Jump to content

Talk:The Amazing Race

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateThe Amazing Race is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted

Not including Roadblock or Detour Locations

[edit]

I have to bring this up. Currently, we have the races' itinerearies set up so that we list each location where teams find a clue (IE, clue box), with Detour and Roadblock icons listed next to where teams received these clues. But I believe that this really skews the appearance of these tables and makes them misleading.

Let's take a look at Leg 6 of the Vietnamese race as an example. First, you see this:

  • Hoi An (Hoi An Heritage Preserving Centre) Roadblock: "Who likes to connect?"

Imagine you're a person who's never seen this race, or worse, has never seen The Amazing Race. It appears that the Roadblock takes place at the Heritage Centre. But it doesn't, it takes place at a sweing factory. But then, you see this:

  • Hoi An (Yaly Sew Factory) Detour: Make a living or Awe-inspiring

Now it looks like the Detour takes place in the sewing factory! But it doesn't, it takes place out on the Hoi An streets. It's inconsequential where teams received the Roadblock/Detour clues, the symbols should be listed next to the location they take place in.

Here's another example, from The Amazing Race Norge. On the ninth leg, you see this:

At a glance, it appears the teams went to the resevoir, performed a task there, and then went to the winery. No, this isn't true. Between these two locations, they went to the Lilydale Airport. It should be listed here. Or how about Leg 10:

On this list of locations, Hong Kong Park is completely absent, despite the Detour and, technically, the Handicap taking place there. It gives a skewed and incorrect view of the leg's itinerary.

Now I know that sometimes this won't entirely work if we don't know where the Roadblocks or Detours take place, but that's fairly uncommon. If we know where they went, it should be listed, and not mentioned after the fact in the task description below. I know I only mentioned foreign editions here, but this applies to all of the pages, including the American ones. Shadow2 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The locations are generally listed in the prose of the section, if they are explicitly known at all. Usually Roadblocks happen at the site of the clue, anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does not do anything to help the situation. You have simply stated what is already true. The fact is that having locations be omitted from the list like this makes it confusing to readers. We are generally conditioned to read things start to finish, not skip around the page randomly. Shadow2 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not locations of clues. There is no decent way to include the locations of Detours or Roadblocks, if they are known at all, into the way we have the list set up now. That is why we have been listing them as we have.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the problem with doing the following:
This fits with what you've said as well. It's a list of clues (Even though it should really be a list of locations), but the teams receive clues at Hong Kong Park after completing the Detour. Shadow2 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is rare that we, A) know the location of the Roadblock or Detour, or B) that it is not located where they get the clue. The lists, as they are, contain the locations where they get the clues rather than every single location they need to go to. Everything else is suitably described in the prose.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more common than you'd think, especially in foreign editions. They love to give out the Roadblock/Detour clue before teams get to the location. Shadow2 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not sure if we need to include the location these tasks take place. It is just easier to treat them as we would Fast Forwards. We note where the clue was picked up and then state the location in the prose of the section.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself having to repeat myself a lot in discussions like these. It's misleading to readers. We're making it look like the teams visit less locations than they actually do. The South Africa leg of Australia 1 makes it look like they go from the Game Park to Nomathamsanqa. They do not, they go to Bloukrans Bridge for the Roadblock. The Czech Republic leg makes it appear that teams proceed from the Detour to the Pit Stop at Prague Castle, but they stop at Střelecký Island first. The Poland leg doesn't include the salt mine in the list of locations. It mentions nothing of the whole CITY of Haifa in Israel. That's a long distance they travelled to. The Sri Lanka leg makes it appear that the Roadblock takes place in Ambalangoda, but it actually takes place in Colombo. Shadow2 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it truly misleading when we have the information you are saying is absent four lines beneath where you are proposing it should be added?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the list is a list, so we tend to read it like a list. Shadow2 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the list itself is not that extensive in the first place. And there is no clean way to impliment the changes you are suggesting. If we already state in clear prose where things take place, why do we need to repeat that in the list?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a clean way to impliment them already.
Shadow2 (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this different from what's on the page now? Is there no third line? Was the Detour clue box not at Golden Bauhinia Square or something?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you can see in my original post, the Detour symbol is previously listed next to the Golden Bauhinia Square, and Hong Kong Park is not listed. As I said, this gives the impression that teams did not ever visit Hong Kong Park. Shadow2 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well where was the clue for the Detour picked up? If it was not at the park then it should not be listed there. It seems that Hong Kong Park is mentioned in the prose as the location the Detour takes place, and not as where the clue for said Detour was picked up and that's fine for me.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why are we listing the Detour by where the clue is picked up? Isn't it more important to list where it took place?Shadow2 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not needed to list it, so long as it is mentioned. The list is of clue box locations. Not task locations.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, that just seems to me to be a very lax and almost lazy response. I'm honestly wondering why we have it set up as a list of clue box locations only. What makes the clue boxes so special? The Detours and Roadblocks are the major tasks of the race, but their locations are shoved further down the page. Look, I'm trying to approach this from the view of a casual reader. Without having seen the show, they're trying to piece together and itinerary of the leg, and that gets unnecessarilly difficult when they locations are all over the page. Shadow2 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Detours and Roadblocks are given more coverage in the prose that follows the tiny little list. It is not inherently important to add another location if it's just somewhere the clue tells them to go for a Detour.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even reading my posts? Shadow2 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I do not think that we need to make any change for these extremely rare instances. The lists have always been picking up clues or transit between nations/cities and I don't see a reason to add anything else to those.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is clarity for people who, unlike you and I, do not watch the show. And this is not extremely rare. It's quite common. Shadow2 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are grasping at straws to assume things that no one else has assumed before because we have it all in freaking prose.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich, coming from the guy who wanted to move the Fast Forward's "F" because "it was confusing". Come on, man. You're not answering some of my questions and refering to irrelevant information sometimes, making it very difficult to have a conversation with you. I KNOW it's in the prose, I'm not a blind moron. I'm saying it should be MOVED. I mean, seriously, that was quite obvious. We should have a list of the locations listed above, followed by a description of the tasks, instead of this hodgepodge mix we have right now. It doesn't change any of the information, and makes it easier and clearer for the reader to view. Is there some reason why we shouldn't move it? Is there a reason why it should simply be a list of clue boxes as opposed to a list of destinations? I'm trying to help. I'm not trying to be picky. You have to consider that this is a race. It's a linear progression of tasks from one location to another, which is why the wiki pages should be outlined in a linear fashion. You keep responding that you see "no reason" to do anything, but I've done nothing but practically bombard you with reasons.
Once again, it's just you and I dealing with this. I really would like third opinions on these kinds of things, but you and I are the only two who really care about these pages, so... If you can provide me with a legitimate reason why we shouldn't do this, then I'll back down and shut up. But just saying "Eh, I don't see why we haveta do dat" isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. Shadow2 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should be making an entirely new format for over 2 dozen pages just to make sure that locations ancillary to the progression of clues (which has been the norm on these pages for a while). As far as I can tell, this is all that you are proposing be done because there are apparently rare instances where a team picks up a clue for a Detour or Roadblock and it directs them to some other location other than where they picked the clue up. I do not agree with your arguments that we should tack on this information in a means that makes it out of line with the rest of the information provided in the article. I would much rather you spend your time perhaps completely eliminating the current listing format we have, making several confusing templates obsolete, and instead convert everything into prose in a similar fashion to how the Survivor or Big Brother pages are laid out. It is not inherently necessary to have the information laid out in the manner it is now in a god awful itinerary that you think is confusing because it omits information included 3 lines down so maybe we should just provide a more concise chronological ordering of the events of each episode in an actual paragraph rather than modifying these stupid lists with the stupid templates we have to update every year because there's some new twist that just had to be thrown in.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, do you see the problem here? Most of your posts in this discussion were dismissive, teling me to leave it alone because you didn't see reason to change. But that's not the case, is it? You do want change, you just want a lot more than I proposed. I should like to point out that I wasn't going to be expecting you to make all these changes. I would probably go do them myself. But I didn't want to have you revert a bunch of my edits and yell at me again, so I brought it up here.
Personally, I've always thought the Survivor pages were a huge messy wall-of-text, to be honest. But, then again, I'm assuming you're talking about only writing full prose for the race's route, and not what the teams did in between (Fights, conflicts, etc). If we were to do something like that, there should still be some way to make it streamlined so it's not just a big essay of words (Bolding all locations comes to my mind). You have to keep in mind that some versions like TAR Asia and the Brazilian version visited a lot of places and then did absolutely nothing when they were there. How's that gonna look? "Teams went here. Then teams went here. Then they went here." Shadow2 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For the last time, this is not a rare occurence. It happens a LOT. Shadow2 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, since he asked for outside opinions, I think that Shadow2's suggestions are very sensible and would greatly ease the ability for a person who had not seen an episode to follow where teams went and what they did in what order. It also is a bit confusing that Miscellaneous Tasks are always listed after Detours and Roadblocks, even if they were among the first things teams had to do in a leg (see, for example, TAR2, Leg 2, where the very last task to be described begins with "At the start of the leg..."). I also don't feel that Survivor-style recaps of who fought whom to be necessary for an article of this nature. There are plenty of recap sites on the web for those who would care about what jerky thing Jonathan said to Victoria that one time. Jedzz (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S1

[edit]

Jedzz, Shadow2 is suggesting that locations that are visited, but not part of the procession of clue gathering, should be included in the bulleted list in a format that does not match the rest of the list to begin with. I do not think this will work, but I would rather see work spent on eliminating the lists, {{TAR clue}}, {{TAR travel}}, and {{TAR Captionbox}}, and instead providing a written summary of the itinerary of the episode. I will give what I envision as an example of what I would suggest be done with TAR18#Leg 6 (China → India) as the example.

