Talk:The Amazing Race 8/Archive 01

Table ideas for presenting team members?

4 person teams... eek! Any ideas on how to squeeze the names of team members, without making the table too cluttered? --Madchester 14:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the last-name system fit well. We may want to add a list of team members somewhere, so if we get to talking about individual actions, a reader will know which team they're from... Radagast 12:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added a table of team members in alpha order above the spoiler tag. Should serve well, I think. Radagast 13:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to bring back the section of the Results table that shows who from which team has performed who many Roadblocks? Even though there appear to be no limits on Roadblocks performed by each member, it still is interesting info. It appearst that there is room in that table. 24.60.184.196 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I found it to be far too distracting from the main content of the table - the order in which the teams finished in each leg. In the past 2 races, the information was relevant to results and also did not take up as much room (only 2 names); with 4 names, most of which have zeroes next to them at this point, and which does not affect the progress of the race, it seems too much to shoehorn in.

If anyone wants to put it back, you can certainly go back in the history and get the table details from before I removed them. Personally, I prefer them not to be there. Radagast 04:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

'Family Edition' title card

Anyone have a screenshot of the title screen with the 'Family Edition' subtitle? That would serve well as a new graphic at the top of the article... Radagast 12:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to screencap this season. It's so subpar compared to previous seasons. It's worse than Season 4, which was bottom of the barrel in TAR quality. I'll be back for Season 9. Cheers. --Madchester 19:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll be busier than usual on the TAR side of things... Radagast 18:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll be adding the title card after i download the finale. Thank goodness this train wreck is over. --Madchester 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Disappointment

This season was a shock to me. When I saw the opening Intro, I figured that it will be a trans-America Race not a global one. Which reduced my intrest by over 50%, second, the bigger teams made the already annoying feuds even worse. Last of all, I can't believe that the clues were washed out even more since season 7, I was already outraged by the simple detours and roadblocks given and the reducing number of route markers in Season 7, but this is just unacceptable. I know it's impossible to get the classic season 5 back but instead of mass producing numberous subpar Amazing Races, CBS should start making fine adjustments and make every season an enjoyable one. - Mouselmm

I liked seeing teams on those 24 hour train rides or mingling with foreign cultures. Overseas viewers have complained that they don't get to see enough of the United States on the show... well they got their wish, at the expense of CBS' ratings. --Madchester 15:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what you've been saying is that you've seen the entire season and you know exactly how good the season as a whole is? Yeah, okay, whatever. bob rulz 00:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The show's won three straight Emmys with a concept that worked... no need to mess it up when ratings are (finally) at an all-time high. Reactions have been really mixed across many Amazing Race message boards and communities. --Madchester 02:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and they're all making assumptions based off of one episode. Seems pretty judgemental to me. bob rulz 04:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Season 5 had one of the best premieres: beef carrying, teams forgetting clues, army dad ripping open his knee... all a lead-in to probably the best season in recent years. Given that teams will get free "gas money", you know a good portion of the show will simply be teams driving on the interstate. Not exactly compelling like teams fighting for airline reservations. Hell, teams don't even need to ask non-English speaking locals for directions.--Madchester 05:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Heaven forbid they ever try something different. Most of the "criticism" I've seen on-line has been fan-griping that things aren't *exactly* the same as previous seasons. 4 person teams! Roadtrips! No foreign languages! The USA is a big country with vast cultural diversity. And most Americans(including myself) haven't seen most of it. It's sad if people think the Amazing Race(or travelling in general) is all about funny languages and getting lost in European train terminals. Comments like "I was already outraged" or "This is just unacceptable" are why fans should never be in charge of the programs they admire. The first episode was enjoyable. Only one team didn't stand out and the challenges gave teams plenty of opportunities to leap ahead (or fall behind). --Aexia 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Amazing Race practically travelled around the world. It's high time Americans explore their own backyard. I agree with you, Alexia. - 上村七美 09:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The show spends a good two episodes each season "exploring" their own American backyard whether it's north (Alaska), south (Miami), east (New York), west (San Fran, Hawaii, etc). Good job removing the best aspect of the show: interactions with foreign cultures and people! --Winning-Eleven 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

