1525:. I'd have to agree with Soo regarding sources. First of all, scanning the sources there are a lot of sources other than the Countdownpage. Secondly, it is by far and away the best site. Most of the other sites made since (including my own) rely heavily on information from the CDP anyway, so using them as supporting sources is questionable. Thirdly, you can't really compare it to football, cricket, baseball or whatever where there are hundreds of website detailing games. The CDP is not surprisingly just about the only one. Soo's site is also excellent because it's one of the few that's based on viewers written records (via the coutdown webgroup) but those sites are really the only two reliable ones.
1177:- while viewer ratings might not be completely stable and there's no point updating this article each time new figures come through, shouldn't this article really make include some detail on how many millions of people were thought to watch, perhaps averaged over the course of 2005? And would a similar figure be available for one of the earlier years? Some idea of the scale ought to come across - is this nearer the 500,000 mark or the 5,000,000? (Similarly, is it known whether this is one of Channel 4's most expensive advert slots?)
1042:
have distinct memories of her publically talking about how she got the job, and she definitely fitted a profile they were seeking out. I wonder if that ever got into any biographical material on her? An alternative would be to report the early critical or media response. She can't have slipped under the carpet then. Employing a
Cambridge graduate as the "glamorous assistant" was a really extraordinary move - I really can't think of any parallels.
1677:"Contestants write down the words they have found during the round, in case they have the same one. If a word is not written down, the player must declare this and reveal their word first, in case it is the same as the one their opponent has written. After the thirty seconds is up, the players declare the length of their chosen word, with the player who selected the letters declaring first."
1028:- Carol Vorderman appears to occupy an extraordinary and unusually elevated position in British culture, presumably coming off the back of this show. Perhaps something more needs to be made of the "brain plus looks" approach the show's creators went for when selecting her and the image and media presence she's managed to produce as a result.
1276:
I think the SVG idea is a good one and you've made a good start, but it's now too realistic and looks cluttered. Its use in the article is to illustrate where the various people sit, but that's now crowded out by excessive details on the floor. The clock in particular is confusing because the article
907:
Unlike many popular
British TV gameshows this doesn't seem to have been copied widely overseas (I guess, judging from the absence of any information in the text). I presume this is because it is the original French format which would be copied elsewhere - perhaps some explanation of the international
881:
Could the free use images be released on the
Commons under a slightly freer license, like CC-BY? One problem with GFDL images is that if a print publication publishes them, it has (in theory) got to include a full copy of the text of the GFDL license, which is one of the problems with using a license
856:
Thinking about it, I definitely stand by this. There's obviously more to it than seeding at the quarterfinal point (is that based on accumulated points, by the way? Or by wins, then splits decided on points?). And there is a clear need to point out that it's 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. The article on seeded
204:
I did, it made for interesting reading. I'm still unsure of the status of TCP in that respect. A lot of the guidelines make sense in the context of scientific topics, but less so in popular culture terms. There's not much chance of finding a printed source for scores from a TV game show. Nevertheless
951:
I agree, I think... a few more sentences in the
Evolution section are appropriate and I'm fairly confident of the DCedL format so I will sort this out either tonight or tomorrow. But as Soo says, there's no real way to have a critical comparison unless there is one already knocking about. If you're
923:
It isn't made explicit just how closely it follows to the original format. Some more information the key differences and why they were made would be good; otherwise a statement that the format was essentially retained identically would be informative. If the format is internationally popular, based
1782:
I agree with Jono on the length of time this has been here - I make it six supports to one 'weakish' object, and even that last one might now be considered questionable because the suggested change/check has been made. Soo and Jono have been extremely quick to sort out any problems or act upon any
1118:
I'll look into this, but realistically it's going to be difficult to find much. Countdown is now so well established that no TV critic really bothers themself with it any more, and early critical reaction certainly pre-dates the days of
Internet archives. I'll see what I can find in the university
911:
There is something on the talk page about an
American version being rejected for its intellectuality... the quoted source, though, is in my opinion unreliable in this respect... "too intellectual" reeks of bullshit to me. I've also heard of a Spanish version but that was only today; perhaps I will
1099:
It's touched upon in the
Character section, but anything further is difficult; unless you back it up with strong and explicit sources it's hard to avoid POV, otherwise it is original research. If you can suggest some sources then I will gladly add some more prose, otherwise I can't see how we can
1041:
I really don't see it as a moot point. So many gameshows follow the model of having a strong male host and some candyfloss women, yet the creator's consciously employed a
Cambridge graduate. That's a distinctive feature of the show. Whatever their intentions were, it's surely not a coincidence. I
814:
I feel like there is insufficient information on the overall tournament structure, as opposed to individual games. The manipulation of the structure to ensure higher viewer interest is one of the key reasons of
Countdown's success, at the moment "seeded knockout" looks like the only hint of this.
