Talk:Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race/Archive 1

26 Episodes?
- You said in your edit summary that you were using http://totaldrama.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:258659 as the source of your information. That's not an WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There is loads of new information about this season being revealed, like plot info, characters, number of episodes, voice actors, and teams. All of this info is coming from a Fresh TV producer who keeps revealing new information every day. So in other words, this article seems to be outdated now and I don't know if we should add all of the new info, even if it is all coming from "unreliable sources". Giggett (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Season 6 or New Series?
Just so you know I keep hearing that Julie Gillies keeps saying that The Ridonculous Race is not Season 6 and instead a whole new series that is not related to any of the past five seasons. If this is true, then I think we might have to change the article format to a new series article, rather than a Total Drama season one. Giggett (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also here is the source and turns out that the press release that confirmed Season 6 is actually wrong. This article will be a new series, and will not be related to the existing Total Drama in any way, other than having the same type of animation. Giggett (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay this clarifies everything. Snowy66 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay then, in that case we will just continue treating this as Season 6. There is no reliable source backing that TRR is a new series, since the only source we got for TRR says that it's Season 6, so we either say that it's Season 6 for now, or we get no article at all. Giggett (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's your reliable source. Snowy66 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Premature episode section
Having an episode section with one sentence is pointless. Though WP:TVUPCOMING doesn't speak specifically of brand new series, the intention of the guideline is that new sections for new seasons (Season 1 would qualify as a new season) should not be created until such a time as the section can be populated with an episode table. We already have a place for brief statements about the subject, that place being the lead. The lead summarizes content found elsewhere. If the only piece of information in the Episode section is a single sentence, that belongs in the lead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's okay I agree, and also User:AussieLegend moved that sentence to the lead, and until the series starts airing, no one else is going to add a new "Episodes" section if no new data is revealed. Giggett (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content by 98.121.64.196 / Animelover5485
With regard to the removal of this content, though it was obviously added in good faith by /, there are a few problems: Genre should be referenced. Adding unreferenced genre to existing unreferenced genre isn't an improvement. The grammatically flawed phrase "The style of this series is direct parody to" isn't improved when changed to "The style of this series is a direct homage to". The sentence "The series will be based on The Amazing Race and loosely parody the reality series" is not improved by changing it to "The series will be based on The Amazing Race and based off the reality series". The expression is "based on", for starters, not "based off". These were the reasons why I reverted the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if Derek McGrath, Robert Tinkler, Brian Drummond, Eric Bauza, Tara Strong, Heather Bambrick, Tabitha St. Germain, and Julie Lemieux will do any voices of people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLegoCat (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Pakuhan120
This is Animelover5485.

Here's what I would like to change:

"Adding unreferenced genre to existing unreferenced genre isn't an improvement."

The reason I added the drama genre is because that's mostly what this series is. Heck, it even has DRAMA in the title.

"The style of this series is direct parody to" to "The style of this series is a similar to The Amazing Race" since.

