User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2012/05

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

 * —  Imzadi 1979  →   00:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 2007 Monte Carlo Rally
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox rally
I saw your comments at User talk:Plastikspork and added convert to the template, so it now automatically converts the km values to miles and shows both. we can add support for specifying distances in miles as well (as an optional alternative), but unless we need it, we probably should just stick with km. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd completely forgotten about that. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Episode list and all that....
Hey Matthew. I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that our position is getting nowhere quickly. I have no idea what caused Barsoomian to get so "WTF-y". The thing that amazes me is that there's still no rationale for not meeting MOS. From anyone. Other than "MOS only applies to prose" which is blatantly incorrect. I think I'll have to keep my oppose at the FLC and just move on to other, less lame things! All the best to you, hope you're well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey yourself! Yup everything's good here, thanks. Still not editing as much as I'd like, but I've got a new baby that takes up my time and keeps me entertained! I don't get why no one from WP:TV has even bothered to shop up, it's rather frustrating, especially since they're usually more vocal, helpful and cared more about the project. I've just left a more pressing message at the Project, so hopefully someone will show. Hope all is well with you too, Matthewedwards : Chat  16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * New baby, well heck, congratulations, that's great news. Am alright myself, slight RL issues but hey, who doesn't have those?  Sadly, the TV project seems to be vacant of interested people.  But as with many things, our "technical" requirements are probably too challenging for the average editor to get their head around, so the default is "I like it that way so I don't see why it should change".  The transclusion issue is really interesting, I hadn't thought about it too hard before, but the more I think of it, the more I think, why should we have so much duplicated information in Wikipedia that we actually need to transclude data like this?  But hey, I'm just a rebel without a cause, other than hoping for the best for our readers.  Anyway, let's see how it pans out, but I can guarantee, the bold issue will already have sealed our place at WP:LAME...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we still seem to have User:Barsoomian refusing to answer direct questions. The absolute best thingy ever was when I went to the Barsoom page and found that the Title column of the table wasn't in bold!  Joy.  Perhaps Barsoomian will "fix" that in due course, but who knows.  Anyway, we're onto the MOS discussion now, so (as you noted) we're onto our third or fourth forum.  Interesting, and useful that User:Masem noted that episodes are delineated by a coloured, thicker line in the table.  Also notable that Barsoomian has directly ignored that comment.  Is it possible we could create WP:LAMEsquared by now?!!  Best to you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

May Metro
Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

World War II battle
Hello,

I have drafted an article about a minor battle of WWII. My intent is that the article will be accessed from a link in an article that covers a major battle of which the minor battle was a precursor. When I submit my article for publication, is there some way to communicate my intent? Or would publication reviewers assume this is a stand-alone article?

Many thanks July5ly (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Without knowing the details of either battle, or WWII in general, it's hard for me to say. Usually you would just place links to the new article in existing articles. You're better asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, though. They'd probably be able to help you better than I. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 15:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Common.css
Would you mind taking a look at this? We're trying to implement HTML 5 compliant row scopes in road junction lists, but are having problems doing so because of the site CSS. --Rschen7754 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Japenese Episode List
Why did you change the format? The new "color order" is making my head spin, just by trying to read the English titles. Since this is an English Wikipedia, aren't we supposed to emphasize English titles, instead of Japenese ones? And if the Eng. titles aren't bold anymore, why are the Japenese titles still bold? This is seriously confusing me. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

