Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Criticism article

Ok guys, after a few weeks of work, the critism section now has it's own article. If you want to help, the article is here. Looneyman (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done, sir! One small (uh...) criticism. The word criticism is both singular and plural, so the article should be CRITICISM of Top Gear, not Criticisms. Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Islander has correctedit for me. Thanks for telling me anyway. Looneyman (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for all the hard work. Drmargi (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Running gags

A recent edit about running gags has been undone (not by me). Although poorly-written and unreferenced, it makes a valid point about the "Dacia Sandero", which has appeared in at least the last 2 seasons. Adequately referenced content about this would be welcome. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article already contains too many arbitrary lists of content. As a long-running, feature-centric show there is no way that all of these things can be represented adequately in an article which is supposed to concentrate on the show's real-world impact, its influences et cetera. If a particular running gag is so important that secondary sources flag it as being representative of the show, or if it otherwise affects the show's perception or influence, then that would be worth including. But simply listing them because they happened isn't appropriate. Good Articles can get away with stuff like this occasionally; Featured Articles can't. We should be aiming for FA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"We should be aiming for FA"? Your only contributions in the last 500 have been the recent revert and attempt to rename the artcile which you promptly self-reverted.

Re "... the show's real-world impact, its influences et cetera ..." I was under the impression that the show is light entertainment. What impact and influences did you have in mind? --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How many edits I have to the article is irrelevant to whether I am entitled to an opinion on it. I dare say that not having been deeply involved in its current state might make me more objective in its appraisal. As for its impact, it is one of the world's longest-running car shows and one of the most popular shows on BBC2 by some distance, so I dare say there may be something more important to write about it than a list of its most recent recurring jokes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Running gags that last for a series or two should only really go in the appropriate series articles. They aren't notible enough to be in the main article. Looneyman (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re "Running gags that last for a series or two ..." you may have a fair point. But we won't really know how enduring a feature they are without doing some research. --Philcha (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And until that "research" is done, it's just unsourced material. Removing unsourced material from an article is not, or at least should not be, controversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I see there was an attempt to restore the "running gags" section under the premise of giving it a chance. It's been reverted again, a decision I'd support. Running gags are long-term in nature, not confined to a handful of episodes. While they've collected a few odds and ends under this title, they've missed the most important running gag of them all: "How hard can it be?" which speaks to how inappropriate this section is. Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. If anyone's confused about the Dacia Sandero, go to the relevent episode page on List of Top Gear episodes. And there your answer will be. We need to use the other pages for this type of material. This page should be about the Top Gear programme as a whole. If the joke wasn't carried from the beginning to the end, like for example the Stig's alienish habits, then it should be on the relevent series page. LicenseFee (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add further weight to the arguments put forward by Drmargi, LicenseFee and Chris Cunningham - this sort of material is "fancruft" and has no place in this article. It is not a significant part of the show and is of no potential interest to anyone who has not watched the last 2 series. This article is NOT primarily written for the benefit and amusement of fans of the show. Philcha has clearly missed the point that a show of this worldwide popularity does have an impact and influence as well as pure entertainment value. Halsteadk (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's confused about the Dacia Sandero, go to the relevent episode page on List of Top Gear episodes. How would they know to look there in the first place? As ever, The Simpsons have established a precedent with Recurring jokes in The Simpsons (specifically the Catchphrases section, which looks suspiciously like... a list!). Also The Simpsons opening sequence. 