It would need to be a copy of it to be a parody, which it's not they are both reality shows but in terms of characters, plots, challenges, etc they are clearly different, so I would go with "similar".Pakuhan120 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what a parody is. A parody is not necessarily a direct copy, a parody is a humorous parallel to an original work that may share similarities with a work, but doesn't necessarily copy the work. Though Weird Al songs are usually copies of another song with whimsical lyrics, Professor Frink from the Simpsons is not a direct copy of Jerry Lewis's "The Nutty Professor", but is still a parody. Your explanation for removing this content is still not adequately explained, and you do not yet have consensus, so you should not remove the content again until consensus is reached. Also, you still need to explain why you are claiming usage of two accounts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Security breach
Re: this comment by Giggett, the fact that a security breach happened may be noteworthy if it were sourced to a reliable secondary reference. The notion that the producers are trying to do something to prevent it from happening again is a no-brainer and is not noteworthy. We are not a breaking news source for fans. This is the sort of content that belongs in a press release, not an encyclopedia. If the methodology behind the hack were noteworthy, a new sophisticated exploit, for instance, and the resolution to the hack was noteworthy, then it might be worth mentioning. But we're effectively saying, "Miley Cyrus's house got broken into, and she had to buy new locks." So what? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. However we also need to look at the source supporting that claim, and the sentence before it. It's an unverified Twitter account and so does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Twitter accounts are Fresh TV they are the official producers so I'm sure that source is reliable, since they were the ones who commented. I tried to find other sources but the ones from Facebook are private and they haven't commented about it on their official website Giggett (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful when using social networking sites like Twitter and can only use verified Twitter accounts as sources. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well as that page you linked says that Twitter accounts formed by companies may be verified in the future, but in the meantime you can see in the official FreshTV website where it has a link to that Twitter account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.232.90 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lame edit-war
If I am reading the edit-history right, there has been an edit-war over the last three days over if and how certain places should be wikilinked. Come on guys, that is ridonculous! :) I have protected the article for three hours in the hope that the interested editors will be able to discuss and arrive at an amicable solution, and no further protections/block will be needed. Pinging will also drop a note at the IP's page since I don't believe pings work for them. Abecedare (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea why this is even an issue. Also not sure why we need to say Zimbabwe is in Africa... we don't do that for any other country on the list. Why that one? If you suspect someone doesn't know where it is, link it. That's what linking is for. WP:OVERLINK would be linking for common knowledge terms and places.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a lame edit-war, but there shouldn't need to be an edit-war at all. The very first time I reverted the IP should have been it, as I cited WP:OVERLINK in my edit summary, but the IP ignored it and the subsequent 5 times it was cited. Before I reverted him a second time I left a polite note on his talk page about overlinking, but he ignored that and overlinked 6 minutes later. After the last occasion I clarified it on his talk page again when I warned him, but that didn't work as he overlinked again 7 minutes later, and then again 5 hrs 24 minutes after that. He has ignored everything on his talk page and has made no attempt to discuss his edits so I don't have any confidence that he'll respond to the latest request. For the record, WP:OVERLINK says the following are not usually linked:
 * everyday words understood by most readers in context;
 * the names of major geographic features and locations.
 * As can be seen, the "common knowledge terms" cited by EvergreenFir are addressed in their own point of WP:OVERLINK, separate to geographic locations, which include places like the Arctic Circle. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK there are two differences in the versions
 * Linking, which you both have already commented upon and appear to agree, and
 * Zimbabwe in the African Continent vs Zimbabwe. (and others) can you state your preference?
 * Once we have a rough consensus, the article can be changed to that once and for all (or at least till new consensus is clearly established). Abecedare (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with EvergreenFir, I don't see a need for "in the African Continent". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "In the African Continent" seems like we're coddling children instead of writing an encyclopedia article for everyone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Giggett has made the change to reflect what appears to the rough consensus here. Any further (disputed) change in that particular content should be discussed on the talk page (and WP:BRD is always a good practice to follow in any case). Marking this is resolved. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The page was relatively stable for a few days but the problem editor has returned with a couple of IPs. was used back in May and may be the IP's permanent address. I've requested page protection but I don't know if this will be successful. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Cast and/or characters
There are two sections in the article, one for Cast, one for Characters. Pick one. Per MOS:TV only one or the other should exist. We don't need repetitive content. I lean toward a Character list although this can become a cruft magnet, which we will have to all manage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several voice artists voicing multiple characters, the team name stuff should not be in the cast list. Snowy66 (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That content was added by an editor who has been persistently disrupting this article for months. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the bad edits that editor made, removing all duplicate content from both the Character and Cast sections Giggett (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that these are all the same editor, as we're seeing the same edits being made. Most notably are changes to the "Setting" section. The page has now been protected so we should get some relief for the next two weeks. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is resolved. There's still a Characters section along with a Cast section. Although I tend to prefer a Character section because it sets us up for more meaty information than a raw cast list typically does, I don't particularly care which is employed. However, having both a Cast section and a Character section is needlessly redundant. I will boldy cut one, and I'm leaning toward cutting the Character prose. (Oddly enough.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've boldly taken the first step. It's not just the character information that requires resolution. MOS:TV says Key crew members for each television show are listed in the infobox and do not need to be listed in the article. Generally, if there are any important people associated with the show they will be mentioned somewhere in the production information. However, the production section was mainly a list of the main crew. The characters section contained information more related to production, although there is some information that still needs to be moved into the cast section, which I've renamed "Cast and characters" per MOS:TV, as the content was in the " as : " format. However, this can be tweaked if actors are voicing several characters. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a good man, Aussie! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, but you should have said "legend". ;) -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember that for the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Roadblocks?
why does the show have roadblocks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazybob2014 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 September 2015‎ (UTC)


 * @Crazybob2014: According to what source does the show have roadblocks? —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry my mistake, I just forgot to change that out but seeing that this series uses different names from the series it's based on, like using "either-or" instead of detours, the term "roadblocks" might not be used at all, so I'll go ahead and remove that Giggett (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the column to reflect the final placings the characters rank in the full race. First place being on top, and last place on bottom. Character rows will be sorted accordingly. Giggett (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Team colours in the elimination table
Are those colours really necessary? And if they are, are they in compliance with WP:Accessibility? —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No they are not supposed to add colors. I removed all the colors for now but I can't keep up with all the editing here due to it being a long weekend and me only being able to edit anywhere I finds a Wifi hotspot Giggett (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Results of eps 2-4?
What reliable source is showing the winners and eliminated teams from the first four episodes? —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no source, so let's just keep reverting the edits until tomorrow when the series airs Giggett (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, until the airing of the episodes renders the material verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015
Can we edit it now?

