Talk:The Amazing Race/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Most Visited Country

Some countries are visited many times, others have never been visited. Which country in Amazing Race was the most visited? It should be a "trivia." -amitroy5

Iraq?

I wonder why no episodes have ever taken place in Iraq. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.30.160.79 (talk • contribs) .

External Links

Any thoughts on these sites? They may fall under Fancruft, but are good if you are looking for rules of the race, etc. 

http://www.tcssc.com/amazingrace/index.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/spysyouth/amazingrace/index.html

--User:oneNemesis 13:24, 7 February 2006 (EST)

Amazing Race userbox

I've created an Amazing Race userbox, so that users can place it on their userpage. Enjoy! --Madchester 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks Madchester! mouselmm 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Could We Make This a Featured Article?

I think it meets all the standards. If we are, we better do it soon, because it will be majorly edited in February for TAR 9 Anchorage 20:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not in its current form. Here are the problems I spot with it:
Jtrost 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, the Arrested Development article contains a lot of the points (article size, images, external links, etc.) that you mentioned, yet it was featured a few months ago. A lot of those criteriaare somewhat subjective anyway. Regardless, the current state of the article would be somewhere around Stage 2 or 3 of the FA process. I don't care whether this becomes a FA, but there's no harm working towards that goal. Stranger FAs have happened, comme "Cool (song)". --Madchester 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd definately support making this article becoming an FA. The first thing we need to do is identify what needs to be improved, then create a to do list, and then do the to do list. After that we can get a peer review, then put it up for nomination. Jtrost 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's make a list; I like that idea. Anchorage 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

To Do discussion

I reverted your edit removing all of the fansites. One fansite is ok to have (see the guidelines at WP:EL). Also, see the archived talk page about why some of the fansites are relevant. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone resize the pics to 200px, the pics are big and some pics are also unnecessary it just make the article very long and could someone delete those official websites of the past seasons and just put CBS.com/Amazing_Race--Hotwiki 13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

Here's how I feel about the screenshots we currently have.

  • Kris/Jon ("Teams" section) - Good image; shows a typical dating-couple team, who are also fan favorites. I say we keep it.
  • Colin/Christie ("Money") - Another good image; shows the typical scene of teams departing. However, it doesn't really focus on money; it looks more like they're reading the clue. I say keep for now, but perhaps try to get one more appropriate for the section (such as a team begging for money; and the money should be plainly visible in the picture).
  • Gary/Dave ("Fast Forward") - Not really necessary; just shows the run-of-the-mill scene of teams reading a clue. The only thing special about it is that it shows the color-coded caption for the Fast Forward directions. I'd say either get a screenshot showing the captions for all the other clues (Yellow for Detour, Red for Roadblock, Blue for Route Info), or don't include this one at all. Since the former would lead to too many images, I'd go with the latter and Delete it.
  • Phil ("Pit Stops") - A good shot of him; since he's the main man, I'd say this one is necessary. Keep.
  • Teams in Sweden ("Rules") - Not a very good image; when I see it, I notice the red dot rather than the teams. Also; it doesn't really pertain directly to the rules of the race, so I say Delete.
  • Teri/Ian ("Penalties") - Not really pertinent to the section, since it doesn't involve a penalty, credit, or even a replacement vehicle. Since less is more when it comes to images, I say Delete.
  • Teams on Camel Carts ("Trivia") - Not a very good image; looks more like a pile of junk than a "camel cart". Also, it doesn't really pertain to the section. Delete.
  • Jonathan/Victoria ("Criticisms") - A good image that brings out Jonathan's overbearing nature. Since this is mentioned in the section, I say Keep.
  • Paolo Family ("Criticisms") - Not really pertinent to the section; just because it's from Season 8 doesn't mean it's about the criticisms of season 8. Since I said keep for the other image in this section, I say Delete for this one.

Also, I tested what the pics would look like at 200px, and they looked okay. If it would help cut down the article size, I say we do it. What do you think? --CrazyLegsKC 05:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with any of your suggestions. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind cutting down on the photos, but it'd be best if we have some variety across all the seasons. I can get images of teams at a Detour, Roadblock, Yield, etc. and upload those shots, and remove the less important ones in the trivia sections. --Madchester 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a gallery to move some of the extra photos that are taking up space. --Madchester 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Just a thought, I know it's not a priority right now, but has there ever been a consideration for a whole trivia page like the Survivor Trivia? - HansTAR 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking of doing that, actually. It would be a great place to put all the little bits of info that seem interesting, but are to miniscule to include in the main article. I say we go for it. --CrazyLegsKC 09:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, like the "indiscriminate information" that's been "disappearing" from all the pages lol -- HansTAR 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll start it here: The Amazing Race trivia --CrazyLegsKC 01:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Where can we link to the trivia page? In the "Seasons" box? Or perhaps in the Trivia section say "for more trivia, see..." --HansTAR 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I also noticed that the page hasn't been wiki-linked yet! Kinda defeats its purpose, non? HansTAR is on the right track with where the link should be... --Madchester 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. I overheard your conversation and linked to your triva page (as a subscript just below the 'Trivia' heading). This is the same formatting they used on the Survivor page. Monkeyman 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Country count