At the Pit Start, teams were directed to find the Jin Fu Yi Zhan Tea Shop (金福驿站 Jīn Fú Yì Zhàn, Jin-fu Inn) where they participated in a traditional Chinese tea tasting ceremony. They drank a papaya-and-mango-infused tea that, unbeknownst to them, would be featured in their next task. After the ceremony, teams were given a brick of tea and their next clue which directed them to travel to Kolkata, India India, and once there head to Kolkata Town Hall for their next clue. Upon arriving at Kolkata Town Hall, teams were met with a Roadblock asking them "Who's ready to drink in the scenery?". One team member had to give the brick of tea, a papaya, and a mango to a tea auctioneer, and then search among several hundred tea cups for the tea they had tasted earlier in Kunming. Once they found the correct tea, the auctioneer would give them their next clue: a bottle of Snapple brand iced tea. Unknown to them, their next clue was printed under the cap, directing them to Thakur Bari in Jorasanko, and then to the Tiwari Tea Stall. At the tea stall, teams traded the Snapple bottle for their next clue: the Detour, with choices between Hindu Art and Bengali Literature. In Hindu Art, teams traveled to the Rakhal Paul and Sons statue shop where they had to paint and then dress a statue of the Hindu god Ganesha. Once it was complete, they would receive their next clue. In Bengali Literature, teams traveled to the Dey's Publishing house and picked up eight bundles of the children's book Introduction to the Bengali Alphabet. They then got into a rickshaw school bus and traveled across town to the Victoria Institution High School and College and searched the grounds for the offices of the headmistress of the primary school where they would deliver the books and receive their next clue. The Detour clues told teams to then go the Pit Stop located at the Fountain of Joy in front of the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata's Maidan.

This, I believe, makes things clearer, and eliminates the need for the bulleted list, the various specialized templates, and having to battle over which airport they travel to, which was a problem I encountered with an editor during the broadcast of U.S. season 20. Now, I understand this raises problems when teams are just told to go somewhere, pick up a clue, and they don't have to do anything there, but honestly there's no way to avoid that because in the current format it appears we may be missing information on those stops.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, waaaaall of text Shadow2 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than what's going on now, and it treats it as an actual episode summary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my honest opinion, the current system is easier to understand than just a wall of text. --Kartoffel07 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current system doesn't treat all tasks as important or in the proper chronological order. And there was someone on one of the Israeli versions who decided the only order that was important was the list. If a "wall of text" isn't clear, then adding things to the bulleted lists that aren't in line with the rest of the content of the lists to begin with isn't any better.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The current system doesn't treat all tasks as important or in the proper chronological order."
You're kidding me, right? That was the WHOLE POINT of my proposal. I wanted to PUT them in chronological order. Shadow2 (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I meant to say "in the prose". Prose is a better way to convey information when we are talking about the events. Opposition simply because it is a "wall of text" I do not find to be well intentioned. My "wall of text" can be portioned off into separate paragraphs, which would improve the flow of reading. The lists, as they stand, do need work if we are going to keep them in the end, but I don't think simply adding more information to them is going to make things any clearer. These pages are the only ones that have a unique template on them to convey the information within. The tiny icons are not the best, and the mouseover text is probably not paid attention to.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lists are good, but obviously not if not accompanied by prose below. It wasn't my original intention, but I agree that we could move the Additional Tasks into chronological order somehow. The lists are good for a couple of reasons. It allows readers to quickly seek out where the Roadblocks, Detours, etc take place (or they WOULD, if said locations were included), and also shows at a glance what cities they were in, if they stayed in a city or left, how they travelled on each leg (using TAR travel). I agree about mouseover text as well. The Roadblock "hints" can and should be put in the prose. All of these things can be tweaked and adjusted, but getting rid of the lists is not the way to go. Shadow2 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but I think we can drop the travel stuff from the list (it's not important what airport, train station, etc. they leave from). But I still don't think that we need to include every location they visit in the list, particularly if they get sent off into other directions with Fast Forwards or Detours happening on two different ends of town.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to completely eliminate the noting of airline travel. Otherwise it looks like they "poofed" from one country to the next. I also have simple solutions for Detours and Fast Forwards.
  • Melbourne (Scotch College/Aegis Park) Detour: Liten Ball or Stor Ball
...or...
  • Melbourne (Scotch College or Aegis Park) Detour: Liten Ball or Stor Ball
...or...
Shadow2 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well we could say in the prose that they flew from one city to the other. Listing the airports is highly trivial.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or...
And sometimes the Airport is explicitly mentioned on the show (Example: Phil said teams had to go to the (something) airport in Punta Arenas Chile in Season 11). Also, it should still be mentioned if not all teams use the same airport (Season 4, Australia 1, etc...)Shadow2 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the airport is explicitly part of the task, I don't think we need to say which one it is, but I think simply saying they flew or took a bus or a train from one location to the next would be good. I'd still prefer converting things into prose and giving a written as well as listed summary.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The format that people tried to impose on HaMerotz LaMillion 2 could work fine. Let me work up an example:

In the Fast Forward, which Shadow2 completely made up, teams would have to go do something.
In this Leg's Roadblock (Who is your driving force?), one team had member to rig a container truck, drive it through an obstacle course and back up to its final loading space to get their next clue.
At the Hasimta Theatre, each team member had to separately answer five questions. If the other team member's answers matched, they would receive their next clue
In this Leg's Detour, teams chose between Find Unseen and Make 13. In Find Unseen, teams used a metal detector to a search marked area for a key that would unlock a chest containing the next clue. In Make 13, teams had to play matkot, a traditional Israeli bat and ball game similar to racquet. They had to hit the ball back and forth 13 times without letting it hit the ground before they would receive their next clue.

Edit that if you want to show me other ideas. You know, ages ago, people used to put symbols for the additional tasks on the list. They were coloured @ symbols. Those didn't look very good, but the idea is sound. Since there was a full additional task at the Hasimta Theatre, there should be a symbol of sorts there. Maybe something like a footnote in superscript. Shadow2 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No line breaks. Those are just awful. The Roadblock entry doesn't mention the prompt. And things shouldn't be bolded.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, how about the locations we do not know in the detour. What will you put? Kartoffel07 (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The line breaks are to separate one task from another, which was an issue I noticed even with the current format. And why shouldn't we bold them? Why? What's wrong with that? Detours, Roadblocks and Fast Forwards are the "name-brand" tasks of the show and should be clearly identified. For Unknown Detour and Roadblock locations, we use the current format of listing the icon at the point where the clue was given. This whole proposal was all about including locations we do know. (Put in the prompt) Shadow2 (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, What if you know the location of Detour choice X but don't know the location of Detour choice Y. Kartoffel07 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD says we shouldn't be bolding items like the task names. It should be blatantly clear enough from reading it. And using <br> line breaks is really deprecated. This is where an actual paragraph would suffice, instead of treating it as a list of items, again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that a paragraph makes it more difficult to separate the tasks from each other. This way makes it easy to see, "okay, that's the Detour. That's the Roadblock. That's something else."
Can I at least go ahead and fix up the bullet lists, as outlined above? Shadow2 (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having clearer prose is better than what we have now. But I do not think we need to separate each task on its own separate line. And fine, make the effing list changes already.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Kartoffel07: Yes, that is the difficult question, isn't it? Though I'm not fully pleased with it, such a case would be better suited with the Detour icon at the clue-giving location. In all truth, this was mostly about Roadblocks.
@Ryulong: Has anyone ever told you that you're impossible to work with? I'm trying to find a middle ground here, but you're shooting down everything I suggest. I'm trying to improve these things, can't you see? It's not always gonna be about what you want. I don't really like to point fingers, but you really have proclaimed yourself as the "dictator" of the TAR pages. For a while now, everything has gone entirely to your whim without anyone being able to change it otherwise. I'm sorry to say this, but you're really a terrible team player and I'm tired of dealing with you. Shadow2 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying go ahead and make your proposed changes. How is that being impossible now? I'm just suggesting that we also work on the prose because it's also in dire need of improvement.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to retain the "in this Roadblock teams had to travel to Place A, where teams had to..." if the lists were to be changed because it shows that going to that place was part of the Roadblock task itself. Kartoffel07 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well see, here's the thing. Using the above example yet again, you would be asking me to say "Teams took a train to Haifa and...", but if that were true, then only one person would travel by train to Haifa, since only one person can do a Roadblock. Therefore, travelling to the location is not a part of the Roadblock, unless only one person goes. Shadow2 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this problem would be solved if we used the more indepth prose that I initially suggested. That way we already have the context of the location at hand.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Kartoffel, MOS:BOLD says you shouldn't be bolding a whole lot of items throughout the page. And using the <br> line breaks is deprecated on this project. If we're using prose, we should be doing so in proper paragraph form and not just adding a second set of lists to the page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean here? I was just bolding for emphasis. Kartoffel07 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I mean where Shadow2 has bolded "Detour", "Fast Forward", etc.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up, I meant: (No bold whatsoever)