They've pretty much briefly shown a few major coastal cities. There's several thousands miles of culture in between those cities and I guarantee a lot of it is going to seem just as alien as a foreign country. As I said, people are underestimating the cultural diversity of the US. Aexia 23:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, agree with Alexia and Nanami. You have no idea how it will turn out based off of one episode. bob rulz 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the disappointed, not a great season premiere. The new concept just doesn't work with so many faces. It's really hard to flesh out the characters behind the contestants. --LeoTheLion 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is too hard to predict whether they will spend the entire race in the US. Possibly they will just spend the first few episodes in the USA and then head overseas. ***Wild Speculation*** Possibly the producers don't want the young children so far away in a foreign culture. /Wild Speculation** Also noting the American flag featured in the intro at the start of the show, this episode might be more about family values and staying close to home. Also, I see the point that people want something different. Also it is worth noting that the producers go back to the old way next season, possibly showing that 4 people was not as good of an idea as two. But here we are. We should see what the end of the race will be like, the start is always crazy and wild. --michael180 14:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, with 30K miles of travelling, it'd be almost impossible for the race to stay entirely within the US. Aexia

Actually it's 11K only. The original USA Today report overstated the mileage. If you look at the official site's race map, it only shows North America unlike past seasons which showed the whole globe. So don't expect too much travelling. --Madchester 00:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Costa Rica in North America? 128.119.199.84 20:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

According to this article, th teams will definitely visit Canada, and there were some unconfirmed sightings of the race in Latin America. So it seems that, while the race may not go all the way around the world, they definitely do leave United States.

I've seen the supposed eyewitness photos from a Niagara Falls cluebox. Verdict? It's fake. It looks homemade and looks nothing like the one used this season so it's probably a decoy. There was also mention of how one of the supposed teams dropped a clue in front of a throng of onlookers. According to past racers, when Meredith and Gretchen ran a decoy leg in Dallas last season, they purposely dropped a clue (so that passerbys could see some "physical evidence" of the Amazing Race). So I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Niagara Falls thing was a decoy.--Madchester 17:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This actually makes sense. Teams don't travel alone, we can assume that there is one cameraman per team member, plus the crew, Phil, etc. It's easier to reserve plane seats in advance for a transcontinental race for, say, 8 teams of 2 ( 30-40 people total ), and it's a lot harder to reserve 60-70 or even more seats for 8 teams of 4, especially when you deal with foreign air carriers. Maybe they want to bring the amount of international air travel to the minimum and to delay it until enough teams get eliminated. --Itinerant1 08:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I forget where, but in a line where Phil said "a race around the world" in past seasons is now only "The Amazing Race" possibly alluding to the fact that they are not going around the world. Also, it gets a lot more expensive and hard to find seats for 6 people instead of 4 on one plane in standby. Multiply that by many teams and also by having the air companies want to fill their planes, finding 70 seats last minute is almost impossible.--michael180 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for sentence deletion (SPOILERS)

Spoilers show that the race is not entirely in the USA (a reporter found a pit stop in, IIRC, Belize, though it went unused due to Hurricane Emily), and even without these it should not be assumed that it is only in the US until the end. SonicAD

Number of episodes

This season will be comprised of less episodes, I think, considering we have too few teams to make it a 13-leg race. Should this go in the article? Can anyone find a reference to how many more weeks of season 8 there are? Cabus

Fewer teams doesn't necessarily mean fewer legs. They could have more non-elimination pitstops. Andy Janata 04:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Location sign

"This also marks the first time the location sign at the pitstop does not name the country, as Leg 1's read Pennsylvania." This is not true, as past seasons have had pitstop signs reading "Hawaii" and "Alaska". Cabus

Though in Mama Weaver's case, noting that Pennsylvania is a state might have been helpful.Aexia

Just a quick note

I'm the 162.84.221.109 who messed up signing...i'm a new wikipedian so i apologize for the unclear comment All I did was re-sort the results table and fix the top column widths Timr917 02:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Subtle changes in Season 8

• Phil's intro schpeel is "this is the first pit stop of The Amazing Race" not "this is the first pit stop in a race around the world." So don't be too surprised if they don't leave the States for a while, if ever.
• Phil doesn't indicate when the teams depart from the pit stop. Which suggests that it may not be the usual 12 hour gap, to give the kiddies and teens more sleep.
• No roadblock maximums cuz of the age handicap obviously

I just found it ironic that the Travelocity trip will be taking the Weaver family out of the country, whereas the Race has yet to do so. --Madchester 05:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Detour Roadblock Limits per Person?