I just thought I'd mention this, since it seems worthy. Yesterday, on a commercial for the new season, they mentioned that the show has "taken viewers to 48 countries". The country table/list contains 50 countries. I'm thinking that CBS wasn't counting Vatican City, since it wasn't shown, or the United States, since it's not really "visited". If that's correct, that means our list is right-on. --CrazyLegsKC 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not just that the Vatican wasn't shown, it wasn't visited at all (no one took the fast forward in that leg). Furthermore, the way the Fast Forward was worded, I don't think that they would have been to the Vatican if they had taken the Fast Forward. The clue apparently said someting like "the key to the FF is a hole view of the Vatican" - I would guess it means that you can see the Vatican from the FF's location, not that the FF is actually in the Vatican. For those reasons, I don't think that the Vatican should be included in the table, and I would assume that they didn't count it.
As for the other country that wasn't counted in the 48, I would guess it's either the USA or Spain. Or maybe they made a mistake (which wouldn't surprise me, they've make mistakes before - I don't believe, for example, that TAR5 really was 72,000 miles). 128.230.13.84 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I've been curious about that last statement, because on my computer I have a program that draws out trip routes and such, so one day I traced out the TAR5 route and it came to like 35,000 miles. My program might be wrong, but even if all the walking within cities and stuff were counted, that still wouldn't equal an additional 40,000 miles. Furthermore, other season routes averaged about 25,000 miles each but whatever. --HansTAR 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that they do count the walking within cities and stuff. IIRC, the TAR route would be somewhere around 50,000-55,000 miles if that's counted. My guess is that they probably forgot to turn some of the kilometers into miles... 128.230.13.84 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to say this several months ago but the show has yet to visit SPAIN for any tasks, and this country is incorrectly highlighted in green on your map.

Gallery

I removed the gallery from the article:

[gallery removed]

feel free to reinsert the images in the main body of the article if they compliment the text on the side. However, there is a hidden ceiling on the number of screenshots that we can claim under fairuse. Its fine if they are used for critical commentary (i.e. in the main body in such a way as they add to the text) but I think that a gallery is pushing it. Plus, galleries are coming under fire all over wikipedia. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine... I have no problems with that. --Madchester 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, fair use images are not allowed on talk pages. As such, I removed the gallery and have deleted the images as they have been unused in any article for more than 7 days. howcheng {chat} 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Race Rules?

I'm sorry, I'm not liking The Amazing Race rules article. Too many typos, unconfirmed statements, and blatant errors. I think it's superfluous as well, since most of the stuff is already covered in the main article. --HansTAR 05:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am kind of confused on what you want done. Did you want to nominate for deletion or did you just want attention brought to the article? I just did a quick copyedit but I am sure I missed quite a bit. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The main article already contains all the necessary rules of the Race. I just don't see what the sub-article adds to the details. --Madchester 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
All the details on the new page are completely unnecessary, for one of four reasons: DUH! factor ("The objective of The Amazing Race is to finish first out of all of the teams...", "A Roadblock must be completed") Already mentioned in main article ("Teams can only use one Yield in the whole race", "Teams will not be credited for any time lost during their car breakdown") Downright wrong ("...25-Day race", "Teams can use as many or as little fast forwards as they want to") Complete fabrications ("Teams cannot buy food from supermarkets")
About the one thing I see that it does is somewhat put the rules into an organized format, but per the above post, there really wouldn't be anything to merge, so I say Nominate for Deletion. --HansTAR 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Question for Penalties section here

Aren't there also cases where apparent violations of the rules have been 'corrected' without resorting to penalties? For example, Lake and Michelle (TAR9) called ahead for tickets, which violated the rules. While they were, in fact, forced to cancel the reservation, they were not given an additional penalty on check-in. I'm not sure if this is standard for TAR, or a one-time event. Stismail 17:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think that, as they self-corrected the error and gained no advantage (in fact, they had to take a later flight because the pulled over to use the phone), no other penalty would be levied. As for other examples, there's nothing I can recall... Radagast 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is Tara/Wil and Blake/Paige of TAR2, who correctly re-performed a Roadblock after performing the entire task incorrectly. Had they not corrected it, they probably would have received a penalty. Also, Chip/Kim of TAR5 took a taxi partway to the airport when they were instructed to drive themselves; when they realized their mistake, they told their driver to take them back, and then drove themselves the entire way. --CrazyLegsKC 02:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Survivor sucks"

Does anyone else this link should be there? -- Barrylb 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's se:

  • Past contestants including Chip (TAR5), Jonathan (TAR6), Ray, Susan (TAR7) have all posted there, providing behind the scenes information.
  • In Season 8, one poster shared a full set of instructions left behind by production during the Utah leg
  • Lots of links to TAR media.

