Talk:The Amazing Race 11/Archive02

Team press release due on the 1/16

I think tracking this page just got a bunch easier... --Masem 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:( :(-I go back to school on 1/16 (we have off on 1/15 for Martin Luther King Day. I won't even be near the computer when they set up the site and announce it. At least the unsourced team lists will stop. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-How did you find out that the team press release would be released on 16th January 2007? And have there been anything confirming that the season premiere would be on 18th February like on the Wiki article? 121.6.38.39 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS press release (which I can't find directly on the web, but the user of this TWOP post likely works at a wire service or the like. This tiny blurb shouldn't need to be in the article, as by Tuesday we'll know all the real details for sure. --Masem 06:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo that I put up earlier was by the Early Show, who would have to had verification from CBS or WRP in order to show the picture; hence surely it falls under the correct guidelines? (unsigned post by 212.56.102.74)

The photo is so blurry that you have to guess at some teams. I know the spoilers, so yes, I can figure out who is who, but the photo without knowing the list is just a bunch of blurry teams and is not verifiable. The full list will be out tomorrow. --Masem 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank goodness Aleenf1 found that photo, no more deleting team lists, yay! Hopefully CBS will have relationships tomorrow --Masem 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it should be satisfied. Cheers! --Aleen f1 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some hunting around and found the Official Amazing Race All-Stars website. Blipadouzi 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Flags

If you look at the glossary on the TAR 11 site, it shows a new design for the route markers. It may just be an example, or they may be a change in the look. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Season 1 route markers? --Aleen f1 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i think so, they just reused them from Seasons - the Yield description says there is a YIELD on every leg of the race, the exact same description from Season 5, but now not at all the truth. The flag will most likely still be red and yellow. Survivorfan101 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reaction section

I noticed that an anon posted a "fan reaction" section. Is this necessary? That is because such early comments come too early! This new Race hasn't even started yet. - 上村七美 | talk 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section - Previous race statistics

I am creating this article as a place to discuss whether or not the following should be included or not:

Previous appearance statistics

Team	Final placement	Average leg-by-leg placement	Legs completed	Non-elimination leg(s) in last place	Fast Forward used?	Yield effect?	Roadblock balance
Kevin & Drew	4th (of 11)	3.1	11/13	None	Leg 3	N/A	Kevin 5, Drew 4
Joe & Bill	3rd (of 11)	2.77	12/13†	Legs 10, 12	Leg 9	N/A	Joe 6, Bill 4
Oswald & Danny	4th (of 11)	4	11/13	Leg 10	Leg 4	N/A	Oswald 5, Danny 3
John Vito & Jill	5th (of 12)	4.8	10/13	Leg 8	Leg 9	N/A	John Vito 4, Jill 3
Teri & Ian	2nd (of 12)	4.46	13/13	None	Leg 6	N/A	Teri 2, Ian 8
Charla & Mirna	6th (of 11)	3.71	7/13	None	No	None	Charla 4, Mirna 2
Uchenna & Joyce	1st (of 11)	3.17	12/12	Leg 11	Leg 8	None	Uchenna 6, Joyce 5‡
Rob & Amber	2nd (of 11)	2.42	12/12	None	No	Used Yield power (leg 10)	Rob 6, Amber 6‡
Eric & Danielle	2nd/8th (of 11)	1.75/8.25	12/12 / 4/12	None/None	Leg 6/No	None/Yielded once (leg 4)	Eric 6 (of 11), Danielle 1 (of 4)‡
David & Mary	6th (of 12)	6.13	8/12	Legs 5, 7	Leg 6	None	David 4, Mary 2‡
Dustin & Kandice	4th (of 12)	3.27	11/12	Leg 10	No	Used Yield power (leg 10)	Dustin 6, Kandice 5‡

† Joe and Bill began, but did not finish, the final leg of their Race.

‡ These teams' Races had a Roadblock-balancing rule in effect, limiting the number of Roadblocks one team member could attempt.

User:Radagast added the above text to the Trivia section...not long after User:Masem removed the text stating "Table too much , can get info by going back to previous race pages (linked in on teams table"

Personally, I like the table. I think it adds character & reasonable information, and seeing as it is in the Trivia section, it is quite relevant to the page. Also, it prevents internet users from having to surf to 10 different pages to collect the information for these few racers.

