![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
I wonder why no episodes have ever taken place in Iraq. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.30.160.79 ( talk • contribs) .
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)
I've created an Amazing Race userbox, so that users can place it on their userpage. Enjoy! -- Madchester 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Here's how I feel about the screenshots we currently have.
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'm making a gallery to move some of the extra photos that are taking up space. -- Madchester 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Does anyone else this link should be there? -- Barrylb 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's se:
I recommend reviewing the forum's contents, before making hasty deletions. -- Madchester 07:02, 11 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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
I think we need to be adding a list of references across all of the Race pages. -- Madchester 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I had a few reasons for doing this.
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?
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.
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)
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 Talk Contribs # of Edits 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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.)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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) ← ROCKS C RS 8:42 am et 15 nov 2006
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could it be time to start trimming the fat off of the criticisms section? -- HansTAR
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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
I wonder why no episodes have ever taken place in Iraq. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.30.160.79 ( talk • contribs) .
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)
I've created an Amazing Race userbox, so that users can place it on their userpage. Enjoy! -- Madchester 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Here's how I feel about the screenshots we currently have.
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'm making a gallery to move some of the extra photos that are taking up space. -- Madchester 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Does anyone else this link should be there? -- Barrylb 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's se:
I recommend reviewing the forum's contents, before making hasty deletions. -- Madchester 07:02, 11 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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
I think we need to be adding a list of references across all of the Race pages. -- Madchester 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I had a few reasons for doing this.
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?
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.
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)
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 Talk Contribs # of Edits 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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.)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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) ← ROCKS C RS 8:42 am et 15 nov 2006
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could it be time to start trimming the fat off of the criticisms section? -- HansTAR
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)