as you can see ever second linehas a different colour but because of the unusual airing and episode being aired ina weird order once oyu get to episode 9 it goes to epsiode 11 so uses the same coloud for odd since there is no even the show hack jsut makes the odd and even colours the same-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah there another its time team it much worse, the misisng epsiode 10 is acutally a special and is label as such but is labael epiode 10 as well because it follow air date order, time team is a lot worse because it airs specials which shoudl really be a serperate article but the show acutally coutns the epsiode numebrs including the specials so gives the ebra effect, i prefer not to have the show hack i prefer it worked via sublist which i hope you can get fixed for the future :) not sure the zebrea effect might fail it for a flc but personal i would because it isnt appealing, ive no problem on you revert and changing them all to sublist since your aware of the problem and are looking to fix it :)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode list/Degrassi
Hello. I am aware of the discussions at Template talk:Episode list, and that Template:Episode list/Degrassi is against MOS. I was planning on making the changes between the seasons, when I had time, as well as a couple of other changes (zebra stripping, and shortsummary #if statement). However, the folks at Template talk:Episode list did not see the need to fix an error in the reference appearance order, that I brought up in February 2011. Because I believe that all information for unreleased episodes should be referenced, I implemented my proposed changes to Template:Episode list/Degrassi. Thus this fork is not the same template as the main stream one, and I believe that it should remain until this issue is resolved. You are of course invited to the revived discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I didn't realise you'd made other refinements to it. I thought the sub-template was superfluous because I originally had it created when the Writers and Directors fields were added to the main template so that it changed the order of director and writer columns around (on TV writers are always credited before the director). When I wrote the articles I didn't bother putting writers or directors in the tables because I didn't have all the DVDs to get all their names. It's still something on my "To do" list, I just never get around to it. Because no other series does it that way I didn't see a point in forcing the issue any more, and today I went and switched all the show specific sublists for the generic sublists.
 * I agree that references should be in numerical order, but it should be applied across the board rather than to one show's lists. I've left a note to that effect on the template talk page. It's not a big issue so hopefully it can be implemented quickly. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Time team episdodes
Hiya, I forgot when i meantioned time team that originally i designed the hack to remove the zebra effect but that isnt it main need any more, as more and more seasons have aired since main articles ie seaosn articles have coordinates on it, but when it trancludes it then causes the list to break due to overload or something cause the coord template is causing to much to trasnclude it all so i had to remove that coloum in translcusion im not sure it will be possible to make a fix for that into the main epsiode list template, might be best to fix the hack to standards-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's to do with template limits and the number of transclusions with episode list for 200 episodes and another 100 or so coordinate transclusions. Oh well. Mobile Matthewedwards (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I know its on wikimedia to fix list until it fix that page would be broke from transclusion, illl look at the main template and try fix the hack to conform to standards-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Monarch of the Glen episodes
Hi Matthew, just thought you should know that a few of the AWB edits have caused some formatting issues. The worst one I've found so far is this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ive just took a look at this, weirdly its creating a exta coloum with no extra parameters defined, but when i change episode number to title it removes the extra coloum goign to try something else Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding Title fixes it but i cant work out why it producing a extra colulm extra parameter Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the title parameter is still required. I thought it wasn't any more. I removed the tiles because "Episode 1" is superfluous to the episode number when there is no actual episode title. The titles just need adding in again.
 * Let me know if there's any other pages you come across that ended up funky. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends episodes
The content report at dispute resolution noticeboard is closed by Steven Zhang as this (amended): "Closing this one as resolved, per the comments. If this issue flares up again, I'd suggest mediation, solely as it's a location where a very long thread or slow progress isn't a major issue." The mess is over, and... well, the "List of Friends episode" needs another peer review if something like this happens again. --George Ho (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Plainrow Headers?
What are these "Plainrow Headers" you're adding to the list of episode pages? I hope that didn't sound rude, it wasn't meant to. I'm just confused, haha. I don't really see a difference except on pages where the seasons have where every "other" episode has 2 differen grays every other episode (such as The Office, however the "Title" column is all one color and they don't do the alternating grays like the rest of the columns? Is there a point to the Plainrow headers? - Alec (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's to make the tables conform with WP:ACCESS, specifically WP:DTT. The cells containing the titles are acting as row headers, so that our unsighted users with screenreaders hear the episode title as the first data item when the screenreader reads the row. Plainrowheaders is a formatting command that unbolds the cell and left-aligns it. Without "plainrowheaders" it will be bold type and centered, like a column header. The shading occurs because it is a header. You don't see a difference with shading in tables where there is an episode summary because Template:Episode list is written so that the top row (the row containing the title name, writer and directors' names, airdate, etc is all shaded #F2F2F2. When the table is transcluded to a main list of episodes like List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, the template introduces a stripe effect to make reading across the rows easier. This is where the shading of title cells is more noticable because the odd-numbered lines are not shaded. There is discussion at Template talk:Episode list and other threads after that about this, and the possibility of making the episode number the row header instead, so that the shading is at the far left side of the table and is not so intrusive. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now, thanks for the help. So eventually that will be fixed so alternating colors will be all the way across and the "title" column won't be one color? At first I was confused as to by the episode titles were unbolded but saw the discussion eventually. I don't mind them be unbolded but I thought Wikipedia changed it and not the users. So I was looking all over the Wikipedia homepage for the only the change and did not see it. Regardless, that's probably the only criticism I have is that the alternating colors are interrupted but I'm assuming this will be fixed soon. - Alec (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If episode numbers become the row headers then the zebra striping will begin with the second column. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, That still makes it difficult to read, it's better to read the zebra stripes all the way across to keep the episode title with the right line. What's the point of starting it with the second row? Makes no sense. Can't you still not use the plainrowheader but unbold the title? - Alec (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

well we're still playing and testing with ideas. But instead of a table looking like this (grey shading emphasised; it's not really this dark):