121.45.134.67 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How would they know to go there in the first place?. Logic? If I wanted to know what American reference South Park was alluding to in the last episode which skipped over my British brain, I'd go to the episode list...LicenseFee (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Without a section like this, how would anyone know the Sandero thing was a running joke that ran for all of series 11 and spilled into series 12 without (knowing to) read the episode guides for both series? Consider a situation of a person who becomes interested in the show in three, five or twenty years (who has no idea of previous running jokes) and wants to know a bit of summary info without needing to click through 12+ pages of content to get it. 121.45.134.67 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but surely on that model we'd have to put every joke ever on Top Gear on the front page... and that would make the page stupidly long and then no one would ever read it. Sorry, am I being thick here? LicenseFee (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not every joke ever, just the ones that can be classified as "running". I don't think there are that many: Hammond's teeth whitening, May's sense of direction and fastidiousness, Dacia Sandero, "Some say..." Stig intros, "How hard can it be?", etc. The problem is how to define what constitutes a running joke. How is it done for the Simpsons list? I don't have a particular interest in this section, but I'm trying to think impartially about the negative impact it's exclusion could have on TG content in the future (see my previous comment). 121.45.134.67 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that you're taking WP's treatment of The Simpsons articles as the gold standard to reach for here. While there are great Simpsons articles, that's mostly because the show is the most-discussed animated series in history, and every single aspect of it has been covered to death in reliable secondary sources. There are no such sources for the modern Top Gear; this means that all such lists read like Wikipedia's bad Simpsons articles - full of mindless, trivial fancruft to the exclusion of anything an outsider might understand or care about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with thumperward. We need to avoid fancruft. Having a 'running joke' section is just asking for people to stick in any old fact that they saw on the television. The Simpsons is not God's article. If it was, then - surely - we need to adapt the episode lists and other tweaks. And also, there is a big difference in the fact that the simpsons is a comedy show - for comedy. Top Gear is, supposed, to be about cars. Hence the listing of featured cars. Comedy is not that integral to this page. Also, I doubt anyone will go to Wiki to know the entire episode. They could just watch the damn thing, after all. LicenseFee (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the running jokes are particularly important or vital to the show. Out of the list that 121.45.134.67 writes, only "May's sense of direction and fastidiousness" stands out as being significant - and that is not a "running gag" as such - it is an important part of the relationship between the 3 presenters, and it's that relationship which is probably the single most important part of Top Gear's success and distinction. Halsteadk (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the running jokes are particularly important or vital to the show. This is the problem. Some people think they're important, others don't. I suppose that until a writer from The Telegraph, or CNN or some other cite-able source says so, they're not important enough to include, regardless of whether they actually exist. Just found one, bear with me: "The world's most entertaining car show's popularity owes much to the relationship between its three presenters." [1] The ridicule the hosts direct at one another is an important aspect of their (on-screen) relationship, "Hammond... is the butt of good-natured ribbing about his diminutive height by Clarkson and May," [2] "... the irreverent tone often employed by the presenters, with such exchanges being typical of their style" [3] and some of that ridicule takes the form of a running gag (teeth whitening etc). WPs own definition of a Running gag, that "the humor in a running gag derives entirely from how often it is repeated", supports this notion, since many topics they use to poke fun at each other are brought up on a regular basis. As already stated, this is part of their relationship, which is important to the popularity of the show. In summary: ribbing (running gags) -> chemistry -> popularity. What have I missed? As for treating the Simpsons articles as the gold standard? Please. It was merely a convenient example that I'm sure most people are familiar with. BTW, since they've been 'covered to death' elsewhere, maybe the bulk of Simpsons content in WP should be removed and replaced with links to these definitive sources? 121.45.134.67 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1st news.au.com artcile is about the "chemistry" between the presenters, not a running gag. the BBC blog page has the same problem, and is not WP:RS since it's posted under an alias rather than by a staff reporter. OTOH the 2nd news.au.com article's comments on Hammond's (lack of) height describe a running gag. If someone could find refs for "... our tame racing driver. Some say that ... All we know is, he's called 'The Stig'", or the stuff about the Dacia Sandero, both of which have the formulaic nature of a running gag, that would be excellent. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary lists

Let's have a look at all the lists this article currently contains:

1. "Unusual reviews": an arbitrary, user-selected list of various quirky car reviews. No analyses or comments from secondary sources.
2. "Significant cars": an arbitrary, user-selected list of reviews of cars not recently released. No analyses or comments from secondary sources.
3. "Car of the year": an information dump. No analyses or comments from secondary sources.
4. "Ownership survey": an information dump. No analyses or comments from secondary sources.
5. "Soundtrack": a phone poll James May did once. No analyses or comments from secondary sources.
6. CD releases: a table of compact discs marketed by the BBC under the Top Gear brand. No actual tie-in from the show at all. No analyses or comments from secondary sources.
7. DVD releases.