612:
Excessive citations can disrupt flow of reading (too many little numbers). It's not that I mind having a lot of references, it's just that more diversity is nice. Looking at the references and seeing too many cites from the same source isn't good. At the very least, surely there must be something
1051:
I've added a brief section and a reference about how Carol got the job which hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can build upon. (Oh, and by the way, could this this candidate's section be sorted out so that's it's clear what is being said and suggested, please, including removing the
1031:
The "brain plus looks" you speak of was developed later, I think, and her cultural significance, I think, is due to her presence elsewhere in the media, like adverts for First Plus and whatever. She has something of a cult following, and I'm not sure if it correlates with her
Countdown career,
1410:
Similarly, the article doesn't mention the filming process at all (unless it's recently changed, one week's worth of shows are filmed in a single day, three weeks worth being filmed over three days in a single week), and the whole series being shot well ahead of time. It might also be worth
630:
Personally I would rather have a citation for every assertion than an article which is slightly easier to read. Diversity is nice, yes, and wherever possible we have referenced other sources, but TCP really is the only website of its kind; the most official thing you're likely to find is the
41:. We've rewritten the whole thing, sourced every last statement, and added some interesting GFDL images (and, inevitably, some fair use ones). There are no FAs or GAs on game shows at the moment, so it's hard to compare it to anything relevant, but hopefully the article speaks for itself.
882:
basically meant for instruction manuals to cover images too. It's really nice to have free use images of a TV show, and since these photos are therefore quite unusual it would be nice for them to be as freely usable as possible without losing the authorship-acknowledgement requirement.
1645:
I too find the "rôle" spelling of "role" distracting and have not encountered it before. I believe someone said above that it would be changed to the more conventional spelling, but there's still an instance of the accented version in the third paragraph of the Presenters section
1500:) on this article turned up enough cases of citing sources that were related to but did not directly support the statements in the article that I'm worried that this may be a systemic issue. Someone needs to go through, check all the footnotes, and fix any problematic ones. --
941:
Perhaps if you could mention whether certain key features have been carried over or are original inventions: for instance, the aims of the rounds, the timer, the 30 second period, "big and small" numbers, the random number generator, the vowels vs consonants choice, the final
1443:
The article states "The programme's longevity is often considered to be a consequence of its cult status" without ever explaining why it is considered to have cult status (perhaps the previous line is meant to be the explanation, but if so, the link should be made
448:
round was used in the audition and the numbers game is the work of Soo's head. I don't think getting real rounds would change a whole lot, but if you can be bothered to and think that they exemplify the format in a similar good fashion, then by all means go ahead.
1089:
Additionally, the reasons for the show's unusually strong appeal aren't really explored. I appreciate it's probably been a long time since a TV critic took a look at this, but would it be impossible to find some kind of information on the critical response?
326:- Could this be switched to the more conventional spelling? My spell checker doesn't recognise it and I've never seen it spelt like that before. Perhaps if you don't want to use "role" another suitable word could be chosen instead? Just looks a bit weird.
549:
The prose doesn't flow well for me at all. It has too many start-and-stop type sentences (hard to explain). The Character section, for example, is really bad about this. It seems to just be a list of random statements that don't connect with one another.
162:
Only about a third of the references are to TCP, which I find reasonable, especially considering its authority which you question on the grounds of it looking crap. In the mind of myself and probably most others, there is no question of its reliability.
1395:
The article focuses on the mechanics of the game, and barely mentions Whiteley's distinctive style of presentation, nor the alternative style of Des Lynam. The section on "Character" would seem the natural place for a brief discussion of this.
