Talk:The Amazing Race 17

Season 17 Announcement

Along with videos that were released today on cbs.com previewing the Season 16 cast, links on cbs.com and a post from the official Amazing Race account on Facebook point to the casting application which has been updated for Season 17. Cheesehead Dave (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Location spoilers

Ok, I know they're racing now, and RFF is following, and I'm well aware of WP's spoiler policy. The problem is, RFF and similar forums are not reliable sources regardless of photographic evidence or the like. Unlike, for example, the foreign news report that we had last year for one the S.American legs, we can't just use what we're getting from forum boards. The only reliable source point is the boat club in Boston; everything else needs to be treated as speculation until CBS or another reliable source affirms it. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that the boat club is in Gloucester and NOT Boston, so don't add Boston until they're confirmed in Boston proper. Schmloof (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this recently with people adding in unsourced information from realityfanforum, I can only assume because of the sites popularity random guests are viewing the forum and adding anything they think is relivant to the page, I don't think said people even view this area. It's probably best to remove unsourced information without a debate, and if they keep adding, warn them 82.15.9.249 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Stephanie Smith

I haven't created an article for her yet (will tonight) but if we have a photo of one of the racers should this be included next to the table? Or is there another suitable place for it? Photo of Stephanie is here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A better place would probably be on List of The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series) contestants. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

True, thanks =) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PageantUpdater, Just so you know. I created an article for Stephanie Smith a few days ago. I didn't know you were planning on doing it. Feel free to contribute to it, if you think something needs to be added. It is at Stephanie Smith (pageant titleholder). MissAmericaGirl (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

watermelon video

While this is a relatively small point overall, the only reason that the watermelon clip is being mentioned is because of the attention it's gotten in the news. Yesterday it was more blog-level reporting but when you have MSNBC and the Daily Mail reporting it (with MSNBC even analyzing the severity of the possible injury), its definitely more than a curiousity. I know those sources don't exactly say "viral", but "The humorous video has gone around the internet like wildfire" from the Mail article means the same thing; I could also point to this [1] CBS article which does say "viral" but that's a bit of lack of independence in that part. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people have said this was fake and it was actually a water ballon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.92.35 (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Episode 1 spolier

Who posted the names of the team that will apparently be eliminated in tonight's (9/26/2010) episode? And where did this information come from? This information surely violates multiple WP policies, both those on (1) spoilers and (2) verifiable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.189.55 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Some IP added it. It is inappropriate because it can't be verified. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally people are viewing realityfanforum and taking educated guesses as verified facts. It can't really be helped, the forum is popular so naturally you'l get those who think the placements stated are official.It seems like this person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.125.193.30 was the one who added the fake info. He is also adding in unverified information into the upcoming legs area, have had to remove twice now.82.15.11.231 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is the image of Roadblock, FF and speed bump changed?

Why is the image of Roadblock, FF and speed bump changed? Wowovr2 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Express Pass

I have gone ahead and incorporated the "Express Pass" as a footnote in the Results table ([2]). My suggestion is that when Jill & Thomas actually use the Express Pass, we link to the same footnote and rewrite the sentence to read As a result of winning the first leg, Jill & Thomas received the "Express Pass", which allowed them to bypass any one task of their choosing before the end of Leg 8. They used it to bypass the [RB, Detour, Route Info] task on Leg [#]. If anyone has a better idea feel free to suggest it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Does someone receive an express pass on every leg? If so, then we should create a new symbol to match the existing ones. If it's a one- or two-time deal, a footnote should suffice. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 16:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't know. I thought, from the pre-premier press, that it was one time only, but then Phil says "the first Express Pass" which could imply there are more. Right now, leaving it as a footnote is best because we don't know the full rules. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't actually been proven that Jill and Thomas use the Express Pass. If I remember right the Pass can be given to another team if they do so wish, it could be that Jill and Thomas are the next Nick and Starr or a simular in strength team and don't really need and offer to another team 82.15.11.231 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we may just use a temporary remark until the Express Pass is really used (or until it is expired), and then decide how to describe it in the result. We don't need to have it done in a rush. bypeng (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it comes down to personal opinion as to how best to represent it on the page, as we have barely any info besides the effect it has on the outcome of a leg. Speaking of which an unregistered changed the Express pass icon under the results table citing colorblind users wouldn't be able to view it. I wonder if we need to discuss on how best to represent the pass on the results table before people start editting in their own interpretations? 82.15.11.231 (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation - source legs from EW recaps

I recommend, just to boost these articles, to use the recaps from ew.com (eg [3]) to source each leg. While a TV show that you normally don't need to source its summary, this will only help. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Ratings Reports from Multiple websites

Not really sure what to do in this regard. Basically it seems tvbythenumbers and tvaddict are giving 2 different ratings results. For example for episode 3 thetvaddict gives the show a 12.11 million result. tvbythenumbers 11.99 million. There's a huge difference here. I found this again with Episode 2 CBS gave a different number to what tvbythenumbers reported. Someone added in a link but because I couldnt verify(Region locked website) I stuck with what I originally entered. I ask because I formatted the other links when people added(Old ip). And thus far I'm unsure which website to believe because Wikipedia naturally wants accurate information, and in this case which website if any are reporting the true ratings for the show 02:23,82.15.11.104 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The best source for ratings is the final report from CBS' press release every Tuesday which are final ratings and not fast nationals or overnight ratings. Weekly rankings for viewers are in the CBS press release while tvbythenumbers has the weekly rankings in the 18-49 demographic. So really, the ratings section should be edited on Tuesdays when the final ratings are released officially from CBS. Teamkapamilya (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that pretty much decides it then. I personally will be using tvbythenumbers as a source as they're the most reliable source besides CBS. If and when CBS releases official ratings if someone wants to add in the final figures then I guess the articles ratings section can be improved. However with thetvaddicts 13 million figure for episode 5 they've lost all credibility as a source and I personally will remove any ratings sourced from there 82.15.11.104 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No Speed Bump in Leg 7

I hope someone with knowledge can look into this but I have read on a few sites that Nick & Vicki did not have to complete a speed bump in leg 7 because of a judging error in leg 6.