  • In this Roadblock (Who is your driving force?), teams had to travel to the Port of Haifa by train where one team member had to rig a container truck, drive it through an obstacle course and back up to its final loading space to get their next clue. " Kartoffel07 (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The train travel is not a part of the Roadblock. Roadblocks can only be performed by one person. All right then, I guess we'll have to keep the currently used paragraphs. Should we move the additional tasks into it? Shadow2 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Keep the current paragraphs. Could you please provide an example on how you wish to merge the additinal tasks and how a Leg would appear. Kartoffel07 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a perfectly fine suggestion above. Why shouldn't we use that?—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous example has too much in it that would be outlined by the list. This is why I wanted to use <br> and bold, to make the prose below streamlined and easy to understand. Shadow2 (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list is an outline and the paragraph would be actual prose explaining that outline. You did not streamline the prose. You just made another list.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, besides it being against the Manual of Style, I don't see anything wrong with my suggestion above. Shadow2 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It not fitting in with the manual of style is the problem.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, I am just to revert back the edits old style, no Roadblock/Detour/Fast Forward/Speed Bump locations adjacent as the clue responded. ApprenticeFan work 08:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I never really agreed to this new idea as it would be really difficult to name every location where a task occurs and would cause inconsistencies as to where the icons' locations should be next to. But, do as you guys want... --Kartoffel07 (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The old method is WRONG. There is no Detour taking place at the Dubai International Airport in The Amazing Race Australia 2. (Random example) Shadow2 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, TIME OUT!! ApprenticeFan, you can't just say "I disagree", not give any reasoning why, and then think you have the right to go and undo all of the hard work I did!! What's the matter with you people?! I spent this whole page outlining why my method for including the LOCATION next to the SYMBOL only makes logical sense, but you've just come in and said "Nope, I disagree," and that's the end of the discussion? Come on, now. Shadow2 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow, the non-American TAR versions must have different no Detour/Roadblock locations in different clue versions. I gave a replacement link of Teatermuseet i Hofteatret, which is now has an English link for placing it on the Leg 9 summary in TAR19. An additional task on the leg 8 of TAR5, "After finishing the detour, teams must take a camel and use a GPS navigation system program and guide the arrow properly to the pit stop." Also, I had found a link for BYD Auto Chinese-made car for the Leg 11 Detour in TAR6. Another one in the first half of leg 6, when Phil said on Trabant replacement "If the car would be break down, the replacement car would be provided." Ryulong relocated back the Fast Forward to the adjacent clue attached to it back in March. Randomly, in leg 6 of TAR9, neither has a roadblock nor detour took place at Isthmos Train Station at Corinth. Also there, can you place Yuhi Falls at the top of Leg 3 Race Summary in TAR18 placing (Yuhi Falls or Farm). Shadow, tell the administrators that I have my watchlists in other TAR pages and contact them to remove it. ApprenticeFan work 21:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm......very confused. If you have updated wikilinks or additional information for any of the tasks, then feel free to add them. If I removed any of those that you added, I'm sorry, but I was in a big rush this morning. The main point is that you should not have reverted the changes made so that Roadblock/Detour/etc symbols are listed next to the location they take place in. Shadow2 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free that I should stay your edits and adding the theater in Copenhagen in en.wikilink, you will add them right now away, plus the Camel ride using a GPS to the Pit Stop in Leg 8 or TAR5 is actually an additional task, this was described by Phil on-air and it has been missing for years. Earlier on, the (Yuhi Falls or Farm) is going to be place for Leg 3 in TAR18. I'm really endangered on having my fear to see all TAR pages I visited (U.S. seasons 1-20; Australia seasons 1-2; Israel seasons 1-2). ApprenticeFan work 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I gotta be honest. I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. I seriously don't mean to be racially or ethnically insensitive, but I legitimately cannot understand you. Shadow2 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow, Margham Dunes and Leg 8 pit stop in TAR5 took place in Margham, not in Dubai. The additional task in of that said leg in TAR5 is included, but will be place in that summary. Feeling to be add right now. Also, in leg 9 of TAR9, both Bully Rockhole and The Lost City located at Litchfield National Park, which is only different places, but one same park. ApprenticeFan work 22:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latest edit on The Amazing Race 21 has User:Jwkozak91 contributions on placing the roadblock and detour locations after the decisions. It hasn't been misunderstanding on the new process just like TAR seasons and other franchises in Wikipedia pages and hasn't involving on this discussion. ApprenticeFan work 02:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please decide on a concrete way on how to write these legs

[edit]

It's getting really confusing. Kartoffel 07 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how every time I make a change without discussing it, I get yelled at (usually by Ryulong) and instantly reverted. But if Ryulong, ApprenticeFan or others make changes without discussing them, then everyone just accepts them and doesn't question them. Why exactly are we moving some but not all of the Roadblock/Detour symbols before the location names exactly? Shadow2 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the clue comes before traveling to those locations.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's your opinion on the matter, Kartoffel? Shadow2 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prize Money - New Season

[edit]

The article lists the prize money for the upcoming season that premieres Sunday as two million dollars, but from what I've been able to glean, this apparently is only awarded if a very specific criterion is met, otherwise it's still one million. Anyone know the details on this? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain 1 mill. Irregardless of the situation, the winning team is assured $1M at the end of the race. The bonus $1M (to get to $2M) requires that that team also have been first on Leg 1 - its most a bonus than affirmed prize money. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Fixed it on the article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true it shouldn't be removed from the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for all purposes, the prize money is still only $1M. The way it is given in the table makes it look like it is $2M, which is only true in one situation. Footnotes like this should be used for the exception, not the rule. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unaired Roadblocks

[edit]

I'd like to make a point of order about unaired Roadblocks and the Roadblock tally. I believe that there is no reason we should not include unaired Roadblocks in the tally if we know a certain contestant performed them.

For example, we do not include the First Roadblock of the first season because we have footage of some teams completing it, but not all of them (We don't see Pat & Brenda or Matt & Ana completing it). However, it is my belief that, of the teams we do know, we should still include them in the tally. It's information we have, and it's information we should be communicating to the reader.

Now some of you may want to respond, "but we shouldn't do that because we want consistency. We want to keep everything balanced." or something like that. However, I would like to direct your attention to The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 2. In this season, many teams were not shown completing the Roadblock on leg 1, and one team was not shown completing it on leg 3. And yet, we still include these Roadblocks in the tally.

So why the inconsistency? If a team is not shown completing the Roadblock, I completely understand not including them. We can't just guess. But if we do know who completed it, we should include it. It should be our mission to relay as much information as possible. If a season has unaired Roadblocks, we can still include a footnote at the top of the Roadblock tally table, saying something like "This tally may be incomplete due to an unaired Roadblock" or something similar. Or perhaps we could have some sort of superscript symbol (like *) next to any team that has an unknown.

(By the way, I'm completely obsessed with TAR and have collected a lot of data about the show, so if we decide to do this, I'll gladly be the one to update all the tables)

Shadow2 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can reliably source the information about these unaired roadblocks, then by all means. If not, then don't bother.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detour Proposal

[edit]

Before:

After:


During the previous proposal to change how Detours are reflected in the itinerary, a comment was brought up regarding redundancy. I believe this new method will eliminate this, as we will no longer need to specify which destination each Detour takes place at in the prose. Thoughts? Shadow2 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will work well. We don't really refer to the names of the other tasks in the "itinerary". And prose is supposed to exist for a reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ryulong here. And if the task locations are significantly different, that should be mentioned in the prose. (eg For "Tiles", teams traveled to Fábrica Sant'Ana to ... ; for "Miles", teams traveled to ..." --MASEM (t) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What other tasks have names? This obviously isn't meant to eliminate the prose completely, but rather to simplify it just a bit so that we're not repeating redundant information. This method more clearly outlines which task took place where. Shadow2 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Roadblocks technically have names.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not reeeeally, but it doesn't matter. The Roadblocks are fine as they are Shadow2 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped of money and belongings

[edit]

Ryulong, I don't understand why you are insisting on adding the bolded phrase to the "Stripped of money and belongings" section:

In seasons five through nine, the last team to check in was stripped of all their money and were not given any money at the start of the next leg, forcing that team to literally beg for money from the local population of the city they were in for such expenses as cab, bus or train fare. In addition, from seasons seven through nine, these teams would also be forced to give up all their bags, leaving them with only the clothes on their backs and the fanny-pack teams use to carry their passports and Race documentation; this last penalty caused many teams, thinking themselves to be in last place, to wear as much clothing as possible before checking in, or in some instances wear ridiculous outfits to remain in the game.

I've been undoing it because it would not make much sense to someone who doesn't know much about the show (What kind of ridiculous outfits? How would wearing these outfits allow them to remain in the game?). But more importantly, I'm undoing it because the addition is completely wrong. Only one team (the sentence as constructed claims "many teams") ever attempted anything like this; in that case, not only were Brian & Greg not likely doing it as a legitimate race strategy (as I pointed out in the revert, they were more likely doing it to be weird, humorous, and memorable), it didn't keep them from getting eliminated.

When you twice put the phrase back into the paragraph, you "recalled" the Paolo family in Family Edition as a team that did this. You're wrong. Thinking they were in last place, the Paolos (and the Bransens, who actually were in last place) put on as much of their own clothing as they could before checking in, so that it would all be "on their back" and not taken away if the leg was non-elimination. They looked ridiculous, yes, but that's not the same as "wearing ridiculous clothing" (they were wearing normal clothing in a ridiculous fashion) and they weren't doing it "to stay in the game", they were trying to exploit a loophole about what they could keep if they weren't eliminated. This strategy ("this last penalty caused many teams, thinking themselves to be in last place, to wear as much clothing as possible before checking in") is already covered in the section. The phrase you want to add implies something completely different. Jedzz (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly recall that prior to being eliminated, one of the teams on the Family Edition wore unconventional clothing that they had with them in order to jokingly request not to be eliminated. But fine, have it your way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U-Turn/Yield votes

[edit]

In every purpose on using the game of Yield and U-Turn in the entire franchise (this format is used on HaMerotz LaMillion (2, 3); The Amazing Race Australia (2) and The Amazing Race Philippines (1)), can anyone create the vote tag?