Of the seven lists or list-like tables in the article, only the last one could reasonably be expected to be found somewhere at the end of a normal TV programme article. This one is in the middle of the article.

Most of this information (especially the phone poll) is trivial reiteration of episode content. It could safely be removed and replaced with some prose summarising it, and indeed this would significantly improve some parts of the article - the quirky review style is indeed something which is picked up on by critics, and one of the main draws of the show. Currently, the article devotes one line to this general concept. For comparison, this is 50% of the space devoted to discussion of Hammond and Clarkson's one-upmanship on the Cool Wall.

Proposed solution: slap a {{prose}} tag on 1 and 2 until they can be referenced and rewritten, remove 3, 4 and 5 as trivia, split 6 to its own article and move 7 to the end of the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unusual reviews" section

An anon IP (good faith, not vandal) disagrees with the shortening of the "Unusual reviews" section that was agreed during the GA review. Please comment. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the Unusual reviews are effectively small challenges, why not move them into the Challenges article? I proposed that before but nobody commented. Looneyman (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if this section is broken off into it's on page, but I would like to see the contents retained. Yes, the information in this section can be found in the episode guides, but assuming this is sufficient is a bad idea. I think it's completely unnecessary that somebody unfamiliar with Top Gear should have to trawl through the quite large episode guides (12 series' and counting) to find some detail about one of the distinguishing aspects of the show. This POV is summed up well by Jonathonbarton in a previous discussion on the TG article layout (apologies for quoting such a large portion):

...the point that this article is the first Non-BBC, non Fansite hit (being 6th overall) on Google is significant. Also, Graham, I believe that a distinction needs to be made between the Intent of Wikipedia, and it's actual, real-world use. <snip> So long as the content is "editorially neutral", I see no problem with including as much detail as possible. Why? Well, anyone have any idea what Top Gear was like in 1977 when they perhaps did a bit about a Ford Cortina? I didn't think so. Me neither, though I'd LOVE to be able to come here and find out...I also believe that being able to come here in 20 years and learn about what Top Gear was like in the year 2002 will be equally fascinating (and, if you had your way) equally hard to find.

The (equally redundant) Races, Challenges, and Power Laps pages exist for similar reasons. I agree with Looneyman in that the Unusual Reviews are small challenges, and that this section should be moved to the Challenges page.121.45.134.67 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. "Usefulness" is not the criterion we use for inclusion - there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the casual 2028 observer is going to be more interested in trivial regarding individual episode content than a wider overview of what the show was about, what critical acclaim it achieved and so on. We do not exist to catalogue popular culture; I find it very difficult to believe that there are no external Top Gear fansites which do this better. Some content simply doesn't belong here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's rash to guess what readers will or will not be interested in in 2028. For all we know Sun Microsystems may then be out of business or merged to the point of invisibility well before 2028, and all its products except Java (programming language) may be long forgotten. --Philcha (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, then even if the current Sun article were frozen today it would provide an excellent historical guide to the subject. Note that it provides multitudes of reliable secondary sources and concentrates on establishing the importance of each area it covers; other than a large list of acquisitions it shies away from large data dumps of unestablished importance. We would do well to aim for that kid of coverage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your "unestablished importance" highlights the fundamental issue - you appear unable to accept that what is important to you is unimportant to other people and vice versa. I've just looked at Sun Microsystems and have seen several items whose importance an alternate-universe version of you might dispute, if he worked for some other company or outside the computer industry. However I do not consider it reasonable for me to raise objections against these items, because someone with more knowledge of the subject has considered them worth including. I suggest you show similar consideration for items in articles in which you have little direct interest. --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore any other commentary on my character, as the number of edits I've made here, who I work for et cetera are of no relevance at all to whether my points are valid. There's no way of proving the negative that editors in the future will be less interested in historical impact, influences, relation to contemporary arts and such than they are in fancruft, but it's strongly suggested by our current content policies (especially the various sections of WP:NOT). As such, I'm going to keep working on splitting, rewriting or deleting inappropriate sections and hopefully expanding appropriate ones until this article would likely be assessed by an uninvolved editor as a good article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed that a GA review is in progress, and that it has raised several sourcing issues?