I don't recall having heard Phil say that no one person can perform more than X roadblocks during the entire race. Does this mean they do not have a limit this season, or did I just not hear it, or are they just not saying it? Andy Janata 04:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There were never limits on Detours. --Madchester 05:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Err, roadblocks... I worded it properly in the question, just not in the heading.. I was very tired when I did that and didn't proofread. Andy Janata 11:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine, with teams of four and one person per roadblock, it would be hard to really make a limit that would work well. Phil did NOT mention one, which he did on the first roadblock in the past two seasons which had the limit, so I would say there is no limit this time out.

It seems to fit the somewhat more 'relaxed' theme of the Family Edition, anyway, so I'm not surprised. I'm removing the table column, as those names are just too bulky. Radagast 12:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see there are editors taking a very balanced approach to this debate, below... make a reasoned argument, please, or don't bother posting. Radagast 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Washington Crossing in Leg 1

According to my map, Washington Crossing State Park is in New Jersey, not Pennsylvania. There are towns named Washington Crossing in both states, so that's probably what caused the confusion. I would change it, but I have no clue how to change the flag in the entry. Thanks )

Done. As they performed tasks on both banks, I've noted both towns/states/parks. Radagast 16:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Posting Episode Info Before Airing

Can we agree to not post episode information prior to the airdate? I see that as of today (8 Oct 2005) there is information on Episode 3 listing the route from Virginia to Huntsville, Alabama. The episode does not air until 11 October. Whether this info is speculation or gained from spoilers, I think it makes sense to wait until the show has aired to post this information. 24.60.184.196 22:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Andy Janata 02:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Alright, then. Removed. Normally we might wait longer but given the timing, I think it makes sense to remove it ASAP. I suggest we establish a policy that episode and route info not be posted until the episode has aired in the Eastern time zone. 24.60.184.196 15:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually we should be allowed to post information about upcoming episodes... as long as there's a verifiable source or sources. That's the policy that we've used in covering past seasons of the Race.

Like last week someone put in the Gettysburg bit and it was inaccurate... such rumours should be avoided. But there's a lot of photos and even media reports of teams actually AT the Huntsville U.S. Space & Rocket Center About.com article Bransen family photo, so then it would be okay to include that info in the Leg 3 details. It's no different than the AOL or CBS web previews readily available for download each week.

Last year, Gretchen was posting details of future legs on a website, and those details were added to The Amazing Race 7 page immediately. Likewise, every Canadian newspaper was abuzz with details of the Calgary/Banff leg in the finale of Season5. Wikipedia should be a resource of information... we shouldn't be restricting material, especially when there's already a spoiler tag to warn readers. --Madchester 18:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add a separate The Amazing Race spoiler article, that's fine. But I don't see the point in putting up partial route information for an episode that hasn't aired yet based on spoilers or blogs. Even if you post a spoiler tag, it only serves to turn away a lot of readers who might otherwise want to read the article because they don't want to be spoiled. Again, I think it makes more sense to keep the Episode information complete, which can only be done after it airs and to keep spoilers to a minimum because most people do not want to be spoiled. 24.60.184.196 03:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable." Some people like to read up on future episodes, others don't. That doesn't mean that information on upcoming episodes should not be provided for those who have no problems with spoilers. Wikipedia's not a discriminatory source of information, right?

Also, your argument that there's no point in "putting in partial route information for an episode" is kind of ironic, since the article itself will simply consist of "partial route information" until the entire series has been aired. On a weekly level, many editors update the location and challenges as they're watching the show every Tuesday evening, before an episode is even completed. :-)

I'll be using the "spoiler-about" tag to specify details about upcoming episodes, so it makes the whole "partial information" point moot.