{{TAR clue|Yield|Team 1|Team 2|vote=yes}}

It will show (N teams voted for Yield team Y)

{{TAR clue|U-Turn|Team 1|Team 2|vote=yes}}

And as for the U-Turn, it will also show (N teams voted for U-Turn team Y)

See, the format will be used to stop distinguished with the regular clue tags. ApprenticeFan work 07:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US Version seasons have this information in the contestant table. Is there a reason those need it outside that? --MASEM (t) 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are the templates currently formatted on this matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the sample from The Amazing Race Australia 2:
Leg #: 4
U-Turned: Paul & Steve
(6/9 votes)
Voter Team's Vote
Shane & Andrew Paul & Steve
Paul & Steve Sticky & Sam
Michelle & Jo Paul & Steve
Joseph & Grace Paul & Steve
Lucy & Emilia Shane & Andrew
James & Sarah Lucy & Emilia
Sticky & Sam Paul & Steve
Ross & Tarryn Paul & Steve
Kym & Donna Paul & Steve
And see, the vote table box is usage when the most number of votes get U-Turned or Yielded. ApprenticeFan work 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New race summary format

[edit]

Since Ryulong working on the new race summary section format started from The Amazing Race 25 and even thinks that both Detour, Roadblock, Additional tasks, Special tasks (Fast Forward, Intersection, Speed Bump) were merged to a bigger sentence and has more intensively on his work. When my talk page was notified about Amazing Race summaries section, here's the example from the second leg of TAR1 (without photos):

Before

[edit]

In this leg's Fast Forward, a team had to whitewater raft along the treacherous rapids of the Zambezi River with Bundu Adventures. They then had to locate the Fast Forward clue. In this leg's Detour, teams chose between Near and Far. In Near, teams went to Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park to photograph three hard to find animals from a list. In Far, teams had to go to Chobe National Park to photograph a single elephant. In the first aired Roadblock of the series, one team member had to take the stairway up to the second level of the Eiffel Tower and use a ₣10 coin to operate a telescope. The teammate had to search the Parisian skyline using the telescope to spot the team's next destination, marked with a Race flag.

Additional task
  • At Mukuni village, Teams take part in a traditional welcome ceremony for honored guests. The ceremony involved meeting the village chief (who would spit on them) as well as viewing and participating a tribal dance. Teams then gave the village chief the photographs they took during the Detour, and in return received a miniature of the Eiffel Tower as the only clue to their next destination.

After

[edit]

At the Pit Start, teams were informed to travel to Songwe Museum with 100 yards from the check point and were instructed about a clue to Bundu Adventures in Zambezi River. Upon arriving in Bundu Adventures, teams had to whitewater raft down to a treacherous rapids down to the Zambezi River to locate the Fast Forward clue or find the regular route info clue, which is a Detour, allowing them to choose between Near and Far. In Near, teams had to go to Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park 20 kilometres (12 mi) away and had to photograph three hard to find animals from a list. In Far, teams had to go to Chobe National Park in nearby Botswana, which was 90 kilometres (56 mi) farther and photograph a single elephant. After the Detour, teams had to send these photographs to Mukuni Village. Once there, teams had to take part in a traditional welcome ceremony for honored guests. The ceremony involved meeting the village chief (who would spit on them) as well as viewing and participating a tribal dance. Teams then gave the village chief the photographs, and they also gave a miniature model of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, their next destination, where they told to instruct for the series' first aired Roadblock, on which one team member had to take the stairway up to the second level of the Eiffel Tower and use a ₣10 coin to operate a telescope while the other team member had to search the skyline using the telescope to spot for the leg's Pit Stop, Arc de Triomphe, with a marked Race flag.

Between Fast Forward and U-Turn

[edit]

Again, here's an another example from leg 9 of TAR16 where it includes the U-Turn (it was being introduced in TAR12):

Before

[edit]

In the only Fast Forward of the race, one team made their way to the Singapore Flyer where they would have to climb out of one observation pod at the top of the 541-foot (165 m) Ferris wheel and then cross a ladder to the next pod over where their next clue directly to the Pit Stop was being held. For this Leg's Detour, teams chose between Pounding The Drums and Pounding The Pavement. In Pounding The Drums, teams traveled to Speakers' Corner and learned a complex drum routine for a lion dance performance. Once they had played it to their young instructor's approval, they then performed the routine with a lion dance troupe on a nearby stage for their next clue. In Pounding The Pavement, teams traveled to an open area in Rochor Road where they had to gather supplies – chairs, an umbrella, a loaf of bread, wafers, and 10 boxes of ice cream – and then find a marked ice cream cart to sell 25 Singapore-style ice cream sandwiches for S$1 a piece to receive their next clue. In this leg's Roadblock, one team member had to inspect an anchor chain by counting the number of links in the chain, while dealing with the noise created by the other workers at the port and announcements being read through a loudspeaker. When they gave the right number (521) on a clipboard to the dock manager, they would receive their next clue.

Additional tasks
  • At the Victoria Theatre and Concert Hall, teams had to find Allan Wu, host of The Amazing Race Asia, who would give them their next clue.
  • After the Detour, teams were instructed to find the U-Turn and their next clue at the intersection of their "last pit stop city" and Orchard Road. This clue sent them to Istana Park, located at the intersection of Penang Road and Orchard Road.
  • At Sentosa, teams rode the MegaZip, a 1,476-foot (450 m) long zip-line. After unharnessing from the MegaZip, teams received their next clue.

After

[edit]

At the start of the leg, teams were told to travel to Kuala Lumpur by bus, and then they headed by train to Singapore. Upon arrival, teams had to head to Victoria Theatre and Concert Hall and find Allan Wu, host of The Amazing Race Asia, who would give them their next clue: a Fast Forward and the Detour. The Fast Forward required teams to head to Singapore Flyer, they would have to climb out of one observation pod at the top of the 541-foot (165 m) Ferris wheel and then cross a ladder to the next pod over where their next clue directly to the Pit Stop was being held. The Detour was a choice between Pounding The Drums or Pounding The Pavement. In Pounding The Drums, teams traveled to Speakers' Corner and learned a complex drum routine for a lion dance performance. Once they had played it to their young instructor's approval, they then performed the routine with a lion dance troupe on a nearby stage for their next clue. In Pounding The Pavement, teams traveled to an open area in Rochor Road where they had to gather supplies – chairs, an umbrella, a loaf of bread, wafers, and 10 boxes of ice cream – and then find a marked ice cream cart to sell 25 Singapore-style ice cream sandwiches for S$1 a piece to receive their next clue. The clues sent teams to Istana Park to find the U-Turn at the intersection of the "last pit stop city" between Orchard Road and Penang Road where their next clue, sending them to ASL Marine Shipyard for the Roadblock. One team member had to inspect an anchor chain by counting the number of links in the chain, while dealing with the noise created by the other workers at the port and announcements being read through a loudspeaker. When they gave the right number (521) on a clipboard to the dock manager, they would receive their next clue. The clue directed the teams to Sentosa and they rode the MegaZip, a 1,476-foot (450 m) long zip-line. After unharnessing from the MegaZip, teams received their next clue, sending them to Marina Barrage for the Pit Stop.

Continuous summaries on writing Fast Forward and Speed Bump descriptions

[edit]

With the redundancy of recent changes of rewriting the whole summaries, and here is again from the 10th leg of TAR20:

Before

[edit]

For their Speed Bump, Mark and Bopper had to paint a tiger's face on the belly of a Puli Kali dancer before receiving their next clue. For the Fast Forward, teams had to take part in a traditional good luck ritual: shaving their head. This was a Switchback to a Fast Forward in The Amazing Race 7, when Uchenna and Joyce shaved their heads and ultimately won their season. In this Leg's Roadblock, one team member had to spin 40 feet (12 m) of rope made from coconut husks, then spool 4 other rope bundles onto a spindle in order to receive their next clue. This Leg's Detour was a choice between Pachyderm and Pack a Box. In Pachyderm, teams had to properly decorate an elephant with a headdress and golden ornaments, then transport 15 wheelbarrow loads of elephant manure to a nearby truck, before receiving their next clue. In Pack a Box, teams headed to a ginger processing center, collected 10 empty boxes, filled them with ginger that they sifted to measure to the right weight, then stenciled a label on each box. Once the distribution manager was pleased with their work, he would give them their next clue.

Additional tasks
  • Upon arriving at Daiva Vili Bhagvathi Kshetram, the head priest would bless teams before giving them their next clue.
  • After the Roadblock, teams had to go to Fort Kochi where they had to look for a "barber under an ancient tree" for their next clue.

After

[edit]

At the start of the leg, teams were headed to Daiva Vili Bhagvathi Kshetram, where they encountered the head priest would bless the teams before giving the next clue: the Speed Bump, the Fast Forward and a route info clue. For their Speed Bump, Mark and Bopper had to paint a tiger's face on the belly of a Puli Kali dancer before receiving their next clue. The Fast Forward required teams headed to Mutharamman Devasthanam Hindu temple and they had to take part in a traditional good luck ritual: shaving their head. This was a Switchback to a Fast Forward in The Amazing Race 7, when Uchenna and Joyce shaved their heads and ultimately won their season. The route info clue where teams directed them to Pattanacaud Coir Mats and Matting for the Roadblock. One team member had to spin 40 feet (12 m) of rope made from coconut husks, then spool 4 other rope bundles onto a spindle in order to receive their next clue, sending them to Fort Kochi where they had to look for a "barber under an ancient tree" for their next clue: the Detour, choosing between Pachyderm or Pack a Box. In Pachyderm, teams had to properly decorate an elephant with a headdress and golden ornaments, then transport 15 wheelbarrow loads of elephant manure to a nearby truck, before receiving their next clue. In Pack a Box, teams headed to a ginger processing center, collected 10 empty boxes, filled them with ginger that they sifted to measure to the right weight, then stenciled a label on each box. Once the distribution manager was pleased with their work, he would give them their next clue. Both clues directed teams to Vypin on a Cheena vala fishing nets for the Pit Stop.

Noted that there are information on how the leg started, travel to a destined location and the Pit Stop of the Race, with the new Race tradition to use in Wikipedia, it may be good for English readers. ApprenticeFan work 09:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Amazing Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed dead link and added correct archive for link #3 above. Added {{cbignore}} for link #4, which was to an archive of a parking page. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Amazing Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Amazing Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Amazing Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of article names.

[edit]

I propose we go with a more consistent naming of articles that can be utilized for all the international versions. Plus, it would fit with all the other television series articles on Wikipedia.

The simple format is: Show Name (season x)

This helps clean up the problematic and inconsistent article titles for the foreign adaptions:

Main Page: The Amazing Race (Latin America)

and so on..