Re your suggestion that future editors will be interested in historical impact, influences, relation to contemporary arts, etc., it would be interesting if you could provide sources for items on these topics. I can even suggest some influences you might like to consider -On the Braden Beat, Braden's Week and That's Life! presented a similar combination of consumer affairs and humour, mainly anti-establishent, on UK TV in the 1960s and 1970s.

Re your comments about "fancruft", as I said, people who have a real interest in the subject are best qualified to judge. The two contributors to this discussion who actually are strongly interested in the subject of the article, Looneyman and 121.45.134.67, seemed to be reaching a consensus about what should be kept and what should be hived off. I suggest you should explain your proposals and for comments from them and from editors who have contributed. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• In my view, the unusual revies are more or less small challenges, as said above. There are enough of said challenges to warrant keeping, providing adequete sources are found for them. That's why I proposed that the section be moved to the challenges article and retitled to 'review challenges' rather than unusual reviews. That way, the problems of the main article are addressed whlie the information is kept in an appropriate topic for any curious or casual readers. Looneyman (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like the best suggestion put forward and I, as an AC with a very valuable vote, whole heartedly support it! :-) It's extremely ironic that these debates, can outlast the pages they're about. 121.45.134.67 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled so I'm going to movre the unusual reviews section to the challenges article. Looneyman (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that it's alrready been done. Oh well, ignore my above comment. Looneyman (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Article title (2)

Top Gear (2002 format), Top Gear (2002 relaunch) and Top Gear (newer format) all redirect to this article. I'm not happy with Top Gear (current format), as it would cause problems if a third format were introduced, e.g. if any of the current presenters departs. Of the redirecting titles, I prefer Top Gear (2002 format), which can always be changed later to Top Gear (2002–2xxx) if another format is introduced. Comments? --Philcha (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem here is the old one we keep re-encountering with changing James May's dates from (since 2003) to (2003). The latter makes it seem like he was only in the series for a year. My two pennies are that will the new name seem like it was only on for a year? Just a thought... LicenseFee (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If a third Top Gear format was introduced, all we would need to do is change the article's title. It wouldn't cause any major problems. I'm perfectly fine with keeping the title of the article as it is until a they release a new format (if they do). Looneyman (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's ghastly recentism. If there's no strong objection I'll move it to Top Gear (2002 format). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) suggests that the correct name should be Top Gear (2002 TV series). Warren -talk- 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