[4] States that:

Nick had posted on his personal Facebook page that in the Classical Music Detour in the previous leg, there'd been a judging error. Apparently they'd been giving a correct answer, but a judge had been telling them that they were wrong. Apparently because of the judging error, the producers ruled that rather than give the Speed-Bump penalty, Nick & Vicki would just be allowed to continue with the game as if nothing happened.

IMDB page: [5]

Also, Phil normally instructs a team at a non-elimination pit stop that they will need to perform a speed bump in the next leg. This was never told to Nick & Vicki at their check in.

Of course this was never explained to any of us but could have been very easily.

Tim 174.100.43.73 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that states this. Hearsay on IMDB isn't good enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand Hearsay is unreliable, but there has to be an explanation for no speed bump being shown when a team in leg 6 was saved with a non-elimination leg. There has to be someone out there with this information. People have information about upcoming unaired legs but nobody will say why there was no speed bump. Anyone with info please advise to keep this Amazing Race 17 posting up to date. 174.100.43.73 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It will inevitably show up during the week. Do not worry.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The following URL contains a statement provided by either CBS or World Race Productions to the administrator of a TAR forum site concerning the Speed Bump, and the problems with the piano detour task in leg 6. The poster is a host of a weekly interview show on that site, and therefore deals with CBS and WRP on a regular basis. http://forum.realityfanforum.com/index.php/topic,23648.msg571540.html#msg571540 http://forum.realityfanforum.com/index.php/topic,23648.msg571540.html#msg571540 Theschnauzers (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)theschnauzers

Picture tab error

The picture showing where the teams have been so far is correct when clicked on, but the thumbnail on the actual article shows an older version which showed all of the future legs' destinations. Can anyone help with this? S51438 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The local thumbnail was not updated when the map was updated far into leg 11. I have fixed this by resizing the thumbnail.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Express Pass symbol

For the past several weeks, the Express Pass symbol in the Results table has been an ≥. I recently changed it to ℮ because it is a stylized E much like the stylized F (ƒ) used for the Fast Forward tasks. It does not make sense to use one of these mathematical symbols which we use similar ones for the Yield and U-Turn symbols. Besides, considering the new U-Turn mechanic, it may be more useful to use that symbol for the second U-Turn (although I have put the subset and superset symbols there for now).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think works. I agree. You've been an asset to the page with your updates I think we should all go along with what you want in this case 82.15.11.104 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Some people think the special characters I've been using are wrong, despite policies that say otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Results table format change

As it seems that some anons do not agree with my recent reformatting, let's discuss it here.

Earlier this week I reformatted the results tables of every single Amazing Race season (including Asia, Latin America, Brazil, Israel, and China) to put a space before the ƒ that signifies a Fast Forward leg or win. I have added this space to make the tables easier to read and it looks better to have a space before the ƒ, separating it from the number placement. I initially made this change because of the symbol I chose to replace the Express Pass symbol as described in the above thread (it looked like 5the, but now it looks like "5th ℮" with the space. I figured that doing this for the only other letter-like symbol these pages use would also help, but due to lack of communication with 97.102.105.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and vehement opposition from 174.1.48.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I'm bringing it up for discussion. Seeing as this is the only highly edited page, it's better to discuss it here because as far as I'm aware there's no WikiProject for the race.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have gone to the trouble of putting a space between the number and the f on all seasons of the Amazing Race then I fully support your decision that the space is needed. S51438 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of these articles and I don't hold especially strong feelings. That said, I think Ryulong's added spaces improve the tables' clarity and readability. I also think that his (or someone's) use of color and special symbols in these tables has been resourceful and helpful. This is true, too, of the use of icons (flags, planes, trains, etc) in the rest of the article -- the layout is not overly flashy but it works very efficiently at communicating information.

The spacing issue is certainly not worth fighting over and I would support whatever other established editors (both anonymous and named) agree on. However the consensus evolves, I hope dissenters will shrug off any disappointment and fall in line. There's just not a lot of "face" to gain or lose on this one. Anyone looking to go to the mat over editing a Wikipedia article would probably find more sport fighting over our Israel and Palestine articles.