1414:
Your information is correct, but it's extraordinarily difficult to find references for it, due to the show's insistence on maintaining the pretense of being broadcast live. I'll see what I can do. I'll give the studio audience a mention, too.
1128:
I guess the Radio Times is near the definitive place to check for reviews of UK TV. Unfortunately newspaper archives (at least online ones) don't tend to go back this far either, but I bet on opening night they will have reviewed Countdown.
1230:
is made up of various shapes. Would an SVG version be any use to you? I downloaded an SVG image creator thingamy and I want to make something useful! Is there anything you would like to be different on it? Like colours, layout and so on?
961:
Oh I don't think a critical comparison is necessary :-) But this game is very formulaic - it's the very embodiment of the "formula game show" - and it would be nice to know where some of the individual elements of the formula come from.
134:
The Countdown Page is to Countdown as IMDB is to movies. It may not be a gem of web design but that doesn't reflect on reliability. You can't record two decades of Countdown results without knowing a thing or two about the programme.
176:
again and replaced many of the references to TCP. Needless to say, all the facts agreed, which ought to give you some faith in the rest of them. I'm sure this argument would never have been raised if the site didn't look so awful.
1593:
The article doesn't mention whether dictionary corner or Carol cheat or entirely use their own brain power. I vaguely remember reading an interview with a guest some years ago saying that he was fed words through his earpiece.
340:
The letters round example could be taken to mean the consonants and vowels have to be selected in sets. For example, 6 consonants and then 3 vowels. Could they be mixed up a bit to show they can be selected in any order?
931:
It's evolved quite a lot from the original, but it's approaching POV territory to comment on that in the article. There just aren't any sources for an intellectual comparison of the two. This is a game show, after all.
1660:
All of the information in the Evolution section feels like it should be in the History section. I thought, for example, that the increase in the number of rounds had been omitted until I reached the later section.
474:
That's exactly what happened, although it's not easy to source and not that interesting, so it was kept out. If you can source it though, you can add it, as I know other people find that sort of thing interesting.
1792:
to this article. I've done very little major work to the article, only tidying a few little odds and ends wherever I could, so I'm pretty sure I can't be considered a major contributor. So that's seven in support
1448:
I've changed the order of a couple of sentences to hopefully make this clearer but, as I always say, these sorts of edit are not my forte so if someone wants to read it through then I've laid the foundations. :-)
1249:
If you haven't already made the image then it might be nice to have the desk area reflect the creamy colour of the 'carpet' in reality, and also the studio floor features a blue arrow on a very pale cream - see
1267:. I'm not sure about how the raised floor goes on the left side, because I don't have a picture of that. Perhaps you know? Let me know if there's anything you would like changed on it and I'll get it sorted.
1603:
I remember reading that too, I think it was in the Daily Mail. Would be hard to get hold of now. The truth is that Dictionary Corner cheat (with the aid of the production team) and Carol does it herself.
1277:
refers to the clock being the centrepiece of the set - a reader who had not seen the programme might easily conclude that this centrepiece was located on the floor! In diagrams like this, less is more.
1640:: First off, great job, both on the article itself and on your tireless ability to respond to the concerns and comments posted here. That said, I'm afriad I have a few more nitpicks to add to the list
847:"perfectly seeded" this way, then that does deserve a mention. It would also be nice to be given a rough indication how many games you need to win to get through - do all octochamps end up qualifying?
1263:
Thanks for your suggestions. I've created a new image based on the PNG version with your suggestions and a couple of other things I've noticed in the pictures, like the clock on the floor. Here's my
1074:
1032:
although obviously the former is as a result of the latter. Even so, I think it's moot, because although interesting it's hard to source, and including it unsourced would be unencyclopaedic.
1065:
1056:
997:
1802:
1552:
1240:
I thought about doing an SVG version of that image, but decided that my skill in Photoshop is unmirrored in any SVG program - by all means, go ahead and SVG it. That would be very helpful.
795:
1567:
The first reference to Susie Dent in the main text is not linked (although she is later in the text and in the side panel). This was enough to make me search to see if she had an article.
1312:
1258:
786:
1453:
1321:
575:
566:
270:
252:
157:
1113:
1046:
167:
1190:
1181:
1162:
975:
946:
898:
508:
You can make any noun into an adjective in that fashion, but it does look quite clumsy, so I've swapped it for 'monosyllabic', which I think makes sense and keeps the sentence concise.