--Madchester 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• My point was not just about the content being spoilers, but it's also:

1) Incomplete
and
2) Not necessarily accurate
I'm positive Episode 3 will include more than a trip from Virginia to Huntsville, Alabama. So after the Episode airs someone will go back in and fill in the missing parts of the Episode. At the very least you might want to change the heading for non-aired episodes to say something like "Preliminary Information for Episode XX." If you want to include what preliminary information you have on pre-aired episode, make it very clear that the information on those episodes came not from watching the aired episodes but from preliminary information gained from news reports or wherever and will be completed on whatever date. There's a difference between partial information and a spoiler. Also, you mentioned that posted partial spoiler info on non-aired information was done in past seasons. I looked a the discussion for past seasons and it seems to be that you were the sole champion of this approach. It appears that majority of people favor keeping the Amazing Race episode information a documented record of what has aired, including roadblocks, detours, etc., not preliminary guesses or spoiler-based info. I think a separate The Amazing Race Spoilers and Speculation Article might be a good place to air all the partial or unconfirmed information about unaired episodes. Also, Wikipedia is very much a "discriminatory source of information." For example, it does not (or should not) include information that represents individual points of view. It also does not contain information that is original research. And it should contain as complete information as possible. Wikipedia is extremely discriminatory. That's what makes it good.71.195.206.168 12:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, your point about completenness is moot, since this page itself will remain "incomplete" until the final episode has aired 2 months from now. Right now it's missing a lot of details: future destinations, the elimination order, how the yields work this season, when and if the teams leave the continental US, etc. Until then, editors will simply be filling in the blanks as the race progresses. There's nothing wrong with something being "incomplete", since the point of Wikipedia is to fill in the gaps of all human knowledge, non?

I believe the current spoiler system works best. You need to cater to all audiences, whether you find some of the information objectionable or not, as referenced by Wikipedia:Content Spoilers. If you looked at the past discussions carefully, it was actually an even proportion of editors who read and don't read spoilers... and that didn't include the many anonymous IPs who add spoilers, but didn't contribute to the discussion. That's just like this season, where many anonymous editors are adding all relevant info to the race, but haven't dropped a message in the Talk page.

And once again, there's a difference between spoilers and speculation. Spoilers are verfiable, speculation is not. When there's a news release with photos of Phil and the teams at the Space Center, there's no doubt that teams will be visiting that location. But when you have all those eyewitness reports of Phil in Central America with no photographic evidence, you wouldn't want to include those details.

--Madchester 16:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty obvious that the race is going to Huntsville. On the other hand, I think spoilers have also indicated the race winners. Are we going to post that as well? Where do we draw the line on what spoilers are acceptable and what are not? So I can accept that we post that tagged as such. My other point though, is that it looks very inconsistent to post, for example, Episode 1 with all the details of the route, roadblocks, detours, etc. Episode 2, with all the details, then Episode 3 with just a start and an end point. Just to be consistent, the heading for an un-aired episode should say "Preliminary Information" or something like that. Or, put back in the "current" tag that I noticed someone added last week and someone else took out. What do you think? When Episode Information is only preliminary because the Ep. has not aired, change the heading so it's clear that it's not complete. Remember, not everyone who goes to the TAR Wiki page is a big TAR fan or even TAR watcher and I think it helps to be consistent and clear. 71.195.206.168 17:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

With last season, there was simply a link to the "revealed winners" or whatever it was called in the trivia section. That's perfectly fine. --Madchester 18:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the change I made should suit everyone. It still keeps all the information but changes the headline to show that it's preliminary because the episode hasn't aired yet so we don't yet know the same things we know about the other episodes. In this way the not-yet-aired episodes are differentiated from the completed episodes. 71.195.206.168 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we at a minimum agree to only put items that have been publicly released by CBS? That includes press releases, website info and episode previews. Anything that relates to who gets eliminated in future episodes or ultimately wins should be absolutely off-limits for this article. I know a lot of people enjoy spoilers(I used to) but don't ruin it for everyone else. People come here to learn about the current state of the race and where it's been, not to find out the Weavers will walk away with the million in 8 weeks. Aexia 17:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexia, I hope the mention you just gave of the supposed winners' nme is just hypothetical. It's not in the article but you posted it here. You claim you don't want to spoil people. You just did. 71.195.206.168 12:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, according to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable." We can't be witholding information just because it contains spoilers. As suggested in Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, "If you haven't read or seen the work to which the warning refers, you might want to do so before reading the spoiler in the article." It's as simple as that, don't read the "spoiler" areas if you don't wish to; they've been well indicated on the page. If you look at a page like Casino Royale (2006 film), 80% of it consists of spoilers and speculation, but that doesn't mean that isn't a legitimate article. As long as everything's properly sourced, it's good to go. --Madchester 19:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"If you haven't read or seen the work to which the warning refers,
you might want to do so before reading the spoiler in the article."