I recommend reviewing the forum's contents, before making hasty deletions. --Madchester 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so thrilled as you about the site. -- Barrylb 01:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Tian (TAR4) also posted in that board before--hottie 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that these aren't just fan sites we happen to be providing links to; their content has provided sources for a lot of the article's information. I think we're justified in listing all of them. Radagast 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I could see though why there would be a basis for removal, it is one of the more vulgar and liberal TAR sites out there. But still, good information so keep it. --HansTAR 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If they are used as a source for the article, they should be listed under references, not external links. Keep in mind that the guidelines recommend only one major fansite, or a link to a directory instead, and that is what we should be aiming for. -- Barrylb 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts on the external links ...
tarflies.com: Remove. Google adsense ads, Amazon ads. Minimal content.
p085.ezboard.com/fsurvivorsucksfrm23: Remove. Site is nn and has few users.
community.realitytvworld.com/boards/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi?az=list&conf=DCConfID13: Remove Difficult to navigate, Minimal content.
forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showforum=424: This is the only one I would keep. Has banner ads but also has large/active userbase, quite a bit of discussion/chat. Monkeyman(talk) 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

TARflies is pretty much the most comprehensive TAR fansite online. Regular episode summaries, screencaps, etc. It also has one of the most comprehensive FAQ/set of rules for the race, even moreso than the official site [1] The site also has regular commentaries from past racers (Alex (Season 2), ATCs (Season 4), Clowns (Season 4)) and a series of in-depth interviews with past racers [2]. There's also special commentaries from past racers; there was a humourous one from 9 yr old Clarissa (TAR 8) recently [3].

Once again, I advise the deletionists to review the content of the fan sites carefully before making rash decisions. --Madchester 05:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines do state that fansites should be kept to a minimum. If we re-title these as references or sources, I think we'll be on firmer ground. Radagast 15:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Episode Count

The count listed here is 106. Is that counting 2-hour episodes as two separate episodes? TV.com lists the episode from March 21, 2006 as the 100th episode. This means then that the episode count on the season pages are wrong, too. --Ryvius 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a case for this earlier on this talk page, but I kinda forgot about it. I believe I agree with you as well as TV.Com. --65.40.16.81 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: As much as the 100th episode was celebrated and such, I don't think there's been 102 episodes of The Amazing Race. Here's a breakdown of each season:

Season 1: 13 legs, 13 episodes (1 per leg)

Season 2: 13 legs, 11 episodes (Leg 8&9 two hour special, 2 leg finale)

Season 3: 13 legs, 11 episodes (same as above)

Season 4: 13 legs, 13 episodes (1 per leg)

Season 5: 13 legs, 12 episodes (2-leg two-hour finale)

Season 6: 12 legs, 12 episodes (double length leg shown over two episodes, 2-leg finale)

Season 7: 12 legs, 11 episodes (Leg 5&6 two hour special, double length shown over two episodes, 2-leg finale)

Season 8: 11 legs, 11 episodes (Leg 7&8 two hour special, double length shown over two episodes, 1-leg two hour finale)


This adds up to only 94 total episodes. There HAVE been 100 total legs, and if double-length legs are counted as two, then there have been 104 "legs". But nowhere, as far as I can see, is there a number 102. If someone can correct me, please do. HansTAR 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

--HansTAR 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Critcisms: BJ and Tyler's supposed favoritism

First, Uchenna and Joyce also survived 2 non-elims, so there's been a precedent.


Also, this is not the first time that racers had a supposed geographical advantage. It seems like a POV comment for suggesting that the Hippies had an unfair "home court advantage", when past teams never truly capitalized in similar situations.

  • Season 1, Guidos had lived in Paris for a year (or so); they actually lost a lot of ground by being lazy on that leg. Frank and Margarita lived in NYC, and tried to use that to their advantage on the final leg by suggesting a short cut, but it actually costed them time to the finish line.
  • Season 2, Tara and Will made regular business trips to Bangkok, Thailand but they never placed first in the Thailand legs. The finale took place in their hometown of SF, but they still lost in a foot race.
  • Season 5, both Colin and Christie and Brandon and Nicole were based in Texas; both teams lost to Californians Chip and Kim during the finale in Dallas.
  • Season 6, Lena and Kristy were eliminated in Sweden; they had lived in the country for several years and have Scadivanian roots.

