Talk:The Amazing Race

For previous talk and discussion:

• Archive 1 (2004 to Jan. 2006):

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:

• No inline citations
• Not all claims have proper citations
• A LOT of original research
• External links (especially to fansites) don't follow the external links policy
• Article size is too long
• Contains too many unnecessary images
• No peer review
• A LOT of fancruft

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 TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 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 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 old^TalkContribs_{# 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 old^TalkContribs_{# 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 old^TalkContribs_{# 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 old^TalkContribs_{# 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 old^TalkContribs_{# 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 old^TalkContribs_{# 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)

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

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)