It's kind of hard to watch something before it airs... I strongly agree that we should only post information that's been officially released by CBS in one form or another. Andy Janata 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If that was the case, then we'd have little to differentiate ourselves from the official site at CBS.com. It never mentioned Mama Rogers getting a concussion, or the Rogers daughter being a past beauty queen. Team Interviews and articles from non-CBS affiliated media sources would also be excluded; for example that comprehensive intro from USA Today that was printed weeks in advance of the show's airing. We should be including all relevant sources of information; I thought Wikipedia told it's users to be bold in updating pages... --Madchester 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try to pretend I didn't see that bit about some team winning... And hope you were just making that up, because I don't want to be spoiled. But anyway, I stuck a spoiler tag in there becuase, well, it's a spoiler and frankly if you're going to put the info but the spoiler tag. Isn't that what this whole heading is about? Andy Janata 02:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to be spoiled, then don't read/edit the race article for the time being. It's as simple as that. :-) --Madchester 04:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of hard to do, Madchester. Because a lot of people skim Wiki articles or jump to the heading with the information they want, they bypass the spoiler tag. Since everyone who has commented in this discussion, except you wants to include only information that has already aired, why can't we do that? 71.195.206.168 12:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And a lot of people are also looking for in-depth articles that go beyond the standard details provided by the official site. If you visit around any Race messageboard, there's always people curious about where teams will be going next; especially this season since teams have yet to leave the United States in the first 4 episodes. You need to cater to all audiences; remember that Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable." You may not like some of the details, but others may appreciate them.

For example: If yo look at articles for the current seasons of Smallville (Season 5), Lost (Season 2), The Simpsons (Season 17), and Family Guy (Season 4b) they all contain details about aired and unaired episodes. And while they all have spoiler tags warning readers, this page has already taken it a step further by providing an additional spoiler tag for unaired episodes. --Madchester 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not want new episode speculation in the article. I read the article after every episode, I enjoy watching the TV previews but I don't like seeing on WP where the race is going. Please do not post speculation. The Gettysburg thing was wrong anyway, we shouldn't keep guessing.--michael180 01:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I never added the Gettysburg bit; I actually removed a bit about another future leg that was based on skimpy photographic evidence. If you look at the Page History, everything I've added from Brooklyn to Huntsville to Talladega have all been proven true. Some people are adding info from unreliable sources; I've been removing those entries as best I can. --Madchester 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Which Kansas City?

In the bit talking about where Phil toured looking for contestants, it says Kansas City, and it links to a disambiguation page. Is it Kansas City, Missouri, Kansas City, Kansas, or one of the other obscure cities listed on the disambig page? Andy Janata 16:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It says 'major cities', so I would assume Missouri, or possibly Kansas. They're twin cities, anyway. Radagast 12:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still a bad idea to have it link to a disambiguation page. Andy Janata 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The open casting call was held at the Nebraska Furniture Mart store in Kansas City, Kansas. The two Kansas Cities are not necessarily "twins"; they are more like one city that happens to be separated by a state line (like Texarkana, I believe).

Roadblock limits

Hey, I will hide the Roadblocks performed in this article. And no one see the roadblocks performed and it hides itself. ApprenticeFan, October 10, 2005.