So rather than add it back, and then have someone else remove it, and add it in again...let's discuss it.Blipadouzi 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll point out that even though it compiles this information (except for the Average Finish), all that information already exists elsewhere by simply clinking links. Much of it is of little benefit for understanding TAR All-Stars from the standpoint of Wikipedia. I can totally get into the preponderance of stats that exist to estimate how a team does and the like, as a fan of the show, but that's excessive information for this article, and as stated before, fanwankery. From someone that has never seen TAR and wants an idea of what the teams are, the current table on the page has enough to get started (names, relations, season and placement in that season) to understand the teams span the whole of the TAR seasons, and include people that placed all over the board in finishes; more information is also available but the reader is not swamped with it all at once. But something like if a team used a yield or how the roadblock split happened really doesn't help this purpose. Given that the individual TAR pages are already edging on being large pages >32kb, I'd think any effort to remove trivia (especially that that can be found elsewhere on WP) is helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masem (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I did not agree to put this table, for reason:

Final placement already shown, no reason to repeat.
I do not agree the average placing, for example, Kevin & Drew finish fourth, 3.1 average, but did not change the fact they is fourth overall
The final placement already told how much legs they completed (can can think at least).
Fast Forward usage decrease to just 2 since Season 5, not all able to use, also Yield is only use since Season 5, so no need.
We are looking to this Season challenge, so why noted the previous challenge.

--Aleenf1 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team names

"Romber" and "Mira & Shmirna should not be included as team names.

"Romber" was never used in TAR...maybe on user websites and so forth, but never in the actual show.

"Mira & Shmirna" was a derogatory name...if you include it, then you have to include "The Old People" for Ian & Teri, which is totally in appropriate. Blipadouzi 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "M&S" was derogatory (given by Lance and MArshall), and "Romber" is fan-based, but so is "Frats" (the 4 other names were either self-named, as Guidos, or names that other teams used regularly in the show). However, the names are consistent with other seasons, and given that people are still trying to go back and add in "Barbies" for the BQs (which is derogatory), and other fan-made names, I think as long as the seasons are consistent, the names are fine, though we should consider the names used in all seasons to be consistent. --Masem 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then for encyclopedic reasons...is there a wait of adding the names in, but indicating somehow that they are not official team names (like a footnote or something). If we do that, then I'd see no problem with them being included.Blipadouzi 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin and Kandice weren't called the Blondies, but the Blonds, and I have no problem with names being included unless it was all fan based, BQ were called Barbies by Peter and Sarah. banana 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take. We get rid of the team nicknames instead and see if the show actually comes up with new ones for them. What does everyone think? --Destron Commander 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly...the only thing about previous shows that should be posted, is the fact that these teams have raced previously...otherwise, this is a whole new season with completely new rules. We are to expect the unexpected.Blipadouzi 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider, I've always found the use of nicknames in articles rather excessive, unless the show explicitly displayed such a nickname (ie. Guidos, Grannies), or if the nickname's vague and isn't implied by a team's appearance, name, or relationship (ie. Chas, teams nicknamed after their home state). The season 9 article is a particular offender in this manner. It's also particularly jarring to have them in the "relationship" column. I'm just wondering if anyone agrees. 24.80.24.99 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"First to lack X"

I'd be careful about that type of trivia. "First to have X" makes sense, eg first mother/son team, first all-asian team, etc. are fine. But the current "First to not have a parent/child" combo, while perfectly valid, could lead to a lot of trivia creep. For example, it's the first season to lack an alpha male team, or any engaged couple. Sure, if it's something that has always been there because the rules stated it had to be there and then removed (like our precious Fast Forwards on every leg), that's notable, but I'm wary of adding that level of trivia. (And this applies to all TAR seasons, not just all-stars). --Masem 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Polls on new countries trivia

I'm found that the new countries trivia is wrote in every seasons of TAR except the first one in general trivia. First, I'm opposing this kind of trivia because TAR can visit any country, so it should be not noted. Second, to keep the fresh of the show, the producer must choose the new country to make the show, instead of visit the same country for several times (except US as hometown). --Aleen f1 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion whether the new countries trivia should be noted down in every seasons, either oppose (deduct) or support (note down), or give the comments below,

Support

Most of the time it's not a long list. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 14:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TeckWiz about this. It's not a long list and is worth noting. If the countries are listed, it will be a better way to know the new ones. I disagree with Masem because I do not see why anyone would want to go through the entire map and pick out the ones shaded for each country. That's tiring and can hurt someone's eyes! Just keep it as a trivia on each season's page! --UWAFanatic05 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: It's excessive. The pages are already trivia heavy and while it takes a bit of work, it can be deduced which countries are new. A better way to do it is to modify the "countries" visited map on the main tar page to add in the season of first visit (or the seasons when visited, period). --Masem 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Interesting: Final Season?