It will look like this, which I think is easier to read and not as odd or jarring: Plainrowheader does unbold the title. Without plainrowheaders specified they'd be in boldface and centered, as well as the quotemarks and any reference tags being boldfaced, anything that's in that cell would be, really. Starting the stripes on the second row means that the first entry in the row is the row header, which makes sense, like this table:


 * Thanks for the example (look good). I did remove the "plainroheaders" from a test page on my Talk page and the episode title bolded but didn't center. Why is it when you use the "example" table, the episode title does not bold? Also why not do both the episode # and series # with that gray so not only one column is? Can Is ee an example? It looks kind of bad with one episode # column darker than the other. - Alec (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Oh, I just realized, you have the columns backwards. I think if the "Series #" is in the first column it'll make more sense, you have it as the second column. - Alec (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't matter what I do in the example. Editors are free to use the two "EpisodeNumber=" and "EpisodeNumber2=" fields for either series # or season #. One page might do it one way and it's ok for another to do it the other. We can't do both episode # and series # because you can only have one cell in each row as the header. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. If this is causing such a problem, why not just leave the episode titles bolded. It wasn't a problem before (or at least I don't see it as a problem). I get it's against the rules (can't think of the specific ones at the moment) but can't we edit the main "episode title" header instead of adding plain row headers and go to the original html code where it bolds to title to get a hold of the root problem instead of causing more? I don't see why we can't just have a test page to do all these edits to get a final instead of adding the plainrowheaders to caused problems before we finish discussing it? I would've waited to add the plainrowheaders until the discussion was finished and we could get it to work with all pages. - Alec (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not "such a problem" because the tables still work, the information is still all present, and screenreaders now read the tables correctly which provides a complete experience for un-sighted readers per WP:ACCESS. Yes, the background shading is broken, but we're fixing that. Boldfaced titles was a problem before per MOS:BOLD and MOS. Boldface text shouldn't be used without a reason or for highlighting or emphasis. It was just always overlooked or ignored. We won't be editing the main title header instead of adding plainrowheaders and all that because bold face is not going to get reintroduced to the template as it violates the MOS. The test pages are at, Template:Episode list/sandbox and Template:Episode list/sublist/sandbox, as well as [[Template:Episode list/testcases to view the current template output against the sandbox outputs.
 * The discussion was over when plainrowheaders was added, and it had to be added before we introduced row scopes because it would have messed up the table formatting even worse (the only issue now is shading on transcluded pages). We did all that after discussing it. In fact, it took me 7 days of editing, by myself, to add plainrowheaders to the 5100 pages that use the template, and the discussion was over at that point. Now that it has been implemented, new discussions have taken place about how to improve further, including this issue with striping and shading in the middle of the tables. Now it's just a matter of fine tuning to get it to a state where everyone (or at least the majority of everyone) is satisfied with the final result. Remember, Wikipedia is an ongoing work in progress and there is no deadline, so if the shading has to be there for a couple days more, it's not a big problem. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now. Well you could've asked for help, I would've helped otherwise I had no idea what was going one and why the boldface was taken away (and why someone was adding this plainrowheaders without any discussion even though you linked to that one page). This should be more public. I'm fine with it, the only problem is the transcluded pages where the striping is. How do we fix it... the shading and the striping, what needs to be changed? I want to be able to help. - Alec (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that I've never spoken with you before, or even recall crossing paths, I wouldn't have known to ask you for help; however, discussions have taken place at the MOS talk page, the episode list template talk page, two administrators' talk pages, a Featured list candidate page, we begged for people from WikiProject Television and MOS:TV to voice an opinion, too, so it wasn't done in secret or rashly. A request from an uninvolved admin to make the necessary changes to Template:Episode list has been made (I'm too involved so it would be a COI if I did it). Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well for future of a big project (as in if we have to make changes again to get the transcluded pages to work so you don't have to spend 7 days doing it all by yourself. I feel something this big of a change should've been on the Wiki homepage or something so all members would've known of the change (I know there are some members who do not like change and did revert the edits you made of the plainrowheaders). Also, what did you mean by "... it would be a COI if I did it." Sorry I'm still now used to Wikipedian Lingo (and I'm 19, haha) what's COI? - Alec (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest. It's not appropriate for me to edit a fully protected template when I'm so closely involved in the discussions about it, even though as an admin I'm able to. What pages reverted plainrowheaders? Probably they didn't understand why, and they'll need putting back in. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now, I need to catch up on my lingo. You're an admin which is probably how you go to to edit pages protected indefinitely and makes more sense to me as well. It's all good now the pages do have the plainrowheaders since they've been added back. Can I ask (probably a question you've answered numerous times) but you just added the plainrowheaders to the "wikitable" coding at the beginning. If we do have to resort to putting it in only the first column (like the example charts you present above) how is the title column like that now but if you plan on changing it to the first column how does it change. I hope I worded that okay. If not I can try again.
 * Also thank you for your time in explaining all of this, I've learned a lot about this and glad it's being dealt with. - Alec (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the start of a wikitable is the line  {| class="wikitable" . "plainrowheaders" just needs adding to the class, after "wikitable" (because it treats them in the order they're entered). That's all you need to do with the Episode list tables. Everything else is handled by the template. Other tables are different, and you should read WP:DTT and Help:Tables for that. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the help. I've learned a lot more about this and hopefully we'll get the fine tuning finished real soon. - Alec (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say the transcluded pages look great! Glad you guys got it fixed! I see that you moved it to the first column. You can barely tell it's there. Are we done with the transition then? - Alec (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, it looks pretty good, huh? Everything is done for the moment, but I have suggested a new idea, and if you want you can weigh in at Template talk:Episode list/Archive3. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (TPS) Actually the removal of the  parameter, under WP:DEVIATIONS, is still impending, that discussion has gone idle the past few days. 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. I really like how it looks now and it was easy to get used too. I'm a happy camper! I did comment on your suggestion. Not sure what 117Avenue is talking about, but of course I did miss a lot of the discussion, haha. - Alec (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Other English Airdates
Hiya, You will know i propoused adding other parameterfor othe english speaking countries for air dates because i said a lot of thetime people say only american airdates, i now have one of those, Scooby Doo Mystery Incorpated episodes the one user is removing any titles or airdate si put for the uk and posted on my talk page claiming only american airdates should be used since it isa american show can you please comment on this as it is really putting me off doign work if the airdates will be removed if they are not the american airdate which is not the original airdate as original in my mind is first tie aired just like some input from a more experainced user-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just wait until it airs, in whichever country, before adding a date? There's no need to add a date before it airs. We're not a TV guide. You cited "Turner UK" (whatever that is) and Digiguide in your summary for putting an airdate of June 2, but why haven't you included the reference in the article? For future information, you have to reference it, otherwise it will be removed as unreferenced. I've found sources of episodes airing on June 2, but only the Boomerang website indicates it's new. Neither, Digiguide, TVGuide, nor Radio Times agree.
 * I recommend you disengage from any further edits to the article for the rest of the day or you may find yourself being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 21:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ive no intentions of violating 3RR just not happy a user says that only american airdates matter, turner uk is the broadcaster :)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dexter and Stargate episodes
Hi Matthew. I noticed you'd said you be able to help those lists out a few days back. Is it still your intention to fix them up or should I just add them to WP:FLRC for wider input? Hope you're well, all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually planning on doing what I can with them today. It's Memorial Day, so a slow and unexciting day in RL! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 15:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, good news. I'll hold off on listing them then.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1
Hi Matthewedwards, if you could look at Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 that would be appreciated. Thanks, Albacore (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Million Dollar Homepage
Hi Matthewedwards,