Cool. I'm just wondering how useful the information wil be, especially as we now know some roadblocks will be two-person jobs... Radagast 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The show is taped not filmed

I have on several occassions changed the sentence "Filming took place..." to "Taping took place" because The Amazing Race is videotaped not shot on film. Someone keeps reverting it. Can we keep it as "tape" please? I understand some Wikipedians working on this article don't like changes, but "taping" is accurate, I'm sure. TAR is not filmed, it's taped. Let's not make this personal and revert changes just for the sake of reverting things. WIkipedia is supposed to be a community. Come on. 71.195.206.168 22:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has updated it to "production of the show." That works for me. 71.195.206.168 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, filmed is more appropriate; taped is more commonly used in the context of a television studio, i.e., "this show was taped before a studio audience". You usually don't use the term "taping" when most of the shooting takes place away from a controlled indoor environment. For example, if you look at several Race articles:

• "Amazing Race filmed yesterday in New Jersey"
• "USATODAY.com - Families compete in new 'Amazing Race'" ~ Over the 30-day race, filmed mostly in July...
• "'Race' fans get their Phil" ~ I'm obsessed with how "The Amazing Race" is filmed.
• "Race heads to New Orleans" ~ Sure, this episode was filmed prior to the deadly storm touching ground'...'

--Madchester 03:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The show is shot on videotape not on film. Film is used incorrectly in the above headlines, a carryover from reference to motion picture filiming by people who don't know any better. But The Amazing Race is shot on tape, so let's be accurate. Your statement that "taping" is used only for indoor controlled situations is completed unfounded. I work in television production by the way, so I know what I'm talking about. Tape refers to videotape. Film refers to film. I think the reference to "production also works. 71.195.206.168 03:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have actual evidence of the usage of the term... you can only claim that you're in TV production and the term's not used? Wikipedia doesn't work that way, hun. You need references as suggested by Wikipedia:Cite sources, not credentials to back your claim. --Madchester 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Online Betting Scandal Reveals Winners, AGAIN!!!

I've added the scandal both to the General section of Season 8 and the criticisms of the race itself. What a shame. Jendeyoung 05:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It was bound to happen sooner or later. If not, the kiddies would have ended up squealing anyway, when they give in to peer pressure at school. --Madchester 06:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally agreed, but those multi-million dollar secrecy contracts???Jendeyoung 07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

CBS screws up

on the amazing race website under teams is pictures of teams, the order of the pictures has never changed place. The Black family is on the top right of the page, the Rogers family is next to them, next to them is the Aiello family and next to them are the Schroeder family. That is the order in which they have left the race, so does this mean that the winners are the bottom left team on the page???????

Umm, that's a coincidence.... That photo was taken at the beginning of the race in Brooklyn. This is just like last season, when there was a "pattern" in the team photo backgrounds and order of elimination.... --Madchester 04:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, now that the Paulo's (or whatever) are out, they are in the middle of row two.

{{Spoiler about|(future legs of the race)}}

About those supposed photos of a cluebox on a future leg...

I removed the Niagara Falls bit, because it's speculation at best. I've seen the photo of the cluebox but, it could easily be a decoy... just like how they had decoy runs in Dallas and NYC last season. Like last season, Gretchen was at the Dallas Book Depository for a fake leg, and she was instructed to purposely drop a clue in front of a crowd, so that people could see physical evidence of the race "actually being there" and throw people off. There's not even a photo of a single team (real or decoy) at the Falls cluebox. Not enough hard evidence to warrant mention...

This isn't like those photos from past seasons, where they clearly revealed multiple teams at a single location. In Season 5 we had photos of team participating in the actual roadblock in Banff [1], released a week before the show was aired. In Season 7, there were photos of teams at the airport in San Juan, Puetro Rico, which were online around the beginning of the race. Uchenna and Joyce, Ron asking for directions, etc. Those Falls photos are inconclusive at best.

{{endspoiler}}

1st Place Team Prizes

Does anybody think it would be a good idea to include the prizes that each leg's first place team receives at the pit stop, in this article? Or even incorporate it into a supplementary article? They only started giving prizes 2 seasons ago, but I would like to know what each team won on each leg. Shifter55 18:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually they've been giving away prize since season 1. Regardless I cleaned up the section, cuz it was reading like Phil's promotional voiceovers. --Madchester 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Fast Forward on Leg 6?