Basiucally, there hasn't been a strong causal relationship between geographical familiarity and success on the Race.

Likewise, no one was complaining when Spanish-speaking teams were casted and were able to speak with locals in South America. Or how Jon had an "unfair advantage" in the water polo Detour in Season 6, b/c he was a college water polo player. --Madchester 06:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. In fact, when Tyler first mentioned during the final episode that he had spent time in Japan, I leaned over to my wife and said "Oh, well, the hippies just lost the race." --Dmleach 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by the number of anon. editors trying to add references to BJ and Tyler in one way or another. They're great ambassadors for the Race and kudos for their victory, but we don't need to namedrop them every other paragraph. --Madchester 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

References

I think we need to be adding a list of references across all of the Race pages. --Madchester 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Two images removed

I decided to be bold and remove the following two images from the article:

Teams competing in Stockholm, Sweden. Racers must abide by a comprehensive set of rules. (Season 6) Teams competing on camel carts from a Roadblock in Season 7

I had a few reasons for doing this.

  • As I mentioned in the "Screenshots" section above a few months ago, they aren't very good images, IMO. The first just looks like a blob of blue and white with a spot of red--and the red dot is what catches the eye when it's looked at, not the teams (which is what's really important). The second just looks like a pile of junk, not "teams competing on camel carts."
  • They didn't really relate to or contribute to the sections where they were placed. How does a picture of teams playing shuffleboard at an ice hotel related to the race's "comprehensive set of rules"? How does a picture of Meredith on a camel cart relate to trivia about the race?
  • The sections (and article) look perfectly fine without them, and less is more when it comes to images.

I also moved the pic of Teri/Ian up to the top of the "penalties" section. I think it looks better that way now that I removed the image in the above section. What do you think of these changes?

Seems good TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 13:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. If the images don't pertain to the section anymore, than feel free to remove them. --Madchester 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'm also going to remove this image. I don't think it really added anything to the FF section, and it doesn't make sense to have a screencap of one type of clue and not all the others.

Gary and Dave (Season 2) win the Fast Forward at Wong Tai Sin Temple, Hong Kong

I originally uploaded that photo cuz the Race rarely features FFs anymore. So I thought that a pictoral explaination would be useful. Not a big deal if it is removed. --Madchester 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia source?

Also, for similar reasons, the show makes the point of not actually showing the crews to the point where crewmen have occasionally been digitally removed from the picture in post-production.

The cited source for this trivia is a blog-ish post that says "I have to agree with the Eagle-Eyed Forum Poster". This person doesn't appear to have any better source than their own guessing. In addition, the next sentance says "Having said that, I'm now sure it's probably not true." This doesn't sound like an apt source. I'm not saying the trivia is false, but I think it should be listed as {{Fact}} until a more official source with actual knowledge of the show's production. TheHYPO 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Amazing Race

I'm suggesting creating a WikiProject for The Amazing Race. If you agree with me, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject The Amazing Race TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Product Placemtn

Why was my addition of another example of product placement removed? (Note that I wasn't registered at the time, it's listed under my IP.)

The list was growing and there was already a lot there, so I guess someone removed it. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 12:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The criticism was more in reference to recent seasons. Product placement has been present throughout all the seasons, but only in such seasons as TAR7, 8, and 9 have they been excessive.

Article on Amazing Race 10

I say we add this article. It's entertaining and it ties in very well to season 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedrobber (talk • contribs)

The Amazing Race: It Pays to be a Jerk: http://www.buddytv.com/articles/the_amazing_race/the_amazing_race_it_pays_to_be.aspx

Consider putting this on the TAR 10 page TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New navbox

I have created the template {{The Amazing Race}} to replace {{ARseasons}} and to include international versions and related articles. What do you think? Tinlinkin 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. The old one had all the external links and it looked terrible. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 10:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah concur, but where would we put the official sites then? HansTAR
The official sites are included on each season's page. This was the same thing with the Survivor template. It was decided to rmv the official sites since they were already available in the article. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 01:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Plane tickets

I assume that each team has a cameraperson with them? That means that they actually have to have three tickets on each flight? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's 4 tickets - two team members, the camera, and the AV person (6 during Family Edition). However, they always make sure to have footage of teams asking for 2 only to keep the illusion up, but yes, they have to get 4 tickets (all econ class too). I thought this was in the article, but I'll check it.Masem 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ETA to add, yes, it's there under trivia, though it may be a bit confusing (added some language to help here). Masem 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, yeah, I see it now.  ;) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

