that you restructure the section to account for the "Shumacher reveal" at the start, rather than at the end of the section. As it currently stands, the opening sentence of the section appears to be incorrect (even though it is technically correct). This is the sort of explanation that needs to go right up front. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously disagree with "recentism", ie changing the article to put more emphasis on something because it was recent rather than significant. However, if it will cut down on the number of people editing in this "fact" who don't understand the sheer improbability of a billionaire, 7-times world champion racing driver being willing to appear anonymously in a racing suit for 6 years on a TV show with a tight publicly-funded budget not even made in his home country... Seriously, do they edit TG in such a way for BBC America that jokes are no longer obvious? Halsteadk (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think they may edit the show differently for the American audience. I often notice edits that seem jarring... making me wonder if they had cut material (and wonder what I had missed). There is also the fact that British humor is often subtler than Americans are used to... to the point where Joe American may not always "get it". It does not surprize me that many Americans watching that episode took the "reveal" at face value.
My argument for moving discussion of the "Shumacher reveal" up to the front is not really based on recentism... but on clarity. The section starts off with the strong statement: "The Stig's true identity has never been revealed on the show"... but millions of viewers will say that Stig's identity has been revealed on the show (as Shumacher)... so we need to explain that this was a joke so they can make sense of the statement... That Shumacher isn't his true identity.
(Or is it?... it would not be at all out of character for Top Gear to pull a double hoax on us... really revealing Stig's true identity, but in a way that made the fans question it... thus fueling more speculation as to who the Stig really is, when in fact they already told us. Or not. )Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If the show there is an hour including adverts, it's been edited down, because in the UK it's an hour and shown uninterrupted as it's on the BBC. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having seen both the US and UK versions, I can confirm the Ferarri lap and "Stig reveal" segments are intact. Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:OBVIOUS, I've added[5] a note for the humour impaired foreign audiences. This also helps to get some weight as the extent of the character's social influence. —Sladen (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If memory serves, there seemed to be the same humor impairment among British audiences as well, given the number of reverts that were required back when this ran in the UK. One might also remember we are amply supplied with sports, including vigorous racing community of our own, and highfalutin' German F1 drivers aren't necessarily the big deal here they are in the UK. Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the tone of this article

As the Stig is not a real person, he should not be described as such. Efforts to make that clear have been repeatedly reverted for no reason. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to help maintain the show's in-jokes. This article needs to be factual. I've started making some of the needed changes, but the in-universe style is so pervasive it will require major rewriting. Help is appreciated! 169.233.38.156 (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the version you reverted was better. I don't think that the article can really be in-universe, given that Top Gear doesn't take place in an alternate reality or anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Stig IS a real person. Although his identity is unknown, he is still flesh and blood. He is a real person, we just don't know who his name is Also, you appear to be stating the argument of it's true, which isn't a suffricient argument. Looneyman (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm on the fence on this one, but does it make a difference that we don't know whether "The Stig" is one person or various people (which seems 99% likely, particularly when the Stig is on non-racing duty - eg catching buses across London). Most of what we know of "the Stig" is a caricature. Halsteadk (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Asserting that edits have been made "for no reason" is hardly assuming good faith - and edit warring is not the answer. My objection to the edits in question is the opposite to the above. It isn't a "closely guarded secret", it's widely known (and referenced in the article) that the Stig is usually Ben Collins, but has been played by several drivers. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope we can end it here. I don't mean offense to anyone but this debate and edit war has been quite stupid. Looneyman (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I find it sad that there's such a concerted effort to make Wikipedia counter-factual, but I'll drop it here since there's no point in fighting people who are determined to be so destructive. The fact that the Stig is multiple people is clearly stated in the references, but is buried in the article. Everyone who has obstructed changes to this article are destructive vandals. Wikipedia is not your personal playground. Allowing even one article to be as full of nonsense as this is detrimental to the whole project. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How do we put an end to this? The above anonymous editor appears to be assuming bad faith in other editors. He's sent me 2 messages about my edits being destructive. My view on this is that it's already mentioned (and I think it's mentioned clearly in the identity section) so it doesn't need another mention. Looneyman (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As for "buried", I don't have a problem with having to read an article to find out what's in it - I wish more editors would read the articles before editing them! No objection in principle to tweaking the lead to make it clearer - I do object to over-emphasising the point though, personally I think it's made quite clear. The editor in question *says* He is going to "drop it". If he carries on with spurious vandalism accusations and personal abuse I feel he may indeed be doing so... -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Records

How does the following make sense?

"The Stig's fastest official lap time around the Top Gear test track was 1 minute 10.7 seconds in a Ferrari FXX [23], although this was later removed as it was revealed that the lap was done on slick tyres, which contravenes the rules. Faster times had previously been posted in a Renault F1 car (0.59.0),[24] an Aston Martin DBR9 (1.08.6)[25] and a Caparo T1 (1:10.6),[26] but the times of these cars were not included on the Lap Board either because they were deemed not to be street-practical because of their being unable to run over a "sleeping policeman" safely, or because they could not be purchased by the public."

What makes the Ferrari lap time official and the faster Renault, Aston Martin and Caparo ones not? It clearly states none were included on the Lap Board for failing to meet the criteria. Based on this evidence surely the Ferrari set the 4th fastest unofficial time. Kmitch87 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Identity

BBC America has (April 10th 2010) a clip from S14 E4 with Guy Ritchie as the SiaRPC. The clip is ~1:40 long. At around 1:02 Ritchie comments that he is being too conservative. A person (off screen) with a US accent replies, "Yeah, you got to tear it up, man.", to which Ritchie agrees and refers to them as "Mr Stig". http://www.bbcamerica.com/video/topgear.jsp (yes, yes, I know, but those of with too much invested in this might find it interesting) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.55.62 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Does anyone actually have a source to say Michael Schumacher is not The Stig? Nowhere in the episode did they say he was not. Clarkson said he didn't think he was The Stig, but that may have been a joke to hide that Schumacher really is The Stig. Some people may believe it is "obvious" that the Schumacher revealing was a joke but it still needs a source. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue the opposite is true, and to the standard of WP:RS. The show casts plenty of doubt on whether Schumacher is the Stig, particularly given he was there to drive a particular Ferrari, and the whole "Stig gets lost" bit at the end. Therefore, you need a reliable soure that he is the Stig. Drmargi (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Drmargi. You have to have evidence that something is true to include it - not provide evidence that it isn't before it is excluded. You can't write that the core of Neptune is made of cheese on the basis there isn't a source to say it isn't made of cheese. Most (not "some") people would also reasonably believe it rather unlikely that a seven-times former world champion Formula 1 racing driver worth hundreds of millions of dollars would agree to appear anonymously on a British TV show for the last 7 years anyway. Halsteadk (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, a bit. It is nothing like Neptune being made of cheese, in the show they said that he is The Stig and even though it was a joke, they didn't say it in a jokey way and I'm sure many people were fooled. I suppose it is fair to assume it was a joke without a source but I still think that the paragraph could be better worded. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Stig/Archive_3&oldid=1148677047"