Talk:The Amazing Race 21

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Amazing Race 21 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: The Amazing Race / Reality Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Amazing Race task force.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Bolding of countries

Did I miss something or why is the bolding of countries been phased out? Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 04:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone called "Musdan77" edited them out here and referred to the Manual of Style when he did it. I was going to ask him about the style of the other 20 seasons but I haven't yet. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by MOS warrior. The MOS can be overruled by general consensus of editors on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong are you in favour of putting it back? If so that is 3 out of 4 opinions so far. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Is it just me but does Turkey not show up in the thumbnail? It does when I click on the map. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Near-sighted me who has worn glasses since age 4 can see it just fine. Sorry! Although the red flight lines help – I do have a hard time seeing Bangladesh. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see it. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Money "theft"

This text about Natalie/Nadiya's "theft" of James/Abba's money was added yesterday. I'm of the opinion that this is excessive detail, and unless the fan "controversy" received WP:SIGCOV it shouldn't be mentioned here. It's not unheard of for teams to do things that are not against the rules but impede the progress of other teams. I'd like some other opinions on this, please. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've seen come out of that is that Phil did confirm that there was nothing against race rules about taking misplaced money, but that would go on the main TAR page, not here. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan whinging is unimportant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I personally thought they weren't punished because they genuinely didn't set out to steal another teams money, and weren't entirely sure who it belonged too. It's not something that's worth mentioning unless the team in question receives a penalty for their actions 86.15.195.205 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's "whinging"? Is it the same as, "whining?" But anyway, I just read that part, and it didn't seem like a "whine" to me, but more like a statement, with an error, as the money in question was split with the other team that noticed it. Both teams knew that it was that of James and Abba. Game and/or show rules aside though, what about theft laws? Why wouldn't/shouldn't the local police be interested in the petty theft of said cash? Also, will we ever learn the fate of their stolen/lost backpacks and the cabdriver that did the misdeed? Tune in next time, folks! Maybe then... Oh, this is the wrong place! Pardon me! ;-) LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detour Locations

The locations of the second Russian leg and the Netherlands leg are missing from the summary. Any particular reason why they are omitted or has no one got around to adding it? Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 00:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the Detour for the second Moscow leg took place at National Hotel and see "Race Summary" in the article. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is because we don't know.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map thumbnail problem

I had downloaded the updated version of map of the race, but it still appears as leg 10 map (with France not shaded), that's the problem. It appears a bug in both internet programs (Firefox, IE) in my laptop. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue with the commons not updating thumbnails. It's a known bug that takes a few hours or so to resolve on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem earlier too. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Category

"The Amazing Race is a reality television game show in which teams of two people, who have some form of a preexisting personal relationship, race around the world in competition with other teams. Contestants strive to arrive first at "pit stops" at the end of each leg of the race to win prizes and to avoid coming in last, which carries the possibility of elimination or a significant disadvantage in the following leg." That has nothing to do with LGBT topics, sure it has contestants but that is not what the show is about. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know the premise of TAR. I also know that the involvement of LGBT people in a series like TAR is sufficient to categorize the individual season as LGBT-related in exactly the same way that season 4 has been uncontroversially categorized as such for years. There is no reason not to categorize this season, with three openly gay competitors including an openly gay engaged couple winning so they can continue building their life together, in this category. Please stop trying to disappear LGBT experience from the project. Buck Winston (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category reality television is on the page for a reason because its a reality show. The category that you are trying to add has nothing to do with the show's description. If the show was just for Gays then off course it could go on. However it is not just directed at those people so that category does not belong on this page. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a discussion on the user's talk page. I moved it here for discussion. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A show doesn't have to be "just for Gays" to be LGBT-related. The fact that you don't understand that, the fact that you capitalize "Gays" and your use of the phrase "those people" indicates that you do not know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. Buck Winston (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category description for the parent Category:LGBT-related television programs is "This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." Clearly a season of TAR featuring three openly gay Racers, including a winning team that consists of a same-sex couple that has been together for 14 years and who are racing so that they can stop living apart and move forward with their lives and a family business, qualifies this individual season as "LGBT-related" in that the three openly gay finalists were all significant, the same-sex relationship was certainly significant and Team Beekman's motivation for racing is certainly an important plot element.
Nothing is detracted from the article by adding the category and leaving it off detracts from the value of the article's categories. Buck Winston (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be the wrong category. This is more correct Category:Lists of television programs with LGBT characters. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no response to my inclusion argument other than "it's wrong"? OK then. And no, a category for lists of TV shows would in fact be an incorrect category for an article about an individual season. Buck Winston (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong the show doesn't revolve around their relationship at all, and moreover is not significant to the show at all. In fact the show doesn't focus on it because of the cultural differences in the countries where homosexuality is banned like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Turkey. Okay if that category exists then surely a category with specific seasons. This article over here List of reality television programs with LGBT cast members for example. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The legal status of homosexuality in Muslim countries is another excellent reason for including the category, as reliable sources discuss how Josh and Brent deliberately altered their behaviour in those countries precisely because of the legal situation. And the idea that Josh and Brent's relationship was not significant to the season is ludicrous on its face, since it was furthering their relationship by allowing them to live together after a several-year enforced separation that brought them to the Race. BTW, homosexual relations are not banned in Turkey. Buck Winston (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having openly gay contestants does not make the subject of this article "LGBT related". Several other seasons have had gay contestants but I don't see you rushing to categorize them into the category, nor have you added any season of Survivor to this category despite also having had gay contestants and winners. No one agrees with the inclusion of this category Buck Winston because "LGBT" does not define the entirety of the game show (or others), so stop fighting consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well classify other seasons as "straight-related" Anyway their being gay is not relevant to the show. They are contestants who happen to be gay... It really doesn't make sense to put such a category here. --Kartoffel ⁰⁷ 11:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Karoffel abd Ryulong. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 14:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The show is produced without any respect to the gender preferences of the contestants - it only happens to be recognized many times in the past as well as today as giving LGBT players a completely fair shake as their hetero counterparts. There may be a category about reality TV with LGBT players that this would fit into but it should not be in a category in shows produced to include LGBT. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I agree with Masem and the LGBT category should not included in the list. Unless, it's a reality show. If there's a LGBT-related reality show program, Queer Eye For the Straight Guy is really in the case of letting any gay contestants. ApprenticeFan ^work 16:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]