Main Page: The Amazing Race Vietnam

My main concern is that the number implies that, for example, "The Amazing Race 1" is the name of the show. The number could mean just about anything. This proposal seems a lot more clearer to understand and can be applied to all the international versions. Furthermore, if you looked at how the Latin American seasons are titled, you'd think they were two completely different television shows. Regards. --Kartoffel 07 16:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the show itself is not broadcasted as seasons but on cycles, and particularly when the show itself in the various all-stars or switchbacks often use "TAR #" (and not "season #"). --MASEM (t) 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Amazing Race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Really Necessary? - No-Rest Leg Placement Indicator

[edit]

At some point, someone decided that for No-Rest Legs (Ie, ones where the Leg number is underlined, Season 29 Leg 5, where teams don't get a rest period at the Pit Stop), we would start Underlining the team that came in last place. Why is this necessary? There is absolutely no penalty or change associated with this team, unlike being Eliminated or being Saved on a Non-Elimination leg with a penalty. Anyone with the most basic sense of math is able to see that 7th is the lowest number for seven teams, so obviously they came in last place. As it stands now, this just adds unnecessary scribbles to the results table. 96.48.238.205 (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Really Necessary? - Inconsistent RB and DT icons

[edit]

It was decided by certain editors that if a Roadblock/Detour clue was picked up at a prior location to where the task takes place, then the icon would be placed behind the location name instead of in front of it. Why is this necessary information? The icon should be used to indicate where the task took place. It doesn't matter where the clue was picked up. That's information that can be obtained from the prose below. Furthermore, nothing on the pages currently explains to readers what the difference is. The only reason I know this is because of reading talk pages. It looks very inconsistent, messy and somewhat unprofessional. 96.48.238.205 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't see how information on where the clue was picked up can be obtained from the prose below. Take Leg 4 of The Amazing Race 24 as an example. Nowhere in the prose does it indicate that the Detour clue was picked up at the location prior rather than the location of the task itself. I feel that adding a line that goes "The Roadblock/Detour clue was picked up at XXX" to the prose adds unnecessary bulk to it, especially when it is easier to summarize such information by the position of the icon. Penguin407 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but I still don't see why it's relevant. What difference does it make if the clue was picked up here or there? The TASK took place at X location, and that's what's important. 96.48.238.205 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GAN season articles

[edit]

Hi guys, I thought I'd post here rather than on an individual articles, but I'd like to do some work on the season articles for TAR and potentially send them to GAN. I think they all need an awful lot of work, specifically the amount of CRUFT in the articles, such as the episode titles lists and the in-depth episode coverage, which could be summarised a lot. Does anyone mind me picking a season and working my way through to improve it to a point it is worth nominating?

I know there is a lot of articles such as these, so I wanted to let my intentions be known before making the changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the episode title quotess are not cruft, as they are used as, well, episode titles (if you look at the years when TAR was up for the Emmys, those titles will be referenced). I do agree that the leg descriptions have gotten long in tooth - when I was originally doing them, they were meant to highlight the world locations - something encyclopedic - over the specific tasks, but that's seems to have been flipped around. We still want to briefly touch on tasks, but we don't need explicit details of each one. --Masem (t) 16:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the episode titles themselves are CRUFT per-se, but a section highlighting them with little context is. My suggestion would be to summarise the episodes better and include the information on the episode titles and prizes within them. The other suggestion I had was to have a section for the course, explaining the locations and tasks and such (summarised and less images), and another for the race, with more of a summary of the antics of the racers such as who was eliminated etc. There is a plethora of exit interviews with the cast. I think the information for the filming and stuff is generally in very good nick. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons list

[edit]

The list of various international seasons bothers me, because it ignores basic numerical order. For example, TAR Australia is listed as "1, 2, 4, 5 [...] 3". I know this is because some versions are different, more special versions of the show, but it really makes things so awkward when the numbers are listed out of order like this. Isn't there a better way of doing this?

And also, I disagree with the 4th season of TAR Latin America being migrated over to the "Brazil" section. Now there's a random 4th season floating next to Brazil, and the actual Latin America section is just inexplicably missing the number 4. Shadow2 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before and After Icons

[edit]

I've made four requests now to talk about this on a talk page, but they've all been ignored completely, so I guess I'll try again. WHY do we have to awkwardly shuffle the icons such as Detour and Roadblock to either before or after the task locations? It looks really awkward, unprofessional and unappealing to look at. Coverage is important, but does it really fall within the scope of things here to determine whether the Roadblock clue was picked up here or there? Either way, the team has to travel to the task site, it makes no difference if they got the clue there or beforehand. I would really like it if we could just simply use the icons to dictate what task took place where. Shadow2 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree: this level of detail is confusing and unnecessary for WP. Inclusion of the icon is helpful to know where an RB or Detour was done or located, but whether it was before or after arrival makes little difference to our readership. --Masem (t) 00:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current screenshots

[edit]

Are screenshots of specific scenes/tasks still necessary? I can see screenshots of rivals competing each other in either a Road Block or a Fast Forward. But I can already understand the rules even without screenshots. I am not confident that they comply with WP:NFCC#8. But I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these really don't meet WP:NFCC. I would recommend them being nominated for deletion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are mine from my more naive days as an editor and I would agree they are likely not necessary at this point. Enough free images of crew and contestants and mockups of race elements that'll work for this. Only need the non-free title card/logo for it. --Masem (t) 19:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Tar-7-roadblock.jpg and image:Tar-s1-ff.jpg are removed. You can delete them if able to. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is technically no allowance for CSD of orphaned images but I have tagged them DI-orphaned so they should be automatically dealt with in 7 days. --Masem (t) 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

And all the flags are gone. In this section, find a way to bring them back. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:400A:A610:D0C0:B3D7 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody keeps quoting MOS:FLAGCRUFT. I have looked at MOS:FLAGCRUFT. What listed there is reason for removing these from the Race pages? We are not emphasizing a thing or person's nationality unnecessarily, as the flags represent the countries themselves as a whole, much like one would see on an Olympics page. We are not using a flag because a picture of someone is unavailable. We're not using subnational flags except for cases such as Hong Kong (and sufficient argument can be made for their use in areas such as the Family Edition), and we're not using Supernational flags. We're not rewriting history, hence why we use the old "White circle" design of the Malawi flag on TAR19 even though that one is no longer used. And finally, this has nothing to do with genocide, and it is not a disambiguation page. So why is everyone citing MOS:FLAGCRUFT? Care to weigh in @Binksternet: ? Shadow2 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the country sponsoring the race? No. Is the racer a direct agent of the country? No. So what you have is flags used as decoration, which is not allowed. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per what, exactly? Certainly not MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Shadow2 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE says that in cases "where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams", the flag is appropriate. Participants in the TV show Amazing Race are not representing their country in an official capacity. It's just a TV show, not an international competition like the Olympics. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The show itself represents the various countries to visit, as it is a travel-centric show. Each episode features extensive representation of a different country, including its people locations and cultures. MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE does not specify anything that would prohibit flag usage on these pages, but rather just areas where they might possibly be used. MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE also states "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.". On this particular page we have a table detailing various versions of the show from different countries, being that each version is represented by a different country. Furthermore, on all the series pages we have tables specifically detailing which countries have been visited, which fits this statement just as well. @Binksternet: Shadow2 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANSWER, GODDAMNIT 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:9C4C:1DD6:DE9D:5241 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No-Rest Underlines

[edit]

As mentioned above, we've added underlines to teams who arrive in last place on No-Rest ("Keep on Racing") legs, for example writing 11th for Jet & Cord on the first leg of Season 18. This is completely unnecessary and tells the reader nothing except that they arrived in last place...which is already accomplished by the fact that it says "11th". The note at the bottom of the table about "Underlined leg numbers" can still retain the information about not needing a Speed Bump, but there shouldn't be an indicator on the table that doesn't accomplish anything extra. @User:Xoruz @user:ApprenticeFan 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:1D22:1331:97B:AE3E (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the user's edits against the common consensus here. I am neutral on the proposal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Format

[edit]