To avoid reinventing the wheel on this issue for every TAR article, I suggest putting a link on the other TAR talk pages to this discussion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, A.B., there are only three current seasons of the show, and the American version gets more traffic than the Asian and Latin American versions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I found that when the f was connected to the 1st, it looked similar to a footnote, you know? It's like, you wouldn't write 1st * or 1st ¹, you would write 1st* and 1st¹. I understand why you changed it because of the e, but with that other one I tried out (ɛ I think...) it's no longer confusing. I dunno, the "e" might have good reason to be spaced, BUT since the Express Pass is always going to have a footnote attached, that just makes it longer and more cumbersome. My main point is that when the f was "attached" to the number, it looked like it belonged there. Remember that the Fast Forward used to be identified by a green color only, and the f was tacked on for accessibility purposes. If they're connected, then it looks like they belong together and helps people understand that the team used the Fast Forward to help them get to 1st (or 4th or 2nd or whatever) Shadow2 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and not to mention that the Yield, U-Turn and Intersection are directly connected to the numbers. (And PLEASE don't consider adding a space before all of those two. That would just be ridiculous) Shadow2 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Yield, U-Turn, and Intersection things aren't letters. Because the Fast Forward and Express Pass things are letters, it's better to separate them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference if they're not letters? They're still extra symbols tacked onto the end of the placement to signify that the team did not reach that placement on their own. No-one's going to be confused if you don't put a space before the "f" because it frankly looks a lot different than a regular f. With the "e", it was a different story because the "e" looked like a normal e (which is why I think ɛ is better), but with the f, it's fine. It's not going to confuse a single person. My main problem with you is that you always say "it's better" to do this, "it's better to do that. You're not the sole judge of what's better and what's not. Shadow2 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Because they'renot letters there's no confusion as to being a weird other word like "1stf" (first f what?), etc. Why does the space matter so much that it is there?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you took it upon yourself to become the master of the TAR tables. ANYTHING you say goes. We're all just pawns in your grand scheme. You're a jerk, you know that? I still see no valid reason for the change, and I'm opposing it because it doesn't make sense and it looked better without the space. Whatever Shadow2 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to post my comment. As a regular editor of the Asia articles, I would like to voice my opinion on this. Putting a space before "f" for fast forward looks awkward, but it indeed makes the table clearer.
As for the express pass, I think it would be better to have a symbol (Like the one used before) instead of the letter e. This is just my opinion though, so you can choose not to listen to it.
Lastly, for the upcoming double u-turn. Speaking as a mathematician, it's awkward to see the subset sign used. It's a bit confusing on my part to see the reverse subset sign used to the one who chose to u-turn. It would be better to use the same symbol ">>" but with a different color. That way, we know that what has happened is a u-turn, just that it is a different pair of contestants who did it. I hope this helps in the discussion. LordBelly06 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) I support the space. (2) Just from reading the comments, Ryūlóng is not the one who sounds like a jerk. LarryJeff (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto LarryJeff's comment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, LordBelly06, I chose the Set symbols because they look like U's. Rather than using a different colored << symbol, a completely different symbol should be used. Per WP:ACCESS, color should not be the only factor to differentiate between objects. That's why the Intersection symbols on previous pages were all different symbols and colors. Perhaps a different symbol other than the estimated sign should be used. But not the Latin lower case epsilon that Shadow2 picked out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not?! You never, ever give any reasons for why you think things should be done! 174.1.48.24 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What am I not explaining? The Set symbols (or some other set of symbols) should be used because you just can't use different colors of the same symbols because there might be colorblind readers. And I merely think that a stylized E is a better symbol than the greater than or equal to symbol, because it is an E and it is the Express Pass.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

174.1.48.24, your comment's unhelpful. Can you join the conversation on the merits of what we should do with the article instead of just fussing at Ryulong? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ryulongs suggestion, well his current one on the page. I think we should just stick with that and stop fussing over minor details, if an agreement is made we can universally agree to revert any future edits changing the symbol.82.15.11.104 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I meant. I know we can't use the Greater Than symbol. I was asking why we couldn't use this: ɛ 174.1.48.24 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's there now. Just a different version of that symbol.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand the need for a different symbol. That was well-explained. And I don't mind the spaces too. It doesn't matter that much anyway :) Maybe it's just weird on my part as I tend to look at the symbol in their mathematical usage. But I have no contention anymore on its use. I just have one question though, is it possible to change the color for Yield? The current color seems to be hard to read. LordBelly06 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I also recently changed that from orange to gold (both being referred to as yellow), because Orange was used for a few items already and gold looks more yellow.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As a person who consistently uses the Amazing Race pages, and not a regular updater, I disagree, sorry. The italic f is not good with a space because it causes it to drop under the number eg 1st f

It makes the table look less professional when this happens and it looks better published with all the columns equally distributed and no: 1st 2nd 3rd 1st f I personally feel this way, it looks more professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.106.215 (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is easier to read when there is a space between the placement and the ƒ. At least now you have told us what the problem is, because you have a too small screen resolution, causing the ƒ to be put on another line.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Section titles

Recently, I modified the section titles across the pages to refer to legs taking place in the United States and United Arab Emirates as "USA --> (Wherever)" and "UAE --> (Wherever)". I also made changes to when teams traveled to the People's Republic of China, and simply renamed these sections (and the links in the sections) to "China". In addition, when teams have traveled to Hong Kong, Macau, or other special/unique entities such as Guam, Zanzibar, Sicily, and Corsica, the section headers have been modified to these place names rather than the sovereign nations that control these territories (China, US, Tanzania, Italy, France), because they are unique enough from the rest of the nation that they have their own coverage in the show, anyway (e.g. "Welcome to Corsica", not "Welcome to France").

Thoughts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you ever do this first? (By which I mean making a talk page section) 174.1.48.24 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Because no one other than you ever has a problem with my changes?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, I recommend you start here in the future, given the drama of the last few days. 174.1.48.24, I see you're commenting on Ryulong; it would be more helpful to comment on his changes to the articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I already did, but he wasn't listening. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I never think that my stylistic changes are so controversial that they even require discussion. It doesn't affect the layout of the page. It doesn't affect the prose of the page. It's just making section titles shorter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to officially apologize for anything rude I may have said to you. I was honestly trying not to, but I get frustrated sometimes. However, I'm not entirely at fault. I'd like you to consider my ideas and give a response that's longer than just one sentence. I really am a little frustrated because I get the feeling that you're just ignoring everything I say, and you come off as having a bit of an...ego. Again, I'm sorry if this offends you, but these are my feelings

Also, for anyone reading this, Here[6] are my thoughts on the whole thing. (Look at the last section). In an effort to save space, I won't copy it all over.

