FANDOM


  • Greetings,

    I am the bureaucrat for the Top Gear and The Grand Tour wikis. For anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of both shows, they possess a shared origin which makes them very similar, in spite of being under the ownership of two different companies.

    I agree with my supervisor (not sure if that's their role) Spongebob's assertions that it's confusing and unnecessary to include two pages on the same subject, and so have decided to come to a compromise. That compromise being that I feel it would be best to merge the two Wikis into one with a wider focus - car programmes based on Derek Smith's original idea he had back in 1977 when he created Top Gear. Top Gear and Grand Tour could still be mentioned on the front page, but the Wiki wouldn't be strictly centred on either. The URL, wiki name and logo would change as a result.

    The only problem with my proposal is that Spongebob has spoken to other people, and they decide it would be best to keep the information on the two wikis totally separate, which I don't agree with. Now, I'd understand if it were disallowed to make Wikis based on IPs from two different companies, but may I direct your attention towards the Professional Wrestling Wiki, which is based on IPs from hundreds of companies.

    Take the Hulk Hogan page for example. As you can see, he has wrestled for eight different companies during his career. The work he did for these companies is on one page and offers up a full chronology, since the Wiki is focused on pro wrestling as a whole. How the ultimatum I was given would apply in this instance is that there'd have to be eight different "Hulk Hogan" pages for each company he has wrestled for, each of these companies having wikis of their own, with zero reference to the work he did in another. I think this is an inefficient way of thinking.

    Simply put, what I would like to do is as follows:

    • Close and merge The Grand Tour Wiki with the Top Gear Wiki, as I am the actively serving bureaucrat of both
    • Change the URL and name of the Top Gear Wiki to "Gearipedia" or some other name - turning it into a general car programme wiki

    A year or two ago I would have been able to do this unimpeded, with perhaps some light objection before I made the decision. I do not see anything in the rules that expressly forbids Wikis centred on one IP to bridge out, especially a wiki that has been inherited from a previous owner. FANDOM works by allowing competition between wikis focusing on the same subject, so in the event someone wanted to make an exclusively Top Gear wiki, they'd be able to do so. Personally, I think it's in my best interests to remove the separation between Top Gear and Grand Tour, and merge it into one larger Wiki. I would like to know what objection prevents me from doing so.

      Loading editor
    • 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".

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Fandyllic wrote:
      ...the original TG hosts ...

      Nah.

        Loading editor
    • (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.

        Loading editor
    • My second reply wasn't to you.

      Star Trek has Memory Alpha. Star Wars has Wookieepedia. Fallout has Nukipedia. Spongebob has Encyclopedia Spongebobia. Most of these wikis are over 10 years old and have a well established name recognition by now. It doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

        Loading editor
    • Dude, you idea is good, but it needs more depth. Get others to help u.

        Loading editor
    • Link to Merging Communities 

      It's good you're the bureaucrat of both; if you're the only bureaucrat, I'd just work on putting all content from one onto the other and asking Fandom to merge, and - if not - work on getting explicit consent from the other beaurcrats and following instructions on that article. 

        Loading editor
    • Tupka217 wrote:
      My second reply wasn't to you.

      Star Trek has Memory Alpha. Star Wars has Wookieepedia. Fallout has Nukipedia. Spongebob has Encyclopedia Spongebobia. Most of these wikis are over 10 years old and have a well established name recognition by now. It doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

      As you said, they required time. They were founded under those names and built up a reputation. But that was not your point. Your point was that people would not look up "Gearipedia" (a corny name which I despise; will definitely think of something else) because they were used to the previous name. I am thinking about the Wiki long term. This year it would be unknown, there's no doubt about that, but a year from now? 5? 10?

      Of course it won't work for everyone. But you can't presume until the idea's been given a chance at the very least. And if it's unsuccessful, then I'd concede. To me, there are a few events that would necessitate splitting up the Wikis. But those events are so unlikely at this moment in time I doubt they'd ever happen.

      BBC have threatened to cancel Top Gear three times in the last 4 years, the most recent being this year as was revealed by Chris Harris after the apparent success of its most recent outing. Not saying it'll happen, but in the event Top Gear were to be canceled, then that would be two dead/near-dead wikis as opposed to a slow one with a manageably low influx of fresh content.

      RealKnockout wrote: Dude, you idea is good, but it needs more depth. Get others to help u.

      I know I need help, the problem is, there just doesn't seem to be people willing to help anymore. There would've been had I joined a few years ago, but it just seems to me that people prefer to consume and make comment rather than document. At least there's a few people that are helping out as opposed to no-one.

      KevinVolkov wrote: Link to Merging Communities 

      It's good you're the bureaucrat of both; if you're the only bureaucrat, I'd just work on putting all content from one onto the other and asking Fandom to merge, and - if not - work on getting explicit consent from the other beaurcrats and following instructions on that article. 

      Being the bureaucrat on both was one of the main reasons for starting this thread up, since I see little point of keeping them separate. Were I to go ahead, it'd take several weeks before the transition would be complete, but I need to convene with a couple other people first and to see if there any bots which do mass renames (i.e. Series 1 -> Series 1 (Top Gear 2002)).

      Once the preparations were put in place, it would be ready to go, more or less.

        Loading editor
    • What Wookieepedia, Nukapedia etc. also have... they cover one thing. Not two closely affiliated things. Someone looking for GT might not look for something with Gear in it. Unless there's a name in the fandom to refer to both shows, I'd recommend not merging them. But that's just my opinion.

      There are plenty of wikis on "dead" topics. Keeping them forcibly alive is an option, but most of the time, you just have to periodically check for maintenance and cleanup.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly don't care about car shows, but still, yea, starting merging the wikis, but get a better name.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.