I missed the fifth episode, but from what I've heard, it was made clear that the Paolos won the one and only Fast Forward on the race. In Leg 6, however, the teams can clearly be seen holding the green Fast Forward clues. I'm thinking that since this one was not used, they referred to the first as the "only one". Any thoughts on this discrepancy?

I saw the clue as well... either A)no one went for the FF (cuz the teams were fairly closely bunched at the volcano) or B) it was just an envelope say there's no FF on this leg or C) production screwed up and no one was able to do the FF. It happened in Season 1 when Lenny and Karen were in Rome. On a certain race messageboard, Hera (from Season 6) posted a message back in the summer indicating that production had a problem in Central America during filming. I wouldn't be suprised if she was referring to the unused/problematic FF on this leg.--Madchester 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

White vs. silver

I remember that the article originally said the Route Markers were yellow and white, then it was changed to yellow and silver. I to orginally thought they looked silver, but now they appear white to me! To resolve the discrepancy, the glossary at the official site calls them 'yellow and white', so I'm going to change it to that. If you have objections, post them.

Finale Date

Do we have a confirmed finale date yet? Speculation has centered on 12/6, 12/13 and 12/20 as possibilities.

69.15.112.82 14:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The finale is scheduled for 12/13/05 and will be a two hour episode 69.15.112.82 22:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy in Detour (Leg 6)?

I was just reproducing on what is done in "Leg 5 Detour" where venues for the options were mentioned. So why is it that I could not do it for Leg 6 Detour where I should mention "Rainmaker Adventure Forest" for Relic and banana plantation (to be hopefully supplemented with the right venue) for Ripe?

Tell me, why can't I? Aeron Valderrama

If you place your mouse over the Detour icon, it already indicates that Detour choices. Any further details can be found at the official site, which is already externally linked. --Madchester 10:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, NO! Web browsers are NOT supposed to show the alt-text for an image on a mouseover. I think only Internet Explorer does, and that's why everyone thinks they all are supposed to. I use Opera and I'd never see that tidbit of information unless I turn images off. We should NOT be exploiting features only one browser "supports" and calling it a feature of the web page. If there would be a way to put it in the title element of the img tag, then that would work -- that's supposed to be shown somewhere on a mouseover (but I don't know if there's a way to get MediaWiki to do so). We should figure out a better way to show this text; the way Aeron did it isn't very pretty but I feel it should be shown on the main part of the page. Andy Janata 12:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I use both Opera and FireFox, and there's no problem with the alt-text... maybe you should upgrade your browsers... :-) --Madchester 12:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

When I think about it for a minute, we probably shouldn't use the alt-text. To some people, it's not immediately apparent that it's there, and so the information can easily be overlooked. And according to this page (about making the web easily accesible), alt-text shouldn't be used on a decorative graphic. The best way to ensure readability for everyone would be to keep the text separate from the image. --SonicAD 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm already using the latest Opera, and I upgrade the instant a new version is released. Perhaps YOU should upgrade. Andy Janata 14:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about this: "(Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute on Barro Colorado Island) >Detour (Rhythm or Coos)< (Rhythm or Coos)"... (see article page for more details) You see even if the Detour image tells where the venues were, there is still mention of the venues (it has links even)... so you see I'm just reproducing this practice! Aeron Valderrama

That's because we have actual links to the specific locations visited. Unless you have the specific website to the actual banana packaging plant, there's no point duplicating that piece of info. --Madchester 18:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

But it's not duplicating! I'll never see it unless I turn images off, which I don't intend to do. Andy Janata 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It you put your mouse over the images, the alt-text appears regardless of whether you're using Opera, Firefox or IE. I have no problems with it on any of the computers in my household. I haven't used Opera regularly in a while, but maybe it has to do with a certain extension or theme? --Madchester 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Opera has never shown alt-text when I mouseover an image, and this is the standards-compliant way images should be handled. If you want a mouse-over text string to be displayed, you use the title attribute. What Opera DOES show on a mouseover in leiu of a title attribute is the URL of the image. I'll grant you that Firefox does show the alt-text, but that's still not the right way of doing it. Also, there is no option for this, and "extensions" aren't really the same as in FF (regardless, Opera has everything I want built-in, and it would take a good half-dozen extensions to get FF to do it). Andy Janata 14:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Lake Powell, Arizona??