64.56.9.92 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Only if you have an account Giggett (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has been semi-protected because some anonymous users have been adding unsourced and otherwise inappropriate content to the article. The protection is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption.


 * If you have a specific change you want made, you can request it here. Or, as Giggett noted, after you register an account, you'll gain the ability to edit this page (though not immediately). —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or wait until Thursday when Episode 5 airs, everyone will be able to edit by then. The protection is only necessary in order to cool off excessive unneeded editing for the premiere Giggett (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

see it first on the cartoon network app.
guys i found some episodes of the ridonculous race. it's on the cartoon network app! http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/video/total-drama-ridonculous-race/index.html?atclk_vn=nav_Total-Drama-Presents-The-Ridonculous-Race

already seen them twice on TV, really they air every day, I see no reason to use that app :P Giggett (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

so its ok to use the app?

Flags on the Elimination table!
we need to know what position is the next episode at! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazybob2014 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 September 2015‎ (UTC)

not for this series, we are trying to keep this new table as simple as possible, meaning only text, no fancy colors Giggett (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015
2602:304:6FD4:54B0:35DA:47C6:FDCE:75C9 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

elimination table proof.
http://totaldrama.wikia.com/wiki/Total_Drama_Presents:_The_Ridonculous_Race_elimination_table (Crazybob2014 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC))


 * that's exactly what we already have here on Wikipedia Giggett (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Where are they getting the more detailed results for episode 1? Presumably our table reflects what was shown in the episode. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Psst: ! It's Wikia. There's a very high bullshit quotient there. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing
These IPs need to calm down their bad editing habits. Turns out that the page was unlocked for them right when I went to sleep at 10 pm and when I woke up at 8 am the whole page had changed so much. Everything that I ever worked here was ruined in the time I was asleep. These IPs didn't follow the hidden notes, and went against everything that was best for this article. I'm not asking that we protect the page again. I'm just saying that if your an IP and you are gonna ruin the page and add unconfirmed stuff, them do it while I'm awake 8 am to 10 pm, not at 2-5 in the morning or else no one is gonna catch it and the page is gonna end up getting protected again due to excessive vandalism I can't control cus I'm asleep. I don't get why people like to edit and ruin stuff in the middle of the night Giggett (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One IP in particular was rather disruptive. I made several fixes after his first edits that he then partially reverted, before adding colour despite the note, which I then had to warn him about. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the edits, it's best not to add the winners and eliminations in the summaries as stand-out bold text, I mean we already have an elimination table for that. The episode section's purpose is to only tell what happened in the episode. No need for special formatting, just say where they go, what they do, and who's out and your done. No more than a little paragraph. As for color, it's okay if people want to add them, but then again, there is no need. The text alone gives the information and this article is planned for the future long when color can no longer be viewed since eventually dots and blanks will be the only thing people will be able to see. It's best to store the information in a universal approach that can be read in any form, not store in some fancy form that may look better now but won't be accessible in the future. Giggett (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, accessibility is an issue now rather than later. Information must be available in text rather than just colour, and the colouring of items should not interfere with reading the text. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the disruptive editor is back, and I already reverted his same edit twice. I say we ban that single editor that already got like 3 warnings instead of locking the page again Giggett (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

First episode rankings
Where'd we get the positions for the first episode all of a sudden? Were the mentioned in episode 6? —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode 1 non-elimination
If the team finishing last wasn't eliminated, why shouldn't it be noted that they finished last but were not eliminated? —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a regular episode with an elimination, or a non-elimination leg either. Therefore since Episode 1 has it's own rules, no color should be added to avoid confusion with the regular season rules Giggett (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The table needs to make that clear. I think we need to bring in some Survivor styling and add notes, if we've got all these contingencies. (Or we could just declare the results table so in-universe that it shouldn't be in the article.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine then in that case go ahead and revert my edits, looks like one general setting for the whole table may be best Giggett (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for Survivor settings here, this is all Amazing Race. Also I changed the gold color to a more standard yellow Giggett (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but there's a point where if we need that much explanation, notes work better. I know some of the Survivor seasons do that, especially with things like tie votes and immunity idols. There's just more to be said, on a one-off basis, than a symbol and legend can do. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why I just added a table key that explain everything better with just notes, no need for fancy colors or symbols, if we add colors it will be nothing more but to make the table look better, but all the information shall still be stored as text, color is only for us to spot that information faster Giggett (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Accessibility guidelines say that no information may be conveyed solely by use of colour, so any time a colour is mentioned in the key, it probably also needs a symbol. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and of this edit, everything in the table seems to comply with accessibility guidelines, so let's hope to maintain it in that way Giggett (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Table secondary sort
Obviously, the bottom of the table has the teams in the order of elimination. However, what order, if any, should the rest of the table be in? Right now, I think it's unordered, as there's been no resorting done. Should it stay that way? —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical by team name
 * Alphabetical by first team member
 * Ranked by results of most recent leg
 * Ranked by aggregate (average) result over all legs to date
 * Opening credits order (if applicable?)
 * Unordered