Now, one more thing: You're coming off as a little hypocritical. You're saying that these changes "[make] the section titles shorter". But when I wanted to make the tables shorter by removing the space before the "f", you disagreed. Do you see why I'm confused? 174.1.48.24 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

By making the table slightly wider and making the section titles smaller conveys the same information more easily. People know what the USA, UAE, and China are. And Hong Kong, et al. are unique enough entities that they can be made separate. Whenever they visit the UK, we refer to the constituent state and not the UK as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because England and Scotland are countries. Hong Kong, Macau, Guam, Puerto Rico, Corsica, Sicily and Zanzibar are not. (Although, I will admit that I did like it better when it said United Kingdom) 174.1.48.24 (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are unique enough entities that they can be given their own separate entry in these lists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The headings should have some form of consistency. Either they all have countries, or they all have subdivisions (which, quite frankly, would be a mess) 174.1.48.24 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

All of these subdivisions are special cases. If in the future they go to Greenland, are we going to refer to it as a part of the Kingdom of Denmark? Do we refer to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as members of the Commonwealth? There are only a handful of special cases, most of which are the visits to Hong Kong, and in all of these cases, the places have separate autonomy from their parent nation (Corsica is a Territorial Collectivity; Sardinia and Sicily are autonomous regions; Hong Kong and Macau are Special Administrative Regions; England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are constituent states of the United Kingdom; Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and Guam is an unincorporated territory; Zanzibar is semi-autonomous). It does not hurt Wikipedia or the integrity of these articles to be more specific as to where they went, other than referring to visits to Hong Kong and Macau as just the PRC.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. If it's got a special governmental set up that gives it a level of autonomy from the rest of the nation that it belongs to, it deserves a separate mention.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, obviously there's no real answer to those, and nothing either of us does is going to be without someone complaining. For some reason, we always have to go with what you decide is right, but whatever. I'll leave it at that.

But we can't have USA and UAE. We...just can't. This is an encyclopedia and, as such, we should not cut corners. It makes it look like the page was written by an amateur. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you don't even abbreviate it when it's the only country in the heading. What the hell are you doing, man? You're making a complete mess of things! 174.1.48.24 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This argument was absolutely ridiculous. Some people have too much free time to be arguing over a Wikipedia article. In my opinion however a person with a confirmed identity should overrule someone with just an I.P. address as a user name. In other instances Ryulong has proven to be a very important contributor to this article and Amazing Race articles as a whole. Therefore I disagree with 174.1.48.24 on this matter and to even state that this article can be appeared to have been written by an amateur over a commonly used acronym for a country is absolutely dumbfounding. S51438 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I in fact, do have an account, but that doesn't change anything. Shadow2 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So you were making it appear that you were two separate people in conversations by commenting logged out and in? And to respond about the not abbreviating when it's the only country in the heading, there doesn't need to be an abbreviation if it's the only entry.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And it should be simple enough to understand that autonomous entities should be listed separately, rather than merely being a region of the larger nation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(I had a looooong argument typed up, but I lost it all because there was an edit conflict. Gaaaaahhhh!! Now I have to start again...)

I wasn't making anything appear like anything. I may have posted under this account by accident at some point, but I never said that I was two different people. Never said that. (Besides, we had the exact same opinion, so it should've been obvious). I don't post under this account any more because of reasons that I don't feel like sharing. However, if it gives me some magical powers of persuasiveness (according to S51438) then I'll use it.

I don't understand what you're saying about when a country's alone in the heading. Why exactly does it get its full name just because it's alone? That's inconsistent and it makes no sense. Look, I'm trying to tackle this from the perspective of an encyclopedia writer. That's what we're trying to create, right? An Encyclopedia? Encyclopedias do not cut corners, they do not shorten things in titles, and they do not do things just because they supposedly look better. Their main objective is to provide information in a clear and concise way, which is what you were trying to do with the f.

I know this is highly unlikely, but imagine if someone came to this website and didn't know what USA stood for. Better yet, there are a lot of people, including some personal friends of mine, who have never heard of the United Arab Emirates and would never know what UAE stands for. I have given you many reasons for why these abbreveations should go, and you've given me 0 for why they should stay. You're removing information, which is contradicting your mindset when it came to the f's.