295:
240:
209:
199:
181:
116:
1754:
1736:
1718:
1704:
1690:
1668:
1104:
966:
956:
686:
512:
479:
453:
434:
373:
1775:
1480:
1471:
1271:
1208:
1133:
1123:
1094:
1036:
1018:
984:
870:
861:
851:
726:
643:
1727:"Countdown has also generated a number of popular outtakes, with the randomly selected letters producing the occasional moment that was deemed unsuitable for the original broadcast."
1653:
1637:
1574:
1435:
936:
757:
748:
735:
713:
669:
660:
621:
398:
348:
916:
417:
333:
69:
60:
1598:
1419:
1403:
1199:
1153:
889:
822:
599:
557:
139:
102:
1619:
1608:
471:- What happens when a round is edited out? I think they have a sort of pretend round where it's rigged to get the same score but with a more acceptable word for the time of day.
1513:
1504:
1303:
1244:
521:
1356:
1343:
1334:
1294:
1281:
1235:
1061:
That's an improvement. Do you think it's worth mentioning that she is Cambridge graduate or a MENSA member? Something to convey the idea that she is pretty smart, at any rate.
1529:
As for footnotes, I agree that they should come after external links. If anything, wikipedia should change the page headings to article, discussion, edit, history, follow and
818:
I don't see what more detail can be provided. The eight players are arranged into the standard single elimination format, e.g. Seed 1 plays Seed 8 in the quarter-final, etc.
1664:
I disagree. It doesn't make sense for the article to talk about, say, the changes in the scoring for the number round before it's even explained what the number round is.
1539:
1109:
I appreciate the difficulty of sourcing, but I at least expected to see the early critical reception. TV critics must have reviewed the first outing of the show, surely?
21:
45:
553:
I disagree in general, but you're right about the Character section. It has a lot of true and interesting statements with no real flow. I'll try to revise it.
329:
Switched it to the more conventional spelling. Rôle is perfectly okay English, and looks cooler in my opinion, but I guess 'role' will do just as good a job.
1254:. As I say this is only worth considering if you haven't already made the graphic since it's purely aestethic pedantry for me to even suggest it! Regards,
130:
as a source. There is something about pages with pebbly background images and Comic Sans MS fonts that, somehow, for me, doesn't scream "reliable source".
57:
1581:
The conundrum section should probably mention that the conundrums are not totally random letter order but normally a combination of shorter words
308:. I enjoyed reading that article, great job working on that. I have a few suggestions and comments, although I've crossed out anything I've done.
187:
145:
1509:
I've fixed the particular problems you highlighted, and I can't find any others, but you might want to get someone else to check those over.
767:; External links should be after refs, but other than that, it seems fine (I'm impressed that you managed to get free images of a TV show).
1711:
Conundrum section could use a opening transition, e.g. "The final round of the game is the 'Countdown Conundrom'...", or something similar
971:
Yeah, you're right. We've added something on the most glaring differences between the two programmes. They really are quite different now.
595:
You can always just not look at them. Who benefits from an article with fewer references? For discussion of The Countdown Page, see above.
441:
Are the examples real? If not, would it be possible to add real ones? I can record it tomorrow and get you some real examples if you like.
1750:
You were right the first time; "If the scores are level after the conundrum, additional conundrums are used until the match is decided."
144:
Maybe. But if an article on a movie, or on the movie industry, were mostly sourced to IMDB, I would raise the same objection. Also see
1339:
It's good. My only request is that you upload it to the Commons under a freer licence than GFDL (see the discussion somewhere above).
1427:
A small thing, but it is described as a "program" in the intro, which is unusual for British English, "programme" being more usual.
1308:
I'll have to agree with Jono - whilst the first was nicer as a piece of art the second is a better diagram. Lovely work. :-) -
1052:
duplicate of this section? I would do so myself but I don't want to accidentally delete what someone else has said.) Regards,
205:
the site has been extensively fact-checked by fans of the programme, so it's about as good as you could ask for in the field.
364:
10 points a given for an exact answer, 7 points for a solution within 5 of the target, and 5 points for a solution within 10.