Only just noticed this phrase on the AR11 official website: (Emphasis mine)

SEASON PREMIERE
Sunday, February 18, 8pm et/pt THE AMAZING RACE: ALL-STARS reunites some of the most memorable, entertaining and controversial Teams from previous seasons and sets them on a new adventure of a lifetime. Traveling more than 45,000 miles, spanning 5 continents in 28 days, these Teams will pair up for one final trek around the globe as they battle the best of the best in a fierce race to the finish for their second attempt at the million dollar prize.

– Chacor 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people believe this is just a bad copyedit, since CBS has applications for TAR12 already out there. It should be read as "these teams will pair up for their final trek", implying that these teams will never be asked to Race again even if there's another All stars. --Masem 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose we won't know until CBS actually says something, then. (Chip A. talked a lot about this in the AR10 ROTR blog - it's possible that they accept applications then choose not to go ahead with it?) – Chacor 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure - that could definitely happen, and if TARAS doesn't get a good ratings chunk, they might consider it (they would need to figure this out by May-ish to have a race run for the fall season). I know that unlike Survivor which has out to season 16 in contract, they've yet to option TAR for another run beyond that. Basic point is, like most studio-sponsered websites that write copy, there's usually mistakes and bad wordings aplenty, so "one final task" written by a CBS webmonkey can have a very different meaning than if it was written or said by Phil, Bert, or Elise. --Masem 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it should be their final trek. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS website copyeditors are very bad at their job. They routinely mess up names and facts in the bios. The rumor that this is the last season is disinformation from the ungracious Hippies who were upset they were not included. This was covered in an interview with BvM somewhere (I can't remember which, sorry). Good kitty 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means that the teams won't be asked to do The Amazing Race again. Apple 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm positive it should be parsed as none of the all star teams will be allowed to compete in any future seasons of amazing race even if at some point they do another all stars. Jon 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box

Why do Rob and Amber have their own information box? everyone in this seoson is a former reality tv contestant. unless Season 7 and every survivor series they were in has this box on it, it should go--Irishboi 12:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario?

I haven't heard any spoilers about Ontario. Who keeps adding that to the possible future locations list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.35.247 (talk)

The person who added Ontario to the possible future locations list, please at least tell us why should Ontario be in that list. Have you seen the teams in Ontario? Did anybody tell you about it? Aranho 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future locations

When I was re-viewing The Amazing Race: All-Stars Introduction video on YouTube, I saw a few images that may be the possible future locations:

A drawing of a head and a hand with the following words "For hair plating with extension & for Heena Painting" at 0:39 minutes in the video.
Two buildings in a single image: one of the building looks like a Bank of China Tower and another building that looks like this building in the picture below. These two buildings can be seen at 0:40 minutes in the video.

To play the video in slow motion, press play-pause-wait for ½ second-play-pause-wait for ½ second continuously for slow motion.

The video can be found here (link was removed, see below for reasons). Aranho 08:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the "A drawing of a head and a hand with the following words "For hair plating with extension & for Heena Painting" at 0:39 minutes in the video.", it review no possible future locations to me. And for the two buildings picture, the possible future location would be Hong Kong so I will be adding that to the "Future Locations" section. Aranho 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object, WP:NOR. We shouldn't be interpreting the video for nuts, it doesn't necessarily mean what's on the video is on the show. To interpret it ourselves without any reliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, links to youtube videos are not allowed here unless they have been specifically licensed, otherwise it's a copyright violation. Please remove the link. – Chacor 11:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The building is actually the HSBC building in Central, Hong Kong. But as stated above, we shouldn't be interpreting information and locations that appear in the opening titles per WP:NOR. Especially when the images presented are not common knowledge like an Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty. --Madchester 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the warnings you guys just said, I have remove the link. Thank you for telling me guys. Aranho 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same Placings

This is probably the season where the most teams placed in the same position in 2 consecutive legs during the same two legs (I wonder if there's a way to shorten that.) If those two legs are 1+2, there were 7. I haven't checked, but that's almost definitely the most. Should we add it to trivia? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this is kind of noteworthy. ----SCSI Commando 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]