LGBT-related cat

What's the deal with the LGBT tag on this show's many seasons? It's not really sensible to put up that tag, simply because a LGBT racer has made an appearance. For example, if a LGBT contestant appeared on Jeopardy!, would the show be classified as a LGBT programme, even though there is never mention of one's sexual orientation on the show? Likewise, the show What Not to Wear features a gay host, yet the show rarely makes mention of his sexual orientation, let alone the sexual preferences of the makeover contestants. --Madchester 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to leave a note on Otto4711's page to look here at your explaination. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see category description for Category:LGBT-related television programs - "A category for television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature important gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device. Not a category for "very special episodes" or series which featured an LGBT character in a single episode." The cat was added to each season in which a gay team or racer was a top performer or when a gay racer's sexuality was cited as a reason for racing. Joe and Bill (season 1) finished in the top three. Oswald and Danny (season 2) finished 4th. Andrew (season 3) raced to strengthen a family relationship that was strained by his being gay. Reichen and Chip (season 4) won. Lauren (season 10) raced with her father to help repair the relationship that was strained because of his reaction to her lesbianism. Gay racers appeared in other seasons but were not as integral to the ongoing race, so although there's absolutely no reason not to include the cat there I would be more understanding if it were removed. But for racers finishing as strongly as they did in seasons 1, 2 and 4 and with the amount of attention paid especially during season 4 to Reichen and Chip's marriage and during season 10 to Duke's relationship with Lauren, any claim that those seasons don't belong in the category are IMHO unsupportable. If there's some unspoken rule that individual seasons don't belong in any cats other than Category:The Amazing Race then add the LGBT category to the main TAR article, but the series definitely falls under the LGBT cat and should be included. Otto4711 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with your interpretation of the category description in several cases. "... which deal with or feature important gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." Seasons 1, 2, and 4, with the racers being in the top 4 you might be able to make a case for them as "important characters". However, in the other seasons, the racers were out much earlier, and so not as likely to be considered important. And in none of the seasons was the romance or relationship and important plot device. The plot device was the race, challenges, etc, the existing relationship was merely part of the background setup to the story. And in Season 10 Duke and Lauren were gone so quickly, that even if they did discuss the sexuality issue a couple times (once in the first episode introductions, and once when they were eliminated, as I recall), that's only a total of about 3 minutes of footage at most, so how does that make it important or notable to the series? --Maelwys 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, The Amazing Race 10 would be an "Asian-related show" because of the Cho Bros. Has their Asian background provided any motivating plot themes throughout the entire series? Not particularly. Same idea for the LGBT cat. I noticed that you created the category yourself, and you may need to re-think what qualifies for this grouping. --Madchester 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to formulate responses to this nonsense and I keep getting stymied by the level of ignorance of the replies. I'm continually amazed that at a site that prides itself on being a repository of knowledge presented in a neutral fashion that on the topic of sexual orientation I keep running up against editors who refuse to overcome their personal biases on the issue of sexual orientation. Of course a team member talking in pretty much every episode about his difficulty in handling his daughter's sexuality is an important LGBT-related plot aspect. Of course a gay team who stands at the finish line and talks about their marriage and how important a message it sends are important LGBT "characters." It's not even a reasonable question. Otto4711 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that anyone is trying to diminish the LGBT and issues thereof in terms of the successes of various teams on the Amazing Race. However, unlike most of the other shows that are listed in that category, TAR is not set up to necessary revolve around LGBT contestants or characters, or deal with issues of LGBT; the players and teams will bring it up, but really, that's not planned at all being a reality TV show. Like Maelwys points out above, if the LGBT-related category is set for this, then there should be one for Asian-related, and African-American-related, and women-related, and-- the list would be way too long, and basically you get into the idea of list cruft, which is the last thing you want on wikipedia. (Additional argument, why is not Survivor then in the LGBT list? A gay man won the first season...) Additionally, when you come from the LGBT portal, the related links are all ideas or organizations or other things that support and really discuss the issues of LGBT by design. I think that's the clarification that's needed here, that shows in the LGBT list should be shows that by design from the offset will deal with LGBT issues. In TAR, it's stuff that happens in passing, and while some of the famous teams are representatives of LGBT, the show wasn't designed to insult nor glorify them - they're just reality show contestants. By design, TAR is a travel-based reality TV show, and from a wikipedia standpoint, that's the only real categories it should occupy.Masem 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As for why Survivor isn't listed, I don't watch Survivor so I don't feel I have the necessary knowledge base to decide whether to include it. I have no idea how much if at all Richard Hatch talked about being gay or how much of an issue his being gay was in the show. I do know that issues of sexuality have played a significant role in several seasons of TAR, whether in the form of gay teams being successful or teams with one or more gay members interviewing about how being gay influenced their decisions.