17:
1014:
Just for your consideration rather than "criticisms" or "objections" really, but hopefully worth thinking about. Sincerely,
1497:
993:, but it's a personal choice really (unless there's some Wikipedian guidance on the subject that I'm overlooking.) :-) -
1290:. I've removed the blue lines, raised area, clock and the gradient on the main clock. Hopefully that is a bit better :)
1349:
835:
seeding so that projected octochamps don't knock each other out early on. Secondly, look at the link that is given to
86:. This page is really quite good. I think the sectioning is within reason. I have two issues and a (stupid?) question.
1149:
Made this explicit. I don't think a lot of detail is necessary, but the teatime slot is a key part of the programme.
94:
Far too many fair-use images. Including an allegedly-fair-use scan of a page from the Oxford Dictionary of English.
1614:
1493:
706:
366:- This could be misunderstood to mean the scores are accumulative. Could that be clarified to avoid confusion?
836:
632:
30:
815:
Given some of the comments on the talk page on the subject, I suspect more could be written on the subject.
505:- My spell checker doesn't like that word. Would "syllable" be an acceptable replacement in that context?
1783:
suggestions in the course of this process and have created what I consider a truly comprehensive article.
1327:
1588:. There are more recent examples where the conundrum didn't spell any shorter words, e.g. YURICOLUS.
562:
I've had a go at fixing this but it's worth checking over by someone who isn't cream crackered. :-)
1119:
library but realistically an issue of the Radio Times from two decades ago is not easily obtained.
744:
I'll admit to not having read the entire article yet. I'll give a fully analysis at a later date.--
635:
page, which certainly lacks the breadth of TCP. Is there anything you actually dispute on there?
291:
266:
236:
195:
153:
112:
1171:
I've just realized there's an omission so glaring I'm tempted to move from merely commenting to
1227:
65:
I've removed two of the subsection headings. I can't see how any more of them are superfluous.
1679:
The sentence order here seems to imply that if a word isn't written down, it must be declared
1467:
1251:
31:
1799:
1549:
1450:
1309:
1287:
1255:
1071:
1053:
994:
563:
249:
980:
Thanks a lot. The only thing that's bothering me is that "Des Chiffres...'s" looks awful!
656:"Final 8 seconds of the Countdown clock music": My player only says its 7 seconds long. --
427:- I think on the show they call it a "Crucial Countdown Conundrum". Yay for alliteration!
8:
1770:
1388:
The article is generally good, and I wouldn't object to it becoming featured. That said,
1264:
857:
knockouts points out alternative ways that this could be done, it's not just 1 vs 8 etc.
774:
1158:
Yes, I think that was worth doing. Especially since it was raised in the UK Parliament!
1146:
Has it always been on at the 3.30pm slot? Or has it moved about over the past 20 years?
1683:
the 30 seconds are up. The second sentences should be moved to later in the paragraph.
287:
262:
232:
191:
149:
108:
731:
Dunno how that one slipped the net, but it's handled now. Thanks for pointing it out.
1195:
Found more info than I expected, in fact. Hopefully I've resolved this omission now.
517:
Cool. Thanks for getting all those things sorted. I've changed my status to Support.
1463:
1205:
1178:
1159:
1130:
1110:
1091:
1070:
I've added a reference (in both senses of the word) to Carol's MENSA membership. -
1062:
1043:
1015:
981:
963:
943:
895:
858:
848:
469:
This was edited out of the programme but has since appeared on many outtakes shows.
319:- Could the 'In fact' be removed from this sentence, I don't think it's neccessary.
1697:
The letters example might explicitly state that Contestant One scores no points.
1536:
754:
745:
710:
683:
657:
618:
246:
1725:
In Popular Culture, paragraph 2, I found this sentence very confusing at first:
1767:
1300:
1241:
1101:
1033:
953:
913:
792:
723:
640:
509:
476:
450:
431:
395:
370:
345:
330:
164:
38:
317:
In fact, Countdown was the first programme to be broadcast on the new channel.
37:
This article has recently undergone a massive overhaul at the hands of me and
1751:
1733:
1715:
1701:
1687:
1665:
1650:
1634:
1605:
1585:
1571:
1510:
1477:
1432:
1416:
1400:
1340:
1318:
1278:
1196:
1187:
1150:
1120:
972:
952:
interested in it you can write an article on it and we will source that. :-)
933:
886:
867:
819:
732:
666:
596:
572:
554:
414:
206:
178:
136:
99:
66:
42:
695:
Rather than involving algebra, I just changed it to something a bit simpler.