It's awful. I love how singular users like @Bgsu98 can just come in and change years of hard work at the drop of a hat because they think they know better. Why are the tables thick and bloated now? Why are "notations that did not affect placement" removed when they still had an impact on the game, and who are you to decide that? Why are the results tables SORTABLE now, when there's no reason they need to be? Why is the information about what stuff means in the table now in a long, messy paragraph instead of the nice bulleted list as before? Why are you quoting WP:COLOR and then specifically ignoring it by placing a bunch of coloured text in the paragraph above the table that says "team on the receiving end of the U-Turn"? I remember the good old days where when someone decided there were BIG SWEEPING CHANGES that needed to be made to a page, there was a discussion about it first. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:151E:E3DB:EBEC:6B23 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were also the "good old days" of consistently breaking style policy for MOS:ACCESS. Discussions before someone being WP:BOLD has never been necessary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, please take a look at the two tables on any season of The Amazing Race (American TV series) up through, I think, season 15, and let me know how they look in terms of MOS:ACCESS. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked the first one, but you should probably get rid of the colours/formatting entirely and just have notes. Personally, I also dislike the "episode titles" section, the logos and sheer length of the race summary section as well. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to maintain the format of the results table as it was already set up, but modified it to abide by MOS:ACCESS. I believe the use of color is acceptable if the information is also notated via another means (ie. the superscripts). I had nothing to do with those last two sections. I think the episode titles should be inserted in each respective episode (where the airdate is currently located). I also think the episode summaries should focus on the interaction of the teams and how they did instead of focusing exclusively on the mechanics of the challenges. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, there's a whole lot to unpack here...Let's get started then.
Regarding @Bgsu98: I appreciate the hard work you've put into this, but your attitude towards other users has not been the best. multiple questions were asked up above and you've answered none of them. You've snapped at some users on user talk pages. You also constantly just quote MOS:ACCESS...I'm not sure if you've noticed but MOS:ACCESS is a very large page with a lot of information on it. It would be much more helpful if you referred other users to more specific sections, or just quoted the relevant information. This really is a very large and substantial change to a large number of pages, and even when taking WP:BOLD into account I don't think that decision should fall on the shoulders of just one user without at least a little bit of discussion beforehand.
Regarding @Lee Vilenski: WP:BOLD also says to not be upset if bold edits are reverted. However, in my personal experience, whenever bold edits are reverted or disputed, we users are either yelled at or given warnings on our Talk pages about "Disruptive Editing". To be BOLD does not mean to be ELITIST and believe that everything you do is correct and should be viewed as correct, which is why discussion for such a large, substantial change should be taking place beforehand.
Regarding red elimination placements: I have always been a firm supporter of WP:COLOR and there are users on here who don't seem to understand its purpose. Colorblind people exist, and using only color by itself is not going to be helpful for someone who cannot see color. That is why we added, for example, the ƒ symbol to Fast Forwards. In terms of eliminated teams (12th), this was never an issue before. The reason is that every single eliminated team would always have blank grey space to the right of their placement, clearly conveying that they had been eliminated and were no longer competing in the Race. WP:COLOR wasn't an issue. Nowadays, that's not always the case, with examples such as Regev & Helen, Arun & Natalia and Cassie & Jahmeek, who came back to continue racing immediately after being eliminated, so their 6th or whatever no longer works per WP:COLOR. That said, adding a footnote to every single solitary instance of an eliminated team is massive overkill and there has to be a better solution. Me personally, I would choose to write them like this: 12th
Regarding the excessive footnotes: This I do not understand at all. Please direct me to where on MOS:ACCESS it dictates that every single solitary instance of anything on the results table needs a footnote tacked onto it. The entire reason we added ƒ to Fast Forward placements was to address WP:COLOR and make the table accessible and viewable for users who can't see color. So why do we ALSO need the footnote that says "X team took the Fast Forward". That's redundant. It's also very excessive and messy, and it makes the table a huge chore to read. At this point, so many footnotes are going to make the table less accessible to readers, so what's the deal here?
Regarding the vertical widening of the tables: Why do this? Roadblock listings worked perfectly fine as "Rob 5, Brennan 7" on a single line. Bloating the table like this makes it look messier when it looked perfectly fine before.
Regarding sortable table: This also strikes me as unnecessary and can potentially be confusing to readers, especially if they click on one by accident. The table is formatted with the winners on top and the losers on the bottom, simple. I suppose you could leave the sort button for the team names to alphabetize them if you so want, but being able to sort each leg individually isn't going to accomplish much except to make the table even messier than it already is. Furthermore, it doesn't work properly. For example, I click on the sort button next to the "11" column on The Amazing Race 1. Instead of having Frank & Margarita be at the top (the winners of that leg) it puts every eliminated team first with all of their blank, empty space, and then it shows the other four teams in placement order.
Regarding non-elimination indicators: 6th is not going to be mistaken for a Wiki link. Wiki links do not have an underline. It's a bit pedantic, I know, but I still think that's a silly reason to change something that has long been established and is familiar to long-time viewers of these pages.
Regarding the table key: By "table key", I'm referring to the section that says "A green ƒ indicates that the team won the Fast Forward" and such. Please explain to me why it's better to have all of these notes condensed into a messy-looking paragraph instead of being neatly listed out in a clean, bulleted list. And, as mentioned above, what's with the random colouration of words in the paragraph, that would also fail WP:COLOR?
Regarding the removal of some notes: The usage of notes (before your changes) in the table is to address any noteworthy deviations from the main, established structure of the Race. It doesn't matter if it occurred directly at the Pit Stop or not. Peggy & Claire and Brent & Caite departed late, this was directly addressed by the television show, and had an unquestionable negative impact on their Race. I haven't seen what else has been removed, and there are one or two extraneous things that didn't belong (like Tara & Wil skipping on the Fast Forward) but if something affected a team's performance in the Race structure and was directly addressed by the show, it belongs in the results and is not "Fancruft".
Regarding the alteration of Intersection markers: So, instead of having matching symbols which fully abide by WP:COLOR, we now have a little [6] next to every single, solitary team on that leg. Please tell me how this is better than what we had before.
Regarding "episode summaries should focus on the interaction of the teams and how they did instead of focusing exclusively on the mechanics of the challenges": If you want to add summaries of how teams behaved during the episode, you can go right ahead, but doesn't that count as "Fancruft"? Either way (Not sure if you intended this or not, but I want to make it clear), if you do, then add them to the challenge summaries, do not replace the challenge summaries. If you compare the two, the challenge explanations are much, much more important.
In summary: There's probably something I've forgotten, or something else I have an issue with that I simply haven't seen yet. Either way, that was a lot of text I just gave, and it's all stuff I honestly believe needs to be said. It's a HUGE change you've gone and done without the consultation of anyone. Accessibility is important, sure, but I honestly believe that all these changes have gone and made these tables less accessible to casual viewers of these pages, simply by virtue of making them more cluttered and complicated. What's our end goal here? To make it readable, or to rigidly adhere to the manual?
Thank you for listening. Shadow2 (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...if you do, then add them to the challenge summaries, do not replace the challenge summaries." I will not be able to address every point you've made right now, but I can clarify this one. I would never advocate removing the challenges as they currently exist. I think they should just be supplemented with additional events from the episode if applicable. Right now, they read like the summary of a Survivor episode simply describing the mechanics of the reward and immunity challenges and absolutely nothing else. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at The Amazing Race 17#Results and let me know if this new set-up for the key is more to your liking. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as being able to sort the table, I can't imagine not wanting to be able to sort each leg to see the players in result order. The team column doesn't need to be sortable. Please take a look at The Amazing Race 16#Results; it has been properly formatted for sorting and should display properly when sorting each column. Bgsu98 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a long-time lurker, long-time reader, I have to weigh in and say that I don't see this as a fully acceptable outcome visually. It's a bit of a mess across the board. If the argument is that colours and symbols shouldn't be used to convey information, then they should be gone completely, not left as a weird hybrid. It's gone from colours and symbols that... conveyed information, to something that I can barely read. I can't tell the difference between these shades anymore. It basically exposes the fact that the symbols were used to avoid excessive footnotes... but for commonly repeated information, why is that bad?
Having said that, even though they don't look great right now, the various yields, passes, and intersections were always a bit hard to read and the main saving grace for their placement in the table was the vibrant colours. I'd be interested to see how other people would feel about stripping information out of the placement table and putting it elsewhere.
So, if visual shortcuts are unacceptable, I would see that as an argument to provide better individual descriptions of what actually happens in each episode. I get that this is an absolutely daunting proposal, but it has always stood out to me that this site only documents the route and challenges, which are significant but only make up half the show. It arguably was a better reflection in the early seasons, but the Race now places more focus on the contestants than ever before. Most competition show articles manage to address the balance of covering both the challenges AND events.
Keeping things from getting crufty would be its own challenge, but "A and B excelled at the Roadblock and beat C and D to the mat. E and F u-turned G and H because of a crude remark. I and J got a penalty for speeding. It wasn't enough to save K and L, who made a poor Detour choice and were eliminated." should be considered a reasonable level of coverage.
And while we're changing things, what purpose does the roadblock count even serve at this point? It seems to be a case of keeping track of something for the sake of it and is probably more suited to other sites. Basically, I do think that there's a case for improvement instead of "we've always done it this way, how dare you". But there's more work to do. I feel that the removal of flag icons ignored the counterarguments, that doesn't need to happen again. 123.136.50.134 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%. The format of the results table is far from perfect, but it is at least compliant with Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely. I think the table is far too busy. It's supposed to be a results table, but was cluttered with all sorts of esoteria that had zip to do with a team's placement on a particular leg. I have cleared out a lot of the fancruft, but more can still be done. The issue with color is not the use of color, but the use of color as the only means to convey information. Color is fine if the information is also conveyed alternatively. The problem with those Lucky Charms that filled up every table is that a) many of the colors used (especially the yellow used for the Yield) were difficult to read against the white background, and b) screen-readers used by visually-impaired users cannot interpret those symbols. Honestly, I'm fine with stripping out the special icons and colors if that's what people want, but I don't think it's ultimately necessary.
You are absolutely correct that the biggest problem with these articles is the complete lack of episode summaries. This is a TV show, right? TV shows have episode summaries. Look at the Survivor articles. Not only do they give the general mechanics of the different challenges, but also important interactions between contestants that took place. The Amazing Race articles are completely missing those, as you said. Excruciating detail is provided as to the race course, locations, and challenges (which is fine), and zero to the interactions of the contestants. Hell, there wasn't even a table with the contestants' names until I began adding them recently (modeled after the contestants' tables from the Dancing With the Stars articles). The sort of information that used to be plugged into the results table (ie. Team X was eliminated while still holding an unused Express Pass, or whatever) should be in an episode summary and not a results table since it ultimately didn't affect the results. Like you said, Team X u-turned Team Y because they heard Team Y plotting against them, or whatever.
As for the Roadblocks table, I agree completely that it's fancruft and should be removed. In fact, I'm tempted to begin doing it right now. It's not just fancruft, but also a bit of original research. And it ultimately doesn't matter because the show keeps track of that so contestants can't go over their Roadblock allotment. What does it matter whether Derek did 5 Roadblock but Drew only did 4? Or whatever, I'm just making that up. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, why not just remove the placement of each team on each leg of the race? Clearly Fancruft that doesn't matter as long as we list the order they finished overall, and it's definitely original research to get that stuff, including usage of the Fast Forward, the Yield, the U-Turn. Y'know what, let's just delete the entire table while we're at it. Delete every listing of the locations down below. Delete EVERYTHING. It's all fancruft according to our master all-powerful overlord Bgsu98 who has the final say on anything that happens on these pages because we apparently elected him king. Just delete it all. None of it matters. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:9C4C:1DD6:DE9D:5241 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding- the old format was fine for years before this dude decided to ruin everything. If someone wanted to change it because it was against style rules or whatever, they would have already. @Bgsu98 you’re only doing this to be pedantic when it’s completely unnecessary. Multiple Amazing Race communities I am in have voiced displeasure with your edits. It’s you vs. everyone, and I’d say it would be best to undo all the changes and revert to what most people prefer. 74.105.15.157 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. It isn't "Bgsu98 vs everybody" as they're following WP:PAGs that have been established by wide community consensus. If the "Multiple Amazing Race communities" don't like it well that's unfortunate but at the end of the day doesn't matter as Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki, and thus should be assessable and understandable to as wide an audience as possible.
If you have suggested improvements that conform to WP:PAGs, such as MOS:ACCESS, I'm sure Bgsu98 would be happy to listen. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add that all reality show coverage on WP is being corrected to meet ACCESS. Tables have been completely avoiding ACCESS in terms of info content and color use. We're not a fan's guide to the show, we are presenting just enough to give an idea to the casual reader how events played out. There are plenty of fan sites for TAR (and other shows) to have the details that we are purposely omitting. Masem (t) 12:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how all these extra footnotes, changes in the colour wheel from blue to purple, adding daggers and double-daggers - does anything to support a wider ACCESS for readers? It baffles me that these different things are being used as reasons for changing these articles, when the results section was a perfectly good way of showing the casual reader 'how events played out' as you put it. Frankly, I now cannot read the results page. It's excessive and clogged with the notes, the colours don't work together, and now the addition of all these daggers etc. It's ridiculously unreadable. So talking about MOS:ACCESS is an interesting hill to die on when it is deeply unaccessible now. Kiwi Jaden, 13 October 2022. Kiwi Jaden (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will just copy/paste the response I left on your talk-page here as well: Per MOS:COLOR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method." The use of the red font is the only means currently used to convey elimination, which is not permitted. The dagger and double-dagger templates allow for alt-text which is read by screen-readers, but otherwise invisible to normal readers. In this case, I set the alt-text to read "This team was eliminated from the race." This was a good compromise reached working with some other users in order to avoid the clutter of having a superscript in every cell. Had you looked at the source code instead of blindly deleting, you would have seen the alt-text in place, which meets the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. As far as consensus goes, there was an RfC in 2021 which addressed this issue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs. Per that RfC, "There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs... tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." I have been adapting existing tables to conform with accessibility guidelines laid out in MOS:ACCESS. If you have suggestions about how to improve them while still meeting these requirements, you are free to suggest them, but undoing these changes to once again make the table non-compliant is unacceptable and tantamount to vandalism. You are free to "report" more if you want, but the last person who went bellyaching to administration about the improvements to the Dancing with the Stars tables was shut down because I have correctly been following Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. Here we go. I've found it. I knew this would be the case. So YOU @Bgsu98 have just come in here after almost two decades - yes 20 years - of Wikipedia readers recognising the format and it being completely readable. And you've just come in here and totally changed it to suit you. And it appears from all the disgruntled comments from other users/readers, only you. Stop NOW. This is unacceptable. I will report you for unreasonable behaviour, not me. People have expressed across all Amazing Race online communities that these Wikichanges are not good. Do not help readability. And here you are leaving notes saying 'oh I'm just trying a new thing, I'm going to pop a dagger in as well as red for elimination, just for fun'. That is UNACCEPTABLE. And the change from blue to purple? What consultation was had there? Alert me immediately to which other editors have agreed with this change. You've done this across Amazing Race, Survivor, and many other Reality wiki pages. It's maddening. I know the rules, and I know you're breaking them. This thread shows you have no support, and I want you to show me other editors who are supporting the changes you are making. Immediately. Or I will report you. Kiwi Jaden.