I understand your point when it comes to the regions like Hong Kong and, as I said before, no-one is ever going to win that argument. But these abbreveations have to go. Shadow2 (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the nation is the only one visited on that leg, it does not make sense to abbreviate its name in the section header. The section headers were modified for length reasons. If a nation's name is overly long, it can be abbreviated, which is what has been done for the USA, the UAE, and the PRC. Next, "USA" and "UAE" are only being used as abbreviations in the section header. If someone does not know what they mean, they can click the section header and see that "USA" is "United States of America" and "UAE" is "United Arab Emirates". These two situations, and my use of "Corsica, FR", "Sicily, IT", and "Zanzibar, TZ", are the only instances where abbreviations are being used. There is nothing wrong with abbreviating things in these section titles, when they only refer to the nations as abbreviations in said section titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Screw it. All instances of "USA" (except for those in final legs) replaced with "United States" and all instances of "UAE" turned back into "United Arab Emirates". In addition, "FR", "IT", and "TZ" have been removed from the three seasons when they went to Corsica, Sicily, and Zanzibar.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're being quite a baby Shadow2. Whoever these "friends" are, I'm sure they can look up what the UAE is themselves. This is Wikipedia, not a daycare. We don't need to hold their hand along the way. S51438 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Constituencies and other autonomous entities

So now that the issue of abbreviations is dealt with, shall we decide on whether or not my choice to feature the special regions of nations that have a level of autonomy from the sovereign nation in the section title is good? This would cover the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau in the People's Republic of China; the Territorial Collectivity of Corsica in France, as well as its other collectivities; the Autonomous Regions of Sardinia, Sicily, and perhaps others; the special status of Zanzibar in Tanzania; the unincorporated territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa in the United States; the various British Overseas Territories; and the constituent nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Realm of New Zealand, the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To be exact, this would cover the following political entities:

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My honest opinion: Hong Kong, Macau, Guam & Puerto Rico: Sure, I guess you're right...Corsica, Sicily, Zanzibar: No. My reason for this is that when people think of Italy, they think of the "boot" and the island underneath. Same goes for Corsica when people think of France and...kinda the same for Zanzibar. The idea being: If you were told to color in Italy on a map, you'd probably color in Sicily and Sardinia too, whereas if you were told to color America, you wouldn't color Puerto Rico and Guam 174.1.48.24 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as a side note: At the end of Season 9, teams were required to place flags of the countries they visited in order, and they used the Italian flag instead of the Sicilian one. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they did also go to Rome for a task that same season. And I doubt that the show itself is going to use the flags of autonomous regions of larger nations. This is, again, only for section titles. Corsica, Sicily, Sardinia, and Zanzibar are just as unique from France, Italy, and Tanzania as Hong Kong, Macau, Guam, Puerto Rico are from the PRC and US. Basically, if the region is geographically and historically separate from the sovereign nation and there's a separate special government set up, it should be listed separately. You might bring up a counterpoint that Alaska and Hawaii are such entities, but they are still completely subject to US federal law. Similarly, Hokkaido and Okinawa have historical separate entities from the other islands of Japan, but do not have a special government set up either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You could add to your long list the Special Territories of Chile, those are the Easter Island and Juan Fernández Islands. Gonzalochileno (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see them in my search before. And Easter Island is the only one with a unique flag.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's just focus on the ones that have already been visited. We can discuss the others later. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my comment, I state so long as it has a special governmental exception from its sovereign nation, then we should include it as the location, rather than the sovereign nation. The sovereign nation will be mentioned in the bulleted list, but not in the section title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but I think it might look better reversed from what you said (With the sovereign nation in the header, but not in the bulleted list) 174.1.48.24 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But they're visiting the autonomous region of the sovereign nation. They didn't go to France in that leg, but they went to Corsica which is has a special governmental consideration in France. So we have "Wherever --> Corsica" in the section header, and then "Corsica, France" in the bulleted list, with both Corsica and France bolded.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...When looking at the "subdivisions" of a country...Corsica is still one of France's Regions, and Sicily is still one of Italy's. However, Hong Kong is not a province of China and Guam is not a state of the United States, which is why I think HK Macau Guam and PR should be in the headings, but not Corsica and Sicily. Zanzibar...I've changed my mind. I agree that it should be in the headings mostly because it has regions of its own, just like Tanzania does. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, btw, do you mind if I edit your list? I won't remove anything, I just have a few things to add. You can remove them later if you want. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But Corsica and Sicily (and Sardinia) have been granted special governmental statuses. Corsica is a collectivité territoriale, not a région like Champagne-Ardenne. Likewise, Sicily (and Sardinia) is a Regione Autonoma, rather than a Regione like Tuscany. That is where the distinction lies. And you can add whatever you think fits. If it has its own special distinction, then it belongs on the list. If you're looking at the "Republics" that make up the Russian Federation, I skipped them because there were so many.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading the Corsica page and what we both say is true. It is actually a région of France, but it's also a collectivité territoriale. It's also part of Metropolitan France. (Double Check the list plz) 174.1.48.24 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but even as a région it has a special status amongst them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I skipped South Georgia and the South Sandwiches and the Indian Ocean Territory because no one lives there. But I guess those work. The Australian ones are fine, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