As for including other "-related" categories, if they even exist which I don't know that they do, I can't think of any racers who talked about being black or Asian or what-have-you in the same fashion as some of the gay racers and their teammates do. If they did, then I would no object to including them in the appropriate category. However, that an article may or may not fit into Category A is not a legitimate point of discussion for whether it should be included in Category B. Categories should stand or fall on their own.

As for other shows which may not be designed to deal with LGBT issues from the start, that's not a reasonable criterion. So a show which didn't set out to address LGBT issues, but some number of seasons in then does, should be excluded from the category because the show wasn't intended to address such issues from the pilot? No. The category is not for "shows all about gay people." It's for shows with important gay characters, or address important gay issues. TAR clearly has important gay participants, including past winners and high placing teams, and clearly addresses important gay issues, such as racers who go on the race to repair relationships that have been damaged because of sexuality issues.

From a wikipedia standpoint, articles belong in whatever categories are reasonable and appropriate. It's reasonable and appropriate to include a show which features numerous successful gay participants and numerous important gay issues in a gay-related category. Otto4711 03:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one more thought and then I'll shut up for a while. Were the criterion of "shows in the LGBT list should be shows that by design from the offset will deal with LGBT issues" to be adopted, then Ellen, one of the most significant gay-related shows in the US to date, could not be included, because it was not designed from the offset to deal with gay issues and was on the air for several seasons before Ellen DeGeneres came out and lesbian issues became prominent. Otto4711 03:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If a contestant on Dancing with the Stars was gay, would it qualify for the category? I don't believe so, because the program's primary premise is the dance competition. Even if the contestant talks about his or her sexuality in interviews within the program, that is still a rather minor component. An important aspect of The Amazing Race is the relationship and interaction between team pairs (and other teams), but if they include a homosexual couple or individual, I don't believe that automatically qualifies the program for the category. If that was so, other similar reality shows (The Real World, Big Brother in several countries) would be included. Certain talk shows (The Jerry Springer Show, Maury, The Oprah Winfrey Show) would also qualify in that respect, but the appearance of LGBT issues on those programs is random at best. (I would not include those programs in the category, for the record.)
The Amazing Race includes gay contestants to build diversity and inclusiveness in its cast, and that's commendable. But the contestants' sexual orientation is secondary to the main premise of the show (travel around the world, and the race to be first in each episode and not be eliminated) and it is not expected to fit the category in this vein. To be mentioned in List of television shows with LGBT characters is adequate and enough. And not including the show in the category does not marginalize TAR's handling of LGBT issues.
By the way, Otto4711 did create the category and its description. [4]. That should have been disclosed for etiquette reasons. Tinlinkin 05:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If a DWTS contestant repeatedly interviewed about how his or her homosexuality was the motivating factor for deciding to compete the way that a number of TAR's gay contestants have, then DWTS might very well qualify for the category. Other reality shows and talk shows may very well qualify; I don't watch any of the shows you mention so I'm not qualified to judge.
But again, that some other article might or might not fit a category is irrelevant to whether this article should be. If the best argument that can be marshalled against including an article is "if you include it then some other article might be included too!" then the case against inclusion is exceedingly weak. That sexuality issues are "secondary" does not mean they are not "important." Inclusion in the category is not dependent on whether the issue is "primary" or "secondary." The category is for those that are "important." A claim that TAR doesn't include "important" LGBT participants and issues is ludicrous on its face. Failing to include a relevant category so that the articles are linked and cross-referenced as widely as is against the spirit of Wikipedia.
And yes, I did create the category. So what? My arguments would be no different were the category created by someone else. And in fact, the only reason I had to create the category at all is because the previous one got deleted because of idiots voting to delete it with reasons like "televisions can't have sex with other televisions," "gay categories are nightmares," "all sitcoms include gay jokes now," "gay categories are biased" and "trivial." Way to distinguish yourselves from that lot.
It is simply beyond my understanding that there is this level of resistance to adding the show to an appropriate category. Not including the show in the category does not at all marginalize TAR's handling of LGBT issues. It marginalizes Wikipedia's handling of them and speaks extremely poorly for those who argue so vociferously against it.Otto4711 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