If you guys are so obsessed with making everything "accessible", can someone maybe finally address this issue that I brought up years ago? None of the parameters on Template:TAR Clue actually do anything...It just shows a preview for the general TAR page. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:71E5:60C1:9A9F:520D (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Express Pass are still to be kept with a color orange and the symbol ɛ in all seasons. ApprenticeWiki contribs 03:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orange is not a suitable color against white per MOS:ONWHITE. Additionally, the use of an Express Pass has been relocated to the individual episode summaries rather than the results table. Bgsu98 (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Template:TAR Captionbox

[edit]
Moved from Talk:The Amazing Race (American TV series) § Improving Template:TAR Captionbox

I think about replacing double nbsp with single numsp (for figure space). I also thought about adding nbsp between an icon and a legend describing the icon. But I wonder how the changes would affect readability, especially on mobile.

Also, as I figured, the template is getting long, so I thought about putting parameters into its own subpage... unless it's not necessary. George Ho (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The damn icons (yet again)

[edit]

Since the flavour of the day is removing "Fancruft" from the Amazing Race pages, can we maybe once again consider getting rid of the one piece of "Fancruft" that I adamantly think does not belong on these pages, the one I've been trying to talk about for years but nobody even wants to engage in conversation about.

Why do we need to put the Detour/Roadblock icon in a different spot on the destination list just because they picked up the Roadblock clue here or they picked it up there. Literally who cares? It makes the destination list look clunky and awkward to read, when really all we need is an icon that says "A Roadblock took place here.

  • Sydney (Sydney Opera House) Roadblock: "Test"
  • Detour: Bip or Bop Sydney (Sydney Harbour Bridge)

In this example (of how we currently do things), the teams would have received the Detour clue immediately after performing the Roadblock, thus would have picked up the yellow Detour clue while at the opera house, not at the bridge. That's such a small, minute detail that we really don't need to pay so much close attention to. What major impact on the game does it have if they got the Detour clue at the opera house, or if they got it at the bridge? Almost nothing about the racecourse itself would change. It's not important. We can just list the icons to the right of all destinations on the list to make it consistent and readable. (Would also probably help avoid confusing people using screen-readers, otherwise they'll be hearing the Detour information before even hearing the location)