About Italy: I'm Italian and, sorry, but you can't compare Sicilian, Sardinian, "Friulan" or Corsican "autonomy" to the ones of Macau and Hong Kong. Their autonomy is much smaller than the one you can experience in those collectivities, and you can't just look at their names ("Autonoma" and so on). They're deeply linked to the nation they're part of. They may have some more powers, they can decide something on their own, but they're fully part of France and Italy, no doubt about that. Macau and Hong Kong have a long history "by themselves", that can actually distinguish them from the rest of the country. I'd say the same about Crimea, Aland and Vojvodina. So, I think you should just use France, Italy, Ukraine, Serbia, Sweden in the titles. --SimoneMLK (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But the islands are still separate entities (geographically [except Friuli–Venezia Giulia]) from the rest of the nation, and the Race focuses entirely in that region (even with this season, when they were in Sweden they were greeted with a "Welcome to Lapland" thing). Why not provide slightly more information in the section headers, rather than reserving that information for the prose, and specify that they went to Corsica, rather than mainland France?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But that's what prose is for. More general information in the titles, more specific information in the prose: if somebody wants to know Ajaccio is in Corsica or Palermo is in Sicily he/she only has to click on the link/scroll a few lines below. Physical geography should not be of our concern, unless big distances are involved. Should we also mention Hawaii and Alaska in the titles (and, by the way, HI and AK have far more powers in the United States than Sicily or Sardinia have in Italy)? ;) And about the "this is Lapland"-thing... come on, it's just a nice way to say it. Didn't Phil say something like "Welcome to Champagne" last season in France?--SimoneMLK (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well not Phil, but yes the mime did. The show itself also has an annoying habit of dumbing things down for the viewer sometimes. Like when they went to Mauritius, no mention of any city was made, and they only refered to it as "Mauritius". Then there was the time they went to Dubai and didn't mention the country's name of "United Arab Emirates". What the show and/or Pit Stop greeters say is not necessarily what we should go by. It's just easier than saying "WELCOME TO DUBAI IN THE DUBAI EMIRATE OF THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES". That wouldn't be very good, would it? ;) Same goes for saying "Welcome to Corsica" instead of "Welcome to Corsica, France". 174.1.48.24 (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is only in the section titles. The prose still mentions "Sicily, Italy" and "Corsica, France". I just think that putting the special regions (which usually have some sort of autonomy from the sovereign nation) in the section titles because they spent their entire time in those particular areas rather than some of the more common locales in France (Paris, Nice, Champagne, etc.) or Italy (Rome, Venice, Florence, etc.). We already do this for the UK, and the Hong Kong and Macau exceptions were agreed upon as being special cases. Why not these 4 islands (Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Zanzibar)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because, once again, this is different. Corsica is a part of France and Sicily is a part of Italy. One of the reasons we put HK, Macau, Guam and PR seperately is because while they belong to China and the US, they're not entirely a part of said countries. You can't apply the "different government" argument everywhere, because lots of places in many nations have different government practices spread all about. What we need is some form of consistency.174.1.48.24 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just think that Corsica, Sicily (and Sardinia), and Zanzibar are unique enough entities that they warrant mention in the section header, rather than merely saying the racers traveled to France, Italy, and Tanzania. Sure, those places are incorporated into the sovereign nations, but geography, culture, and a special political determination separate these places from the nation as a whole. It may not be significant, as SimoneMLK pointed out, but it still makes them different from the rest of the country. And even so, this has only happened a handful of times (once each for Corsica, Sicily, and Zanzibar), and it really does not hurt to give them a mention in the header rather than just showing it in bullet list formating.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my 2 cents: I don't think we will be able to come with a definition or set of criteria that will satisfactorily apply to all expected future cases. We'll just have to figure out what to do in each case as it happens, and it's probably going to end up being more of a "feel" about the particular location than any set of rules. I like the map example someone used above. Guam, for example--if I was asked to mark the United States on a map I would never include Guam. I suspect someone living in Guam would probably not include Guam (just my guess). I also suspect most would consider Corsica and Sicily to be "part of" France and Italy, not separate the way Greenland is seen as separate from Denmark.LarryJeff (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Corsica is widely known to be part of France, and Sardinia and Sicily are widely known to be parts of Italy. However, because the race visited these unique places within those nations, and they happen to have some level of autonomy or self-government outside of the government of the sovereign nation, it is better to point out these places in the section headers. In these cases, the race went directly to that region which is on its own separate island, rather than if they flew to Nice, had tasks there, and then went to the island of Corsica. It focused entirely on Corsica.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, having some form of "self-government" isn't really enough to set it apart. Every single place in the world has some type of self-government. States and provinces have their own mayors/leaders and laws. And just because it's on a seperate island isn't enough of a reason either. Hawaii is on its own seperate islands. So is Tasmania, and Vancouver Island. Finally, just because they spent the whole leg inside Corsica shouldn't warrant a change in the title. Do you think that because the teams just spent the whole leg in Dhaka we should have the title say Oman -> Dhaka? No, I don't think so. Again, I really do agree with you for many of these places like HK, Guam, Puerto Rico, Zanzibar and lots of the potential places in your list, but Corsica and Sicily just don't fit it. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't Corsica and Sicily fit? There's all of this that shows that they have some level of uniqueness within Europe, and there are reliable sources to back up the fact that amongst the regions (région or regione) of those nations, they have special designations. There's also plenty of similar places in Asia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well for one thing, Corsica's not on that list...174.1.48.24 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But it is still the only territorial collectivity that isn't anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Okay. I've undone my edits to include Corsica and Sicily in the section titles, as it is clear that the above don't quite fit in with entities such as Guam, Hong Kong, and Zanzibar. So I've crossed off a handful of political entities that do not have the right kind of self government as the others. Namely the Territorial Collectivity of Corsica, and the Autonomous Regions of Sicily, Sardinia, the Azores, and Madeira. I believe that the other political entities should have their own mention in section titles. These other merely specialized regions of sovereign nations, however, should get a flag icon and be bolded to signify that they are unique.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fast forwards