588:
needed? Not to mention your main source, "The Countdown Page", looks like a
394:
It's a trivial truth, but it makes sense to have it there, so I sorted it.
245:
Rôle is a legitimate spelling variant in English (the OED lists it too). --
107:
Three, actually (the lead logo is as well), but it seems reasonable now. —
1616:
1595:
843:
the idea that seeded knockouts all have 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc. If Countdown
831:
the tournament begins? Judging from the talk page comments, there is an
1501:
722:
Soo is better than me at these and has promised me he will do it soon.
636:
614:
1788:
Given that last statement, I will do what I'd forgotten to and add my
1353:
1331:
1291:
1268:
1232:
589:
518:
1286:
Aye, you're completely right. I went a bit crazy there! Here's the
908:
popularity or not of the particular format would be relevant here?
225:
And the (stupid?) question. What's up with spelling "role" "rôle"?
127:
584:
The number of references looks very superficial. Are all of those
188:
Knowledge:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources
146:
Knowledge:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources
1747:
the conundrom (forgot this one before 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
989:
I've changed it to the perhaps more conventional abbreviation of
753:
Withdrawn vote due to not having time to fully assess article. --
391:- They usually say the amount of small numbers as well, I think.
1462:
That said, it's good work, and I hope to see it featured soon.
56:
Too many sections and not enough information for each section.
1686:
This is awkward to explain concisely. See what you think now.
1533:
so you don't get all the little blue links on the main page.
1766:
obviously ... I'm curious as to why it is still here though.
1584:
Difficult to source, and not always true. For example, see
1330:. Let me know if there's anything you want changing on it.
384:
has a comma near the top, but not in a section lower down.
1729:
Perhaps replacing "moment" with "word" would be clearer.
464:- Maybe have "the" after "in" to make it easier to read?
1743:
There is no mention of what occurs if the game is tied
1399:
Yeah, you're right. I'll try to add something on this.
1411:
mentioning that the applause etc is live, not canned.
613:
more official than that "The Countdown Page". Also,
866:Okay, good point. This has now been made explicit.
682:Perhaps "<8 seconds" would be better then?--
665:Depends whether your player rounds up or down.
1186:Another good point. We're looking into this.
1431:Urgh, yes, a straight typo, and now fixed.
637:New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines
615:New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines
1586:http://www.thecountdownpage.com/final2.htm
924:on the original French show, what are the
389:Contestant One requests two large numbers
1204:Hey, that's really nice! I'm impressed.
444:They're not real; as far as I know the
14:
885:Good idea, this has been handled now.
357:10 points a given for an exact answer
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
359:should that be "10 points is given"?
1675:Letters rounds, paragraph 2 reads:
1348:Alrighty, that's fine. Here it is:
430:Yeah, CCC is the convention on TV.
27:
1350:commons:Image:Countdown studio.svg
28:
1814:
1649:That one slipped the net. Fixed.
928:features of the British version?
407:However not all games are soluble
707:Image:Countdown letters game.jpg
13:
1:
1326:Cool! I've uploaded it here:
837:Single-elimination tournament
827:For a start, are they seeded
839:. That article specifically
709:lacks fair use rationale. --
7:
261:Oh. Is it a common style? —
10:
1819:
1328:Image:Countdown_studio.svg
1226:I notice that this image:
617:is a broken link for me.--
409:- Should that be solvable?
1803:11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
1776:20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1755:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1737:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1719:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1705:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1691:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1669:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1654:15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1638:14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1620:12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1609:23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1599:23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1575:23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1553:13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1540:19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1514:16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
1505:16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1481:15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
1472:13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
1454:15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
1436:15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
1420:15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
1404:15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
1357:12:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
1344:08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
1335:18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
1322:11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
1317:Yep, good stuff. Thanks!
1313:09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
1304:18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1295:18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1282:11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1100:effectively add this in.
1026:Also worth thinking about
758:06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
571:I think it's better now.