Please answer. I'm tired of people blowing this off by just saying "It's important" and saying nothing else. 96.48.233.241 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we should never use only images to convey information, I don't think the logos are suitable in these cases regardless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I am hearing of this issue, and I agree that the placement of the icons should be more uniform (like after the location). Bgsu98 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you have in mind? The Amazing Race 22#Race summary Bgsu98 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. That's how it used to be before someone came in a while ago and decided to move them around. This tells the reader what is important: A Roadblock was here. @Lee Vilenski: The icons have alt text to account for screen readers. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:E004:F053:54EB:9310 (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an accessibility issue, this is a fundamental style guide violation for MOS:ICON. See the three subheadings under MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS, which to summarise says we shouldn't use icons to display information on their own. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see three subheadings there; I only see two. Please clarify. Bgsu98 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically mean MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS, MOS:DECOR and MOS:TOOMANY. You can also see The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged under MOS:LOGO. The way we have things set out at the moment is very much against MOS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DECOR - "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation." This is their entire purpose. MOS:TOOMANY - Page does not specify how many is too many; icons are not overused on this page, there is one where one is needed and no more. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:74F4:4B68:2CF9:97C5 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted over 80 instances of logos or tiny images in The Amazing Race 1#race summary on its own. This isn't a fanwiki, we are an encyclopedia. That's clearly too many, and we aren't supposed to use icons to display information on their own. Whatever way you wish to put it, there is no argument that they are suitable on these pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the counterargument to MOS:DECOR I included above that you conveniently decided to ignore. God, I fucking hate dealing with people on this website. Everyone's so high and mighty. It AIDS the reader's COMPREHENSION by showing WHERE a specific TASK took place, providing USEFUL INFORMATION on the SUBJECT. Problem? 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:74F4:4B68:2CF9:97C5 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't personally attack me. We are an encyclopedia, we say things in prose and use images to state things about a subject. Your interpretation goes against pretty much all of Wikipedia's aims of usage with images. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're still actively ignoring my point. I claim that "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation" applies to the icons on these pages. You have given me no response besides "That's wrong because it's wrong". And to counter your other point about there being 80 instances of icons on TAR1, there are way more than 80 icons on Greece at the Olympics for example. How many is "TOOMANY"? The page doesn't specify. In regards to how they are used in the context of this page, it's not too many.
Seriously stop for a moment and consider this. Are you thinking about this issue in regards to making the pages an easier, cleaner, more streamlined approach for the reader so that they can easily digest the information, thus visually and structurally improving the pages in whatever way we can. Or are you thinking about it along the lines of "The manual says we can't so we can't", not even considering how the proposed changes will impact the reader? See the notice at the very top of WP:MOS... "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:74F4:4B68:2CF9:97C5 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cleaner, more streamlined approach is to have things written in words, not used with icons that only some readers will understand. Sports flags have an exemption to the rules - see MOS:SPORTSFLAG. There's a separate issue that perhaps a lot of the info we have isn't really suitable for an encyclopedia at all - do we need a list of all the cities and locations the people go to are? It's seems like excessive details to me. Thinking you can just ignore the MOS just because you like that there are icons rather than words isn't really a tennible position. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the issue of the icons aside, the prose sections of each leg summary need significant work. For one, as this is still a TV show, this is essentially the plot of the episode, and should be chronological. The tasks are not listed chronologically, and it makes it very difficult to follow the action of each episode. Bgsu98 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is ridiculous. Removing the locations from a show about the locations it travels too? Stop the insanity! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they need to stay. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might be one of the most embarrassing things you could ever write. You clearly don't have any idea what your recommendations should be anymore and if this is your honest to god opinion on what should be happening on Amazing race pages you should not be a part of the process anymore and no one should call you in when asking questions. You are an embarrassment. Mmfann (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't personally attack me. I think everyone forgets this isn't AmazingRaceTheWiki. We have style guidelines that fit across all of our articles. These pages aren't supposed to be designed for fans of the show to read about them in minute detail, but rather be readable for all. We do have general character length maximums for things like story and episode titles, which seem to just be ignored because WP:ILIKEIT.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think a casual reader just perusing an encyclopedia doesn't want to know where a TRAVEL show went? You're so far off the pulse of a regular person that calling you embarrassing isn't a personal attack, it's simply a fact. Mmfann (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For every task? It seems like a bit of overkill to mention exactly where every task takes place - baring in mind this is a reality TV show rather than a travel show. But, more to the point, this thread was about the usage of icons within these articles; which clearly don't meet our guidelines on usage. Before I start up a formal RfC, I'll reiterate that the icons are not suitable and I really don't think having such long intrinsic episode summaries are of any help to readers, except those who just want to retain the status quo. I'll remind you not to personally attack me, as I don't appreciate it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not personally attacking you, I do think it is embarrassing for you to hide behind vague guidelines to say that every part of a wikipedia page needs to be stripped for parts until it's just a set of 1s and 0s so robots like you can understand. Yes every task on TAR happens at a location and those locations are pertinent info, not that you would understand that since the only things you care about are not making wikipedia pages easy to read or helpful to anyone coming across them, as you pretend. No you only care about kowtowing to the holy wikipedia style guide until you have taken every round wikipedia article and jammed it through a square hole, whether it makes it better who cares? Mmfann (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you agree these articles don't follow the MOS. I'm glad we agree. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you don't want what is best for a page if you think cutting locations out of TAR pages is what is best. It makes you look like a dictator. Here's something for you. Someone watched TAR and is like hmm, where did that one task happen, I can't quite remember. Surely a wikipedia article with info about the show would tell me because it has general info. TAR is a travel show, locations are important, surely an idiot named @Lee Vilenski didn't decide it was too much to show where a travel show did things because a book he has been brainwashed by told him so. Do you even watch TAR, do you even understand why locations are important. This is exactly why I said you should leave this page and never come back. Because the opinion you expressed about TAR is so wrong headed, so stupid, so entirely devoid of logic that I question whether you are even a real human being, or a program created by a rules nazi to try to turn everything into a blank page that just says [insert TAR season here] these were the contestants, this team won. Mmfann (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the personal insults aside (ahem), I can see where an average viewer might be interested in knowing more about particular locations shown in episodes of TAR, and here we have them nicely listed, often with wikilinks to the specific city or museum or castle or whatever. It would be a detriment to lose those. What I have taken the liberty of removing are locations that may have been filmed but were omitted from the episode as aired, especially when those were rife with Wikipedia:OR or unreliable sources or no sources at all. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm done. Lee, you don't seem to want to directly address any points I've brought up and now you're suggesting that we remove even more information from these pages than we already have. It's pointless to talk about this because nobody will listen. Accusing me of "Just because you like the icons" even though I've explained previously and repeatedly why they are useful to readers is just insulting. "Only some readers will understand" you say, even though we have a legend at the top of the page WITH LINKS that explain what a Detour, Roadblock, etc is. Suggesting we remove the itinerary of locations from a TRAVEL show? It's clear you're not even reading what I say and just want to keep hammering the point until you get your way. I'm so tired of fighting this and I don't know why I still try to keep these pages from becoming just a mess. Do whatever you want. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:1DA:7F8F:87E8:FD6C (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the icons, and I agree with the original poster that they could be more streamlined by moving them all after the related locations. I also disagree with the suggestion of deleting any of the locations, with the exception of unsourced, unaired tasks, but there aren’t many of those to begin with. My biggest complaint is that the sequence of events in each episode needs to be listed chronologically - which they currently are not and it makes it difficult to understand the sequence of events - and the excruciating level of detail that is often included. Specific distances, weights, sizes, and prices; the make and model of whatever vehicle teams are driving in a particular leg; specifics about whoever is handing out clues at Roadblocks and Detours (ie. “Teams received their next clue from a fishmonger”); specific departure times or flight times; and so on. I keep coming back to the concept that this is not a fan wiki and is meant for the average viewer to be able to get the gist of what happened in a particular episode. We also have the issue that the season is broken down by legs and not episodes, when this is still a TV show, and TV shows are divided into episodes. The recent mega leg in Italy is a good example of this. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on using icons in prose

[edit]

Should the icons (such as those for planes, detour and route marker) be used in race series articles such as at The Amazing Race 1? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above discussion, should the icons (generally seen in the #Race Summary section, but also elsewhere) be used in place of prose? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should continue to use the icons, especially the ones denoting transportation, as long as there is an alt-text present so MOS:ACCESS is not violated. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Altext seems a bit ridiculous, considering there isn't any actual text. I can't see how these things meet MOS:ICON. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alt-text is always important for any image, or icon, if it has words on it or not. It is used by people with visual disabilities so a screen reader can explain what is there visually. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 23:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying don't use altext, I'm saying use the word plane or boat, or route marker. Don't just put images in the middle of text to show something, especially without a key! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The icons are not in the middle of text; they are at the beginning of a bulleted list indicating travel to and from given locations, and there is a key at the top of the section identifying the different travel logos and what they mean. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Below is an extract of where the issue lies - why is everything written in bullet points? Why can't we write in prose that someone took a flight somewhere? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a chronological list of events that took place. Personally, I think it’s easier to read than one single paragraph would be. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have edited the first ten seasons to reorder the events chronologically. If you look at the seasons after ten, you'll see that the events are broken up very bizarrely. It is very difficult to follow the events of an episode. I have also streamlined every season by eliminating a lot of the excruciating detail that was previously included. It's still a work in progress. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Leg 1 (United States → South Africa → Zambia)

[edit]
Knife's Edge Bridge in the midst of Victoria Falls' inverted rain was the first ever location visited in the entire series of The Amazing Race.
  • Episode 1: "The Race Begins" (September 5, 2001)
  • Eliminated: Matt & Ana
Locations
Episode summary
  • The teams' first clue instructed them to fly to Johannesburg, South Africa on one of three flights: the first was a direct South African Airways flight which arrived first, the second was a Swissair flight connecting in Zurich which arrived second, and the third was an Alitalia flight connecting in Milan which arrived last.
  • After arriving in Johannesburg, teams had to go directly to Lanseria Airport, where they had to find Ryan Blake Air and book one of four charter flights to an unknown destination (Livingstone, Zambia).
  • After arriving in Livingstone, teams had to find a vehicle with their next clue, which instructed them to find "the smoke that thunders", which they to figure out was the local name for Victoria Falls (Mosi-oa-Tunya). Teams could drive themselves or hire a driver (who could not provide directions) to the falls in order to find their next clue.
  • Fast Forward: {{{2}}} For the series' very first Fast Forward, one team had to hike down a steep canyon to the Boiling Pot on the Zambezi River in order to retrieve the Fast Forward award. Rob & Brennan won the Fast Forward.
  • Detour: {{{2}}} The series' very first Detour was a choice between Air or Land. In Air, teams had to take a quick trip along a zip line across Batoka Gorge and then experience a 54-metre (177 ft) gorge swing to reach the bottom in order to receive their next clue. In Land, teams had to take a long hike down the rim of the gorge to receive their next clue. All teams chose the zip-line.
  • Teams had to check in at the pit stop: Songwe Village.
Additional notes
  • Roadblock: "{{{2}}}" Near Songwe Village, there was a Roadblock that required one team member to cook an ostrich egg, which both team members had to eat, before they could check in at the pit stop. This task was unaired, but was shown as a bonus feature on the DVD.[1]
  • The zip-line Detour at Batoka Gorge was later revisited in season 27 as a Switchback in Zimbabwe.

.

Question - Why did we put so much effort into arranging the task descriptions so they're in chronological order while, at the exact same time, rearranging all the results table footnotes so they're no longer in chronological order? 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:8C05:9D7:508A:A360 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess...

[edit]

This is honestly kind of hilarious at this point. The pages for The Amazing Race pretty much act like a microcosm of all the bigger problems on Wikipedia. They are pretty much all showcased on this talk page.

Big important users coming in and making big sweeping changes without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages or with any of the relevant editors... @Bgsu98 @Binksternet

Even though we are told to resolve disputes on the talk pages and generally use the talk pages for questions or concerns, those legit concerns are just flat out ignored... @Binksternet just refusing to answer a lingering question directed at him, @Lee Vilenski abjectly ignoring points brought up in an argument and choosing to answer only the points that make him right.

A lot of bullies run these pages now, and it's not appreciated. It's no wonder people quit working on Wikipedia so much these days. Maybe you should all try being nice and actually treating each other like human beings and not assuming every IP editor is a troll. Smarten up. 2605:8D80:445:E018:3A46:655C:B954:F315 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting I have done (especially as I haven't made a comment on this talk page for half a year), but from having a read back, what "points" have been made that somehow make this article meet our MOS? The issue with being an IP is that it's incredibly difficult to look through any of the above and confirm which IP posts may have been made by you.
Realistically, you are complaining that some of these articles now have MOS compliant tables (or at least better in that respect) along with other items meeting things arising from a RfC. If there's any items that you do have that you think are "bullying" or unaddressed, feel free to make them here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not anybody on this page, I'm just reading what others have said above. I see one user telling you that you kept ignoring a counterargument, and I agree with them. You never once replied to their arguments of mosdecor. The argument itself is moot now, but it's just an example of wikipedia bigwigs ignoring others. If someone gives you a counterargument, then exercise basic humana decency by at least acknowledging it. 2605:8D80:443:6C51:26F4:FCC4:BB08:BED8 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TAR 36 filming

[edit]

Started around June 14 or 15, given the sightj Ings in Bangkok. Hopefully more than just reddit posts to confirm once that page goes live. Masem (t) 14:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better source [1] — Masem (t) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Amazing Race Season 1 Episode 10 with Patricia Pierce #RacersRecap". YouTube. July 26, 2020. Archived from the original on 2021-12-22. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Amazing_Race&oldid=1225281833"