 * It's just has a random order I made when I created the table, but if you resort it then the table gets squished for some reason. It's best not to touch it and wait for an elimination to resort. For now it's only one IP user that I told time many times to discuss this on the talk page, but he keeps reverting my edits. Giggett (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I believe I am most likely the IP user that keeps changing the table. And I didn't see this page before I kept changing it. So I sincerely apologize for that. The reason I changed the positions is because I wanted them to be in order of "Ranked by results of most recent leg" So again, I apologize, and I won't argue that I'm a horrible editor because I am. If somebody could change the placements to most recent, that would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.212.250 (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm now has changed the order of teams by their latest finish by legs. With better (I think, but neutral) changes, to be more similar and suited to table used by TAR seasons articles. Roif456 (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe that will make things easier to read, not just for me, but everybody. And if we could keep that up, then that would be excellent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:400:4600:D164:38D4:BB53:1C2F (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility reminders...
Two things: First, the symbols in the table should be relatively common, so screen readers and browsers like Lynx can render them properly. Second, the gold background is technically not W3C-compliant, but it's pretty close (difference is 470, standard is 500 or greater). However, any darker background will not be compliant. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Continuing on the accessibility issue, we should be providing readers with a navigable key, rather than forcing them to have to hunt for key instructions. Similarly, subtly colouring text forces problems for all readers, even those who don't use screen readers. It's best to colour the background if necessary, leaving the text as either black or white, something we've discussed at length recently at Talk:Infobox television season. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Table issue
Hey, everyone.

The table for TDPTRR is ridiculous. They are in way unrealistic. They are broken and it looks like a mess. It should be like the table on below, used on TAR articles, it's so clean (from TAR 22):

The "Roadblocks" section is can be replaced to final placings and elimination of teams can be labeled as "OUT". Also, the "Relationship" can be replaced to "Label".

If you disagree, I will accept. Be sure, that this is just a suggestion. Not a way to pressure editors to make a better table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roif456 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't look at The Amazing Race 22 for good examples. The article (including the table) violates a number of sections of the MOS including MOS:ACCESS. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay I added colors to some table cells but know that even without the color, the table can still be fully readable since all information is still stored by text, the color is just an added bonus. Giggett (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not quite that simple. Per WP:COLOR, we're supposed to at least comply with WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA when feasible. A crimson background with black text is not compliant at all. We need to ensure that all colours are compliant. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

results for epi 14.
the rockers and the stepbrothers are out.(Crazybob2014 (talk)

We know, but we can't add future episode information without a source so it's best to wait until the episode airs to add in the new information, and as of this edit the episode airs in 1 hour Giggett (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

but it already aired like a few minutes ago. (Crazybob2014 (talk)

sorry I went to sleep right after the episode was over, but I added all the new info right now Giggett (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ep 21 results
Did the first three teams finish tied for first, or was the detailed result not shown because they were the top three? The table needs a note to explain this. —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note was there, an IP just removed it along with every other citation overnight when I was asleep so I just noticed it right now. I reverted all the bad edits to how it was right before I went to sleep last night and now the note is back which explains that both teams are there and whichever teams wins gets a AOE cell while the losing teams gets their individual placings, it's all explained in the note I put last night and will make sure it stays there all day today. Giggett (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've worked that into the key. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we get rid of that references in the table? -- Crazybob2014 (Talk)

the table is broken.
i need to correct the table right now! (Crazybob2014 Talk)

I just fixed it Giggett (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

but i need to have all the players from the first episode as IN and the links removed on 21, 23, 7th, and 8th. (Crazybob2014 (talk)

The first episode has IN because Don never announced the places for those teams, so only the trams who got first second and third are noted. Also we need the ref notes for penalties and non-elims rather than using color or else the table will have accessibility issues. Giggett (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)