On all race pages fast forwards are on the same line as when the clue is recieved. I propose changing this, giving the fast forward a seperate line, because the fast forward happens at a different location and that must be highlighted in the summary.A1125 (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not specify where any of the special tasks take place. We only mention where the Clue Boxes are found. The Fast Forward is included on the line where the clue box with the Fast Forward clue was found. It is general practice 'across every Amazing Race page to include the Fast Forward location after the mention of the Fast Forward clue. Detours are not treated this way, but their location is instead featured in the prose of the section. Roadblock clues are given at the same place where the Roadblock is, so they're not affected. Things should not change because there is not a special Clue Box for the Fast Forward.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We should change it as it says detour is not treated that way, so why is the fast forward? The fast forward happens at a different location, and all locations the race visits is highlighted. A1125 (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Or we could just remove the Fast Forward location from the bulleted list, and treat it exactly like the Detour and only state where it is in the prose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some old pages still have the Fast Forward on a seperate line. (Example: Most legs of TAR2) 174.1.48.24 (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think those are just showing where the unused & unaired Fast Forwards are. Not sure, because I don't remember those seasons. All of the more recent races use the Fast Forward on the same line as where it was found formatting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I'll give you a specific example from Leg 4 (in Namibia). Teams not taking the FF had to go from the Airport to the Lighthouse to get a vehicle, then to the sand dune to do the Detour, and then they moved on to the General Dealer. The Fast Forward took place at the hotel (Which is on a seperate line right now). This is true for most of the older seasons' aired FFs. I've seen all of the old seasons so if you want me to fix 'em and put them on the same line as where the clue came from, just let me know. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, I'll go ahead and fix them. It's easy enough to..."unfix" if the need arises. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's at the beginning of the leg though, don't bother putting in a new line.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yeah I was wondering about that. I think only the first two seasons gave out the FF with the very first clue. The third does it too. What do you think should be done in that case? Maybe have a line saying "Pit Start"? 174.1.48.24 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to do the same thing if there's a Speed Bump on it's own line. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Speed Bumps are locations that they force racers to go to before a specific route marker. Speed Bumps should definitely be given the same treatment. And just have the Fast Forward clue on the first line, even if it doesn't match that route marker (it's the Route Marker they're being told to go to if they didn't take the Fast Forward, right?).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but usually the FF allows teams to skip said first route marker. But I guess putting it on the first line will be fine. Also: Million Dollar idea: Why don't we write something in the "clue box" thing at the top of the race summary saying "Note: These symbols indicate where teams received the clues, but don't necessarily dictate where the task took place" or something similar. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a lot easier just to have no symbol, rather than making up a new Route Info symbol.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself. You know the box at the very top of the "Race Summary" that explains what all of the symbols mean, including the travel icons like the plane and train. It's like a legend, and it's at the top right before the first leg. That's where we could put a disclaimer to aleviate any confusion over the location of the tasks. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New U-Turn symbols

I think that we should universally change the U-Turn symbols from the »« pair to the ⊃⊂ pair. It does not particularly make sense to use the double angle quotation marks for something symbolizing a U-Turn. The subset and superset symbols, which visibly resemble the letter U are much more effective. For the case of this page (and any future Double U-Turns), I believe a separate symbol should be used other than the double angle quotation marks symbols. There are plenty of other mathematical operators which could symbolize this item.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible "Double U-Turn" symbols could be ∊ and ∋, ⊄ and ⊅, ⊆ and ⊇, ⊊ and ⊋, ☜ and ☞, ⤴ and ⤵, ↫ and ↬, ↺ and ↻, or ⋐ and ⋑. I will be looking for others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really surprised at the lack of response here...If you had brought these things up during Season 15 or 16, people would've been all over this. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the clear next step is to impliment this as no one has opposed. Which do you think would be a good 2nd U-Turn symbol?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If I had to pick one....I'd choose either ⋐ and ⋑ (1st choice) or ⊄ and ⊅ (2nd choice). You might wanna put a hidden message to prevent people from changing them over and over again, like I expect they will. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything has been changed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick/Vicki last leg

Be aware - we have no idea if they got a clue or not that told them to go right to the pitstop from the end of the speed bump. Is it likely? Yes, but we didn't see it. (Why not have them go right after getting to the bridge or the base?) Maybe post-race interviewers will tell us. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

At least they didn't do an additional task prior to entering at Camp Casey, then Roadblock, Detour and head to the Pit Stop instead. They had only least did a Speed Bump prior to be eliminated. Phil never specially mentioned about Nick/Vicki Speed Bump. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The speed bump sign was clearly before the RB when the other 3 teams arrived. But I do believe they did skip the rafting part. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[7] TV Guide interview, they say they did all the tasks on the leg. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see their Buddy TV one conflicts with this one. I agree with stating they skips tasks due to the darkness (though they do say they speed skated...) --MASEM (t) 04:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"After the Speed Bump it was so dark so for safety reasons we didn't have to do all of the tasks."

I believe what she meant here was that they only skipped the rafting (because it was too dark) and possibly the Roadblock (because of military schedules?). They still went to the stadium, did the Speed Skating Detour, went to the airplane statue and then headed to the Pit Stop. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Departure Timings

I dunno if anyone would care to take the trouble of inserting the timings of the Racers into this article, but if so, here's my data.

Note: the mandatory 12-hour pit stop of olden days is gone. The TAR staff now releases them when it's best. The World War I fighter plane reenactment proved this for me.

