Talk:Reach for the Top

message: Since the questions alternate between teams, one team can gain a maximum of 30 points from one of these.  The fact that the question is worth 50 is true, but I don't think it conveys the proper message.  I'm not sure that it's an important enough distinction to warrant a more in-depth explanation.  Any ideas?  Peter T.S. 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of questions: List 

message: The local TV versions (and then the nationals) of "Reach for the Top" will be broadcasting soon (I believe the British Columbia season has already been taped), so I'm suggesting when the time comes a spoiler warning should be present. I fell victim to spoilers for the last two seasons (2003-04 and 2004-05; the latter for me didn't occur here but on the official "Reach" site). MapleLeafFan04 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Spoiler Warnings 

message: The reason I put a stub for Reach for the Top is because it still needs formatting typical for a TV series, pictures if there are some available and other details that might be found from other contributers to Wikipedia. Jeopardy should be used as a possible template. jdobbin 20:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub for Reach for the Top 

message: That section looks almost like a vanity subsection to me, especially the second paragraph. God_ofcoffee 17:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the second part was a little much (and earlier versions were mostly nonsense anyway). The first part seems okay though. Adam Bishop 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Memorial beat champions from the US in an exhibition match - that is notable.  I believe the greatest team is either Lorne Jenkins of the 70s (7 consecutive national finals appearances and a mention in the Canadian Encyclopedia) or UTS of the modern era (6? nationals appearances coming out of the perennially-tough Ontario playoffs). --Bdsmith (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Teams 

message: I have to disagree with the suggestion made by the user in the recent edit summary. As Muckapedia says above, I feel that Reach is competitive quiz league first, television series second. If the league's champion has officially been declared, we should post it. Would you refrain from posting the outcome of a sporting event if it was tape-delayed six months? What do others think? Andy Saunders 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to the recent suggestion in the edit summary 

message: I watched a match from the 06-07 Nationals and noticed that teams were deducted 5 points for interrupting the reader with an incorrect response.  Is this a new league-wide rule (but doesn't appear on their website), or was it a one-time thing?  In the past, Reach has introduced new rules (shootouts, relays, etc.) during the higher-level tournaments, not at the start of a year.  --Bdsmith (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neg 5s? 

message: An anonymous edit said Lisgar's 2008 victory by 5 points was the result of a "controversial" decision.  I removed it until I know what this "controversy" is.  I am under the impression that the game was won as a result of too many point penalties by UTS- which is not controversial in itself.  Even so, there are far worse controversies in Reach than just having the title in dispute.  Bell students and Reach went to court in 1995 because Reach barred the defending champs from playing at provincials.  --Bdsmith (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision was not controversial. If the judges reviewed the tape, and decided in favour of Lisgar, it must have been a fair decision. Either way, the producers had little to lose either way. If it was on tape, and time ran out on tape, then its not controversial, it just what happened. Calling it controversial is hinting that something went wrong, or Lisgar played unfairly. It simply violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'm not against explaining the facts (buzz in time/reviewing the tape), but calling it "controversial" is demeaning. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Calling it "controversial" without a reference is improper; I've removed it until a reference is added. Additionally, that is not the proper place in the article for mentioning any such controversy. Andy Saunders (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: However, from the position of the video review booth, this was a very easy decision to make (both the clock and the siren beat the buzz-in).  Congratulations to both Lisgar and UTS ... they are great players who clearly earned their place in the National Championship. 64.229.177.96 (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisgar's "controversial" win 

message: Let's get some references on this page beyond Reach's website.  The deletion nomination for National Academic Championship may prompt similar requests for other quiz-related articles.  I do not doubt that Reach is notable in Canada; I just need some help in digging up stuff.  In particular, I am looking for the mention in the House of Commons from the early 1980s (by a Manitoba MP I believe) in which the MP argued to save Reach from cancellation on the CBC (ie:  any way to search Hansard archives?).  The obituaries of Bill Guest and Sandy Stewart may be useful for organizing the history.  There is also very little with respect to the modern era of SchoolReach other than some local papers trumpeting a school's success, but I think there was a National Post story about the goings-on at the 2002 Ontario playoffs.  --Bdsmith (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References