More than fine by me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"2002 format" and "2002 TV series" both make it sound like it was only broadcast in 2002, "current format" is correct, which makes it a better disambiguator than "2002 format". if a third format was introduced, it would be correct to change it to "Top Gear 2002–yyyy" where yyyy is the last year of the current format. MTC (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - "2002 TV series" would be the correct and standard term. On a similar note, could someone explain why we have two articles anyway? I hasten to add that my Top Gear knowledge is very limited, so there may well be a good reason, but I ask because it strikes me that Doctor Who ended in 1989, and was then re-invented in 2005, yet the one (featured) article covers both, and it strikes me that perhaps (and only perhaps) the same should be done here... _TalkIslander 12:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who's basic premise hasn't changed that much over the years. Short of featuring cars, Clarkson and Jessica, there's not a lot of similarity between the two Top Gears, while an entirely different series - Fifth Gear - is basically a logical continuation of the old format. So it's a bit more complicated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I split the articles a few years back. The reasoning is that the format changed significantly from the 20th October 2002. Not a single presenter from the end of the old series was carried forward to this format (although Clarkson and May had previously appeared in the old format). The style of the show's presentation was changed moving from a magazine format to a studio format. The show now rarely does 'real-world' motoring reviews, and does a lot more frivolous items compared to the old format. Features such as the guest star, The Stig etc. which are now integral to the show were introduced. These rather significant changes did not evolve over an extended period, but can be pinpointed to the 2002 relaunch. As a last point, the BBC themselves reset the series numbering, and no longer acknowledge the pre-2002 Top Gear on the official website. It's treated by the programme creators as a completely different show. AlexJ (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I Prefer the title the article currently has. Top Gear (current format) sounds more correct than the other suggestions. I say we leave the name as it is until a third format is introduced if it ever happens). Looneyman (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So you think it's a good idea that we'd be forced to rename the article if and when it goes off the air? As far as Wikipedia convention goes, that's really weird. Warren -talk- 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a timeless fashion (the prose is just as accurate if read today, 20 years ago, or 500 years in the future), the same goes for the naming of articles. Current format means that should this format change, we'd have to move the current article to a new page, and then replace all the information to describe the new "current format". Articles are not meant to work that way in wikipedia. the idea that "2002 TV series" implies the show only ran for one year is a minority opinion, and a misjudgement that can be easily understood by a reader once they look over the article. The first sentence in the lede will tell them, "We don't mean the show lasted for one year, it just began then." The consensus was established on the guideline page and if someone thinks that needs to be re-examined, then they should bring it up there. This article does not seem to be a special case that needs to ignore convention. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw in my two cents: I believe the new article name, Top Gear (2002 TV series), makes it sound like a one-off special of some kind, perhaps a one season show. I'd suggest Top Gear (Second Format) or something along those lines, to make sure we understand it's the current show. I was mislead at first, and I've visited this article a fair few times before. --80.216.56.89 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been done. The article has been named according to the Wikipedia naming conventions (see the archived discussion below). Now someone needs to archive this particular discussion since the dicussion has been done. Looneyman (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear (current format) → Top Gear (2002 TV series) — There is an established naming convention for TV series articles. The current title does not follow it, and has problems with assuming currency. — Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support; not so much because I think "2002 TV series" is a great name, but because it follows a well-established practice at Wikipedia, and we should try to be consistent about these things. Warren -talk- 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: Changed vote based on new evidence. Now I'm not fussy about what the articl3e is called. Looneyman (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looneyman - those article titles are completely non-consistent with other TV show articles already here on Wikipedia. _TalkIslander 13:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. As Looneyman said, "2002 Format" makes it sound like it just ran in 2002 and then stopped. I know I've seen this sort of discussion before. I am strongly opposed to changing the article's name. TopGearFreak 19:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above comments. "2002 format" does seem to mean it only aired in 2002, "current format" also seems a better disambiguator than "2002 onwards" or "2002–present".
  In reply to "problems with assuming currency": when the current format ends, the article can and should be renamed to use a year range as a disambiguator ("2002–xxxx"). MTC (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per the convention as shown by Warren, below. Tassedethe (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support because of the same reason above. If that's they way it's done on Wikipedia, then that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. LicenseFee (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support for consistency across articles of this kind. Joeldl (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Do we have any examples or guidance to go on? I read Wikipedia's naming conventions, but it doesn't seem to be listed. Are there any television articles with similar situations available for a quick looksee? LicenseFee (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is one of the reasons I'm not sure about the move. I looked at the naming conventions but couldn't find anything to go on. Looneyman (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• If there's no actual evidence that we've got it wrong... then I'm confused. LicenseFee (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Err, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) says quite clearly: Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name. ... Prefix the year of release or series debut – (1997 TV series). A quick look around turned up Robin Hood (1953 TV series) and Robin Hood (2006 TV series); Dennis the Menace (1959 TV series) and Dennis the Menace (1986 TV series); Escrava Isaura (1976 TV series) and A Escrava Isaura (2004 TV series); Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series); Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series); and there's quite a number of others, too. the new Robin Hood series is still running, as are the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Battlestar Galactica series.

Folks, there's quite a lot of precedent in favour of the renaming that User:Thumperward has proposed here. If you aren't familiar with the standard practice of naming on Wikipedia, please familiarise yourself with it, and if you think Wikipedia's gotten it wrong all along, argue that. But not here -- do it on the talk page for the relevant Manual of Style article. Warren -talk- 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I'm changing my vote to neutral based on this. Looneyman (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Then I'd change my vote to support :) LicenseFee (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.