Lake Powell is entirely in Utah. Glen Canyon Dam may be in Arizona, but the lake is entirely within Utah. The artcle says it's in Arizona. Not to mention there's no info on Leg 7... bob rulz 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the southwest portion of Lake Powell is in Arizona. Also, imagine my happiness when I saw that tonight's teams flew to Phoenix, Arizona, which is where I live :) -- RattleMan 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just looked at a map and you're right; the very southwest corner protrudes farther into Arizona than I thought. I thought that Glen Canyon Dam was pretty much right along the border, but it's a few miles south. Damn, and they were almost in Utah :p (which is where I live). bob rulz 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Leg 4 'Roadblock'

Someone's put 'climbing the chair' as the Roadblock in leg 4, albeit with a disclaimer. I think this should be removed - just because it's a task performed by one does not make it a roadblock, see the swim to the bouy at the start of yesterday's show.

The leg had no roadblock, simple as that. It seems they may have had one planned at Talladega but switched to the party boikes, I don't know; but there were no red envelopes in that episode, that I saw. Radagast 01:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it was originally a Roadblock, or wasn't presented as one on-air. It's like when they were in Suntec City in Singapore in Season 3, and they were at that giant fountain. They only showed teams walking into the fountain to get the clue, but in reality it was a Roadblock, which required someone to run around the fountain three times before getting the clue. Apparently it's a local custom or good luck ritual. But since the RB was so ridiculously easy, they just edited it out.

I wouldn't be surpised if the race planners goofed up again and they just edited out the ladder climbing as a Roadblock. -Madchester 03:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but is it really appropriate to put the Roadblock icon on the task in the article (even if disclaimed) if we have no evidence of it either way? To me, it's too presumtuous. Radagast 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest using the <!-- !--> to hide the details until they can be confirmed in a post-race interview or article. That's how the Suntec City detail was ultimately revealed. I think the confidentiality clauses are preventing racers from revealling the whole story about this "RoadBlock and the situation with the unused/cancelled Fast Forward. For example, the Aiellos wouldn't admit they were sequestered in Belize during a TV Guide interview, even though A) Phil was seen there in the summer and B) the sisters team won a Belize resort package, which was probably the same one that housed the losing contestants. --Madchester 22:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion; done. Radagast 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

rest stop in ep1

Does anyone know which rest stop the one team stopped at in episode one of the NJ Turnpike? To me it looked like the last stop before you hit the GW bridge (if heading north on the TP)

Comparing this season's results with the other 7 seasons

In the trivia section, I'm seeing details of how the Godlewski's finished first on two separate legs, a first for all-female teams. It doesn't make sense to draw comparisons when this season uses a different format than past seasons.--Madchester 07:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that trivia info is appropriate, seeing as how elsewhere on the page is posted that Austin Black and Carissa Gaghan are the youngest racers to compete.

It's kinda farfetched to compare a continental race (with few language barriers or airport booking strategy) to one that traverses 3 or 4 continents (18+ time zones) at the same period of time. Not to mention the fact that there are considerably fewer teams, teams containing minors, and a different set of rules altogether. It's like comparing a half-triathlon to an Ironman triathlon. --Madchester 03:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted "Montana leg"

Thhere is no Montana leg. On the official amazing race 8 website, there isn't enough room for montana on the route map. Even if there is a Montana leg, "unknown ranch" isn't really what I would find in an ecyclopedia.

Route map: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/amazing_race8/route/

And the official site hasn't confirmed that teams are visiting Utah, even though the commercials show it and an actual race itinerary was posted online. The official site is the LAST place you want to use to find information on the race; just last week they posted the wrong "eliminated" photos of 2 different families.

If you read the details in the actual link, it all seems plausible (like previous spoilers) and you could have simply edited out the "unknown" reference for "encyclopedic" sake. --Madchester 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As revealed in the episode which aired on December 6, the pit stop for the 10th leg was the Arnold Ranch in Absarokee, MT. The roadblock prior to the pit stop was at the Red Lodge Mountain Golf Course in Red Lodge, MT. I suggest that would therefore qualify as a Montana leg.

Legs With 3 Locations

Some of the legs in the race have 