499:superlative forms of one-
1272:20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
1259:17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
1245:09:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
1236:23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
1209:20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1200:19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1191:17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1182:21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1163:20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1154:17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1134:20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1124:17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1114:21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1105:21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1095:17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1075:21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
1066:20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1057:12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
1047:21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1037:21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1019:01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
998:21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
985:20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
976:17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
967:21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
957:21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
947:16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
937:12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
917:21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
899:16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
890:12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
871:17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
862:21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
852:16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
823:12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
796:16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
787:16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
749:18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
736:20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
727:19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
714:19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
687:18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
670:09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
661:06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
644:19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
622:18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
600:09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
576:11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
567:21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
558:09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
522:00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
513:22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
480:22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
462:In 2002 film About a Boy
454:22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
435:22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
418:09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
399:22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
374:22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
349:22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
334:22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
296:14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
271:16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
253:11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
241:03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
210:15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
200:14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
186:Thank you. Did you read
182:10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
168:21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
158:16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
140:13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
117:16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
103:13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
70:13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
61:02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
46:23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
1492:. Good article, but a
1299:Excellentay! Nice one.
1228:Image:Studiodiagram.png
1252:Image:Countdownset.jpg
413:They are synoynmous.
148:. Objection stands. —
32:Countdown (game show)
22:Countdown (game show)
1562:- A few suggestions:
494:- Spelling mistakes.
1494:citation spot check
1176:
639:seems fine to me.
174:Spreading The Word
128:The Countdown Page
1773:
1172:
425:crucial conundrum
172:I looked through
126:Over-reliance on
1810:
1771:
785:
781:
773:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1800:CountdownCrispy
1633:with comments,
1550:Ta bu shi da yu
1451:CountdownCrispy
1310:CountdownCrispy
1256:CountdownCrispy
1072:CountdownCrispy
1054:CountdownCrispy
995:CountdownCrispy
783:
775:
768:
564:CountdownCrispy
495:
465:
410:
385:
360:
320:
304:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1816:
1806:
1805:
1795:
1794:
1785:
1784:
1779:
1778:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1642:
1641:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1564:
1563:
1556:
1555:
1527:
1526:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1490:Weakish Object
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1390:
1389:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
921:
920:
919:
912:look into it.
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
854:
809:
808:
801:
800:
799:
798:
761:
760:
751:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