One argument is "if TAR is in X, then TAR is also in Y, and Z, and ...". That's one aspect, and that's the POV from those that watch TAR. However, I think, from the sake of the LGBT catagory, that if you including TAR because it had some predominate LGBT competitors on it, they you pretty much need to include nearly every single TV show on the air today - it's almost the exception that there's not an LGBT person on the show's cast or in the case of reality TV shows, at least one competitor in any of the seasons, even if they are minor characters. When then makes the LGBT TV category become just a huge, unusable list of TV shows. If I were looking at that list to try to do research on LGBT in television and the positive benefits, it would be useless - eg, I would link to TAR's Wiki page and be lost for any information that I could easy use for research. And from the concept of Wiki, that's basically listcruft.
Tinlinkin had the right idea: I think a much better effort would be to create and or improve an existing page about important LGBT personalities (fictional or otherwise) in TV, in which characters from TAR like Chip and Reichen, Kenny of Bald Snark, Oswald and Danny, and so on and so on can be listed, along with intra-wiki links as appropriate. (And here's where you'd add in Richard Hatch from Survivor, any number of people from Project Runway, characters like Weyland Smithers from the Simpsons, and so on). A user of such a list would immediately be able to identify what exactly about that show is critical for LGBT, and thus it becomes a much more useful research tool. And then, personally, I would make sure the LGBT TV category is limited to shows that explicitly are set up (or like in the case of Ellen, become more centered around such issues in different seasons) to discuss and reflect on the issues for LGBT, again, making that a useful research tool as opposed to just a list.
At the end of the day, I don't think anyone here (on the TAR talk page) is trying to marginalize LGBT or how TAR handles such contestants, or your efforts to try to make comprehensive lists of contributions of LGBT TV characters. It's about making Wikipedia useful, and over-catagorization of a topic is in the opposite direction of usefulness. There's other ways of making it known that TAR has had LGBT contestants and who they are and what their achievements were via intra-linking on Wikipedia, and that becomes much more useful than trying to weed out entries from a broad list.Masem 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I just went and checked out the page List of television shows with LGBT characters linked above, and it's exactly what you're talking about. A detailed list of all the shows that've dealt with the issue, including what character(s) on the show were LGBT, and in many cases, what affect that had on the series. It's a great, and highly detailed resource that makes the category completely redundant. I think this entire argument is a pointless debate, because I can definitely imagine the category simply disappearing shortly, considering the page already does the same thing so much better.... --Maelwys 17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree "if show X is justified then show Y is" is a logical fallacy. But I was trying to demonstrate there was a similar reasoning for including TAR compared with the other shows I mentioned. Per Masem, if I was browsing through the category, it would not be apparent to me that TAR really fits the category when I am reading the article on TAR. And regarding writing about each of the relationships (gay or otherwise) within a particular season of TAR in order to justify category inclusion, that material would likely be fancruftish. The LGBT-related category should be more discriminate than the list for the category to be useful and valuable.
I want to try to help you with your case. I'm having trouble figuring out why this program is a landmark for LGBT programming. If it had been recognized by an LGBT organization like GLAAD for its LGBT programming, then that would be a reasonable criteria. Tinlinkin 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the criteria for inclusion in the category. On the one hand, some are thinking that a show gets included if there are any gay people in it. That's not the case, which is why for example I didn't include the season with Scott and John. They weren't particularly motivated by their sexuality and they didn't last past the first ep. On the other extreme is the notion that the series has to be a "landmark" of some sort. Also not the case. The category is for shows with important LGBT "characters" (meaning in this instance of course racers) or themes and which may include same-sex relationships as an important plot point. No more, no less. It can't be reasonably argued that for example Team Guido, or Reichen or Chip, or Oswald and Danny, weren't important in terms of the show. It can't be reasonably argued that Reichen and Chip's relationship, or Lauren and Duke's relationship, weren't important themes.
As for writing about the relationships within the articles, in most cases it's already there. The teams are identified as "married" or "boyfriends" and there's mention made of Reichen and Chip's marriage not being legally recognized and Lauren's being the first openly lesbian Racer and what-not. I'm not suggesting that huge amounts of electrons be devoted to the relationships but they're already acknowledged.
TAR has twice been nominated for the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Reality Program [5] Otto4711 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

TVGuide.com's Amazing Race link on the External Links Container

Full disclosure: I work for TVGuide.com.

However, I think Wikipedia's users would benefit from TVGuide.com's information on The Amazing Race.

The link is: http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=282859

Thanks for your consideration. Telefan 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You'd do well to familiarize yourself with policy at Wikipedia:External links to see why your request is unlikely to be adopted. Thank you for it all the same. Radagast 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No Smoking?