Timings from my notes this season: Leg 1 (9/26) (England) [I don't know if timings were provided in the next ep.] 1. Thomas & Jill (& won Express Pass) 2. Nat & Kat 3. Connor & Jonathan 4. Brook & Claire 5. Katie & Rachel 6. Gary & Mallory 7. Michael & Kevin 8. Chad & Stephenie 9. Andie & Jenna 10. Nick & Vicki 11. Ron & Tony

Leg 2 (10/3) (Ghana)[I don't know if timings were provided in the next ep.] 1. Brook & Claire! 2. Katie & Rachel 3. Michael & Kevin 4. Chad & Stephenie 5. Thomas & Jill 6. Connor & Jonathan 7. Nat & Kat 8. Nick & Vicki 9. Gary & Mallory 10. Andie & Jenna

Leg 3 (10/10) [But by now the next ep. provided departure timings] 1. Connor & Jonathan 10:15 2. Gary & Mallory 11:19 3. Chad & Stephenie 11:29 4. Katie & Rachel 12:12 5. Nick & Vicki 12:23 6. Brook & Claire 12:24 7. Thomas & Jill 12:29 8. Nat & Kat 1:12 9. Michael & Kevin (NEL) 1:26

Leg 4 (10/17) (Swedish Lapland) 1. Nat & Kat 6:00 2. Gary & Mallory 6:04 3. Brook & Claire 6:05 4. Michael & Kevin 6:30 5. Thomas & Jill (used Express Pass) 6:48 6. Nick & Vicki 7:11 7. Chad & Stephenie 8:12 8. Katie & Rachel 8:48 9. Connor & Jonathan

Leg 5 (10/24) (Norway) (no timings posted the next ep) 1. Nat & Kat (via FF) 2. Gary & Mallory 3. Thomas & Jill 4. Michael & Kevin 5. Brook & Claire 6. Nick & Vicki 7. Chad & Stephenie 8. Katie & Rachel

Leg 6 (10/31) (St. Petersburg) (no timings given – this leg had a mess of production errors) 1. Thomas & Jill 2. Brook & Claire 3. Michael & Kevin 4. Nat & Kat 5. Chad & Stephenie 6. Gary & Mallory 7. Nick & Vicki (NEL)

Leg 7 (11/7) (St. Petersburg again) 1. Nat & Kat 1:06am 2. Brook & Claire 1:28am 3. Nick & Vicki 1:29am 4. Gary & Mallory 1:46am 5. Thomas & Jill 1:53am 6. Chad & Stephenie 2:45am (but overslept and departed at 4:45am) 7. Michael & Kevin

Leg 8 (11/14) (Oman) 1. Chad & Stephenie 11:10am 2. Thomas & Jill 11:27am 3. Nick & Vicki 12:57pm 4. Brook & Claire 1:36pm 5. Nat & Kat 3:37pm 6. Gary & Mallory

Leg 9 (11/21) (Bangladesh) 1. Thomas & Jill 8:25am 2. Nick & Vicki 1:59pm 3. Nat & Kat 4:05pm 4. Brook & Claire (U-turn No. 1) 5:15pm 5. Chad & Stephenie (U-turn No. 2)

Leg 10 (11/28) (Hong Kong) 1. Nat & Kat 4:37pm 2. Thomas & Jill 4:47pm 3. Brook & Claire 5:26pm 4. Nick & Vicki (NEL + 6 hour penalty) (no timing: “last to depart”)

Leg 11 (12/5) (Seoul) (not known as of 12/11/10, the date of this post in Wiki, but all close) 1. Thomas & Jill 2. Brook & Claire 3. Nat & Kat 4. Nick & Vicki

Leg 12 (12/12) Finale ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyGold (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this stuff is definitely not important for Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Race 18 Results

Since the Amazing Race 18 is yet to air in most other countries in the world, PLEASE stop writing the results of that race on this page. It is not relevant to the information on this page. If people want to see the results of that race they can visit that page. We did not write race results for All-Stars on season 1-10's pages. Saying they competed in Unfinished Business with a link to that series is fine. 93.96.23.89 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP does not hide spoiler information for shows that have aired somewhere in the world and thus can be verified. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Masem; per WP:SPOILER, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm deleting it because it is not information about this article and I find results of other series to be irrelevant to this article. We did not do this for the old series, the only reason people want to do it here is because they're being overly pedantic. As per WP guidelines, you put information regarding another topic on that topic's page. Again, this is The Amazing Race 17 page, not The Amazing Race 18. Adding "they came 3rd" does not improve this article in anyway.93.96.23.89 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And as per WP:SPOILER as you mentioned, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Whilst posting information such as results etc, that serves an encyclopedic purpose for the page in question, not on a different page. 93.96.23.89 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with original poster, there is no purpose being served in improving this particular page by including placings of a different season. I request it's removal also. This issue did not come up during the first all stars season due to people understanding that future seasons results don't affect the previous seasons. ARArules (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

While we shouldn't censor pages just because it has not aired elsewhere, it is not important to the coverage of this page that we include Gary & Mallory's final placement here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hidden text stating "Do not remove"

I really hate to repeat myself, but... (copied from Talk:The Amazing Race 16, with one addition on the end)

Please do not place hidden text stating "Do not remove this" or something to that effect unless the text in question is a re-statement of an official Wikipedia policy or reflects consensus gained on this talk page or another appropriate discussion page. Per the notice that appears on every editing page, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" (emphasis mine). If you are "bothered" by someone else undoing your edits, then please discuss it here on the talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Amazing Race 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Amazing Race 17. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100214171020/http://www.cbs.com:80/cbs_casting/amazing_race/Application_Form.pdf to http://www.cbs.com/cbs_casting/amazing_race/Application_Form.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Amazing Race 17. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100214171028/http://www.cbs.com:80/cbs_casting/amazing_race/Eligibility_Requirements.pdf to http://www.cbs.com/cbs_casting/amazing_race/Eligibility_Requirements.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913074149/http://www.cbs.com:80/info/schedule/index.php to http://www.cbs.com/info/schedule/index.php

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)