729:
717:
716:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
690:
689:
675:
674:
673:
672:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
625:
624:
605:
604:
603:
602:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
560:
544:
543:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
496:
486:
484:
483:
482:
466:
460:
458:
457:
456:
439:
438:
437:
422:
421:
420:
405:
403:
402:
401:
386:
380:
378:
377:
376:
361:
355:
353:
352:
351:
338:
337:
336:
321:
315:
310:
309:
302:
299:
298:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
256:
255:
228:
227:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
170:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
98:Now only two.
88:
87:
77:
75:
74:
73:
72:
39:User:JonONeill
34:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1815:
1804:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1777:
1774:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1696:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1629:
1628:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1592:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1532:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1488:
1487:
1482:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1455:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1265:current draft
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1088:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1013:
999:
996:
992:
988:
987:
986:
983:
979:
978:
977:
974:
970:
969:
968:
965:
960:
959:
958:
955:
950:
949:
948:
945:
940:
939:
938:
935:
930:
929:
927:
922:
918:
915:
910:
909:
906:
900:
897:
893:
892:
891:
888:
884:
883:
880:
872:
869:
865:
864:
863:
860:
855:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
821:
817:
816:
813:
812:
811:
810:
806:
803:
802:
797:
794:
790:
789:
788:
782:
780:
779:
771:
766:
763:
762:
759:
756:
752:
750:
747:
743:
737:
734:
730:
728:
725:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
712:
708:
705:
704:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
671:
668:
664:
663:
662:
659:
655:
654:
645:
642:
638:
634:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
620:
616:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
601:
598:
594:
593:
591:
587:
583:
577:
574:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
559:
556:
552:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
541:
538:
537:
533:
532:
523:
520:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
506:
504:
502:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
473:
472:
470:
467:
463:
459:
455:
452:
447:
443:
442:
440:
436:
433:
429:
428:
426:
423:
419:
416:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
397:
393:
392:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
368:
367:
365:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
343:
342:
339:
335:
332:
328:
327:
325:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
307:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
288:Bunchofgrapes
285:
282:
281:
272:
268:
264:
263:Bunchofgrapes
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
248:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
233:Bunchofgrapes
230:
229:
226:
223:
211:
208:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
192:Bunchofgrapes
189:
185:
184:
183:
180:
175:
171:
169:
166:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
150:Bunchofgrapes
147:
143:
142:
141:
138:
133:
132:
131:
129:
124:
118:
114:
110:
109:Bunchofgrapes
106:
105:
104:
101:
97:
96:
95:
92:
91:
90:
89:
85:
84:
80:
79:
78:
71:
68:
64:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
50:
49:
48:
47:
44:
40:
33:
23:
19:
1789:
1763:
1744:
1726:
1680:
1676:
1630:
1559:
1545:
1535:
1530:
1528:
1522:
1489:
1466:
1442:
1426:
1385:
1288:second draft
1223:
1173:
1025:
990:
925:
844:
840:
832:
828:
804:
777:
776:
769:
764:
585:
539:
535:
534:
500:
498:
491:
487:
468:
461:
445:
424:
406:
388:
381:
363:
356:
323:
316:
305:
283:
224:
173:
125:
93:
82:
81:
76:
52:
51:
36:
1464:Warofdreams
1206:TheGrappler
1179:TheGrappler
1160:TheGrappler
1131:TheGrappler
1111:TheGrappler
1092:TheGrappler
1063:TheGrappler
1044:TheGrappler
1016:TheGrappler
982:TheGrappler
964:TheGrappler
944:TheGrappler
926:distinctive
896:TheGrappler
859:TheGrappler
849:TheGrappler
1537:Mglovesfun
1476:Thanks :)
1444:explicit).
942:conundrum?
772:murrayinch
755:SeizureDog
746:SeizureDog
711:SeizureDog
684:SeizureDog
658:SeizureDog
619:SeizureDog
503:adjectives
1798:Regards,
1496:(results
633:Channel 4
590:GeoCities
501:syllabled
488:knickname
446:greyhound
58:QuizQuick
1793:now. :-)
1635:jwanders
894:Thanks!
369:Sorted.
344:Sorted.
20: |
1790:support
1764:Support
1631:Support
1570:Fixed.
1560:Comment
1546:Support
1531:sources
1523:Comment
1386:Comment
1224:Comment
841:refutes
833:initial
805:Comment
791:Fixed.
765:Support
540:Abstain
492:occured
306:Support
303:Comment
284:Support
1772:(talk)
1732:Done.
1714:Done.
1700:Done.
1681:before
1617:JMiall
1596:JMiall
1174:oppose
829:before
592:page.
586:really
536:Object
83:Object
53:Object
1745:after
1502:Robth
991:DCedL
807:only:
382:4,000
250:Quill
247:Oldak
16:<
1768:Jono
1613:See
1498:here
1468:talk
1354:Icey
1332:Icey
1301:Jono
1292:Icey
1269:Icey
1242:Jono
1233:Icey
1102:Jono
1034:Jono
954:Jono
914:Jono
793:Jono
784:ster
724:Jono
641:Jono
519:Icey
510:Jono
490:and
477:Jono
451:Jono
432:Jono
396:Jono
371:Jono
346:Jono
331:Jono
324:rôle
292:talk
267:talk
237:talk
196:talk
165:Jono
154:talk
113:talk
1752:Soo
1734:Soo
1716:Soo
1702:Soo
1688:Soo
1666:Soo
1651:Soo
1606:Soo
1572:Soo
1511:Soo
1478:Soo
1433:Soo
1417:Soo
1401:Soo
1341:Soo
1319:Soo
1279:Soo
1197:Soo
1188:Soo
1151:Soo
1121:Soo
973:Soo
934:Soo
887:Soo
868:Soo
820:Soo
733:Soo
667:Soo
597:Soo
573:Soo
555:Soo
415:Soo
286:. —
207:Soo
190:? —
179:Soo
137:Soo
100:Soo
67:Soo
43:Soo
1548:-
1352:.
845:is
294:)
269:)
239:)
198:)
156:)
115:)
778:e
770:s
542::
290:(
265:(
235:(
231:—
194:(
152:(
111:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.