Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-5218827-20191127222756/@comment-5218827-20191201155706

(Took a little time to pursue other endeavors, back now)

Again, I don't see what the problem is. I guess you could make the argument that they are two separate media entities, but in this instance, they originated from the same idea. Dennis Adams' 1977 regional series based on the BBC's earlier motoring programme Wheelbase. It is more or less the father of every country's attempt at such a show. Motorweek in the US since 1981 is based on its format. The UK version, Motor Week, which ran from 1997 - 2002, is also based on this format. Though it's way too adventurous to start now or even in the next 2 years, I'd like to document these shows sometime in the future, and every time I'd do so, I'd have to start another new wiki. Whereas if the TG Wiki became a general car show wiki, I could just start it up as a new operation, and gradually contribute towards it. And you can't tell me that I wouldn't get around to it, since I've already wrote several hundred pages in 8 months.

Tupka217 wrote: It's nothing to do with IPs. It's probably to do with SEO more than anything. People will look for GT content, and they will look for TG content. They are separate.

They will most certainly not look for "Gearipedia".

This is a ridiculous argumentative point and you know it. The Star Trek Wiki is called "Memory Alpha". People don't have any trouble finding that. Why? Because the subject matter is in the wiki description so Google SEO still picks it up as the Star Trek Wiki. It remains the top result for "Star Trek Wiki" even though it's not in the title, URL or subtitle. Even the fanon wiki is called "Memory Beta". Still has over 53,000 pages. I can't imagine it would be difficult trying to find a Top Gear Wiki considering there is and has never been any competition. Consider that part of your argument invalidated. Page views would naturally be lower in the first few weeks after renaming unless it was redirected for a short time, but they'd rebound after getting used to the new URL. People would find it since there's literally nowhere else for them to go to. Besides, that presumption to me just comes off as incredibly rude and unnecessary. You can't know for sure that a group of people are going to act in a predetermined manner, especially when you have nothing to substantiate your claims.

Fandyllic wrote: This may not be completely on topic, but I see Top Gear as a show that has survived losing its iconic hosts while remaining one of the most recognized auto shows in the world. The Grand Tour  seems like an attempt to have the original TG hosts try to make an new TG which may or may not be necessary. I suspect many of TG's newer fans aren't as enthused by TGT, since they may not have the nostalgia that gives it part of its audience. Also, since TGT is an Amazon Prime Exclusive, it likely has a much different audience purely on that basis.

So I'm not sure it makes sense for the non-Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, James May, Andy Wilman fans of TG to see the two wikis merged. It also might just spark unnecessary conflict.

Which would explain why people prefer to view the incomplete stubs of TGT-related pages as opposed to complete post-2015 Top Gear pages in their thousands, why IMDb ratings have become more or less incomparable to one another, and why viewing figures shrunk to less than a quarter of the show's peak earlier this year. You have to scroll down to Series 28 before you find anything post-2015 on the most viewed pages. 405 views over the last month. Wooooow. That's about 15 views a day. The page for "John", a car which the TGT trio built, gets 60 a day. This doesn't just disprove your conspiracy theory, it actually proves that the truth is more or less the opposite. People seem to be MORE enthused for TGT than BBC's Top Gear.

All in all though, I just see this as more irrelevant jabber that detracts away from what I wish to know - which is WHY the two wikis, which I had no hand in creating, cannot be merged together in the wake of decreased activity, extremely similar content, identical contributors/contributions and other similarities. That's all. I didn't come for a discussion comparing the merits and downfalls of each show. That's for subreddits and other places of juvenile discussion.

Tupka217 wrote:

Fandyllic wrote: ...the original TG hosts ...

Nah.

Was this reply even necessary? You're acting as if I'm some dumb bandwagoner that has zero idea Top Gear existed before 2002, when in reality I most likely know far more about the show's pre-2002 history than 99% of fans. For example, here's an entire episode guide from 1977 - 2002 that I spent about a month working on. 45,000 words over 163 pages. Because if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing right. In due time, all of what you see will be on the Wiki.

I implore you to save the petty banter and actually play this off from an unbiased perspective. I've given plenty of tangible examples in favor of my argument/proposition whereas the pair of you have resorted to little more than anecdotes and ad hominem. Not what I'd expect in the slightest.