First of all, thanks for all your hard work on The Million Dollar Homepage. I'm working on the Persian version of The Million Dollar Homepage and I need a little help to convince the Persian Wikipedia community to promote it to GA. There is a sentence that I couldn't find it in the references: "After two weeks, Tew's friends and family members had purchased a total of 4,700 pixels." I read both BBC article and The Times article but there is no mention to 4,700 pixels. Another problem I have is how to check video references such as 32, 33, 40-43. Can you come up with an idea? Thanks a lot. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, the references have no mention to 4700 pixels. I looked at the version from when it was made a Good Article and the sentence is cited by a different reference, however, I still can't find any mention of of 4700 pixels. I'm just going to remove it from the article. It's one sentence, and it won't break the article if it goes. As for checking video references, what exactly is the problem? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the video references. The reviewer asked me to check the videos personally and make sure that Alex Tew really appeared on BBC Breakfast, Sky News Sunrise, ABC News Radio, Fox News Channel, Attack of the Show! and Richard & Judy. If I cannot check those videos personally, I should use the English Wikipedia as a source (something like this) and as you know, English Wikipedia is not a reliable source (disclaimer) . I would really appreciate it if could you help me to check those videos and make sure that Alex Tew really appeared in those television programs. Thanks again. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The refs aren't videos, they use cite episode to cite the episodes of the shows he was on. It's been a while now, but if I remember correctly I got the dates and episodes from comments and interviews he had done before. Some of the videos and audios were online at one time but now they're not. The broadcasters probably keep an archive of their shows and interviews but I don't know how we would gain access to them. Sorry, I don't really know how to help with this. :( Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 18:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)