The page mentions no smoking on the race. Is there any reasoning given for this rule other than the fact that it would probably be bad for teams themselves to have to stop for cigs, or spend money on them or whatnot? Would it violate the rules against showing cigarettes on TV or something? TheHYPO 08:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably just because it's a family show, and to keep as family-friendly as possible the network doesn't want to portray smoking during the show. --Maelwys 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ian mentioned in a post-race interview about that rule. He was ragging about how he was unable to smoke for an entire month or so. It may have been his Early Show appearance. Some digging should confirm it. --Madchester 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

12th Season

No, I'm not a crazy person. go to www.cbs.com and look on the left. Hurry this may change soon. There is an aplication form for the Amazing Race 12. Just letting you know in case someone wants to start a page.Sigh. Nevermind...I saw it's already been created

Bungee Jumping challenge

What season did this happen in? I cant remember and i want to put it on the bungee jumping page. Post here or on mi talk. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 8:42 am et 15 nov 2006

Adding TAR Asia Info.

Should information from TAR Asia be added to this page even though there is already a main page for Asia? 64.192.44.138 03:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Except for a sentence or two about it and a link to it (which is in the template at the bottom) there shouldn't really be Asia suff on the page. You said it yourself, it already has its own page. editor review me!-TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 12:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Production" section?

Looking at the remaining parts in the Trivia section, and knowing what's on the rest of the page, I wonder if a Production section is something to add. This would include the notes about AV crews, editing, etc., elements of the TV show that aren't specific to the Race itself but how the Race gets to viewers eventually. (There's more that I know I can put in than what's listed in the trivia sections). With that, and removing some of the extraneous facts from the trivia, that would completely remove the Trivia section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masem (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Following up, I've put up what I think can go in here. I know that most of the details can be found through various forum posts that come from past racers and a few spotted production notes, but before going through the work of finding all that, I want to see how this section is received --Masem 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Good job! :) --CrazyLegsKC 10:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Route marker images

Route markers in the Vietnam leg of Season 3 were solid yellow.
Route markers in the Vietnam leg of Season 3 were solid yellow.

I removed the "Vietnam route marker" image (shown above) because: 1) it's not that hard to imagine a "solid yellow" flag, so there's no real need to illustrate it, and 2) since it was used only briefly in one season.

I also moved the flag images to the right instead of the left; I think they look better there. However, I can't get them all onto one line, which is the way I think they should be - stacked vertically, they encroach onto the next section, which they shouldn't do. Can anyone fix it so that the images are arranged horizontally? --CrazyLegsKC 08:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Hope it's OK. Tinlinkin 09:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is OK. Thanks! :) --CrazyLegsKC 10:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Train stations

If TAR contestants are required to take trains, why aren't all train stations allowed to be presented? Airports are shown, yet contestants are usually not forced to go to a certain airport in a city (although there is usually only one international airport for each city). The destination airport is not a route marker, either (unless I'm reading the definition of route marker wrong). Since some train stations have their own articles, and contestants must take trains that stop at certain stations, I feel train stations should be included if airports are. Tinlinkin 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Taking another team's car

The article states that taking another team's car incurs a penalty (at least it did in s.6). Dustin and Kandice switched cars -- after damaging theirs in an at-fault accident -- in s.10 and didn't incur a penalty. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it didn't count there, because if I remember correctly they switched cars between legs (so technically nobody had any claim to any particular cars). If they'd swapped in the middle of a leg (for example, at a detour) then they'd get the penalty. --Maelwys 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ratings of ar10

according to nielsen top 20 ratings amazing race 10 have been in number 14 and had 12.74 million audiences reference http://www.sfgate.com/tvradio/nielsens/ - (anon post)

  • That's just for the week of the finale. We won't know it's overall placement or numbers until May 07. --Masem 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the Criticisms

Could it be time to start trimming the fat off of the criticisms section? --HansTAR

I think that if it was agreed, to simply have a short list with one sentence at most about the critiques of the race. But I also wonder if it's not a bad idea to consider moving the race mechanics (which includes the details on the race, rules, and production) to a separate page (that part takes up nearly 1/3rd of the page) replacing it with a very short blurb about route markers and tasks, and so forth. --Masem 16:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with trimming. I'd also suggest combining the different points into paragraph form, since there are enough relevant details now. --Madchester 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've cut things down to the key elements (combining where appropriate, and trying to keep relevant references). I don't think making this list into paragraph form would work as well. Also note that since it's much smaller, it fits nicely into the section immediately preceding it (on public reception).--Masem 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Penalties section

Now that we've trimmed the Criticisms section, I think the Penalties section deserves the same treatment. I think the section is way too long, probably because of all the specific instances given of the particular penalties. I say we either eliminate the examples completely, or convert them into footnotes. What do you think? --CrazyLegsKC 07:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Made a stab at reducing that, cutting out all but a few examples and removing some of the minor technicalities. --Masem 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Amazing_Race/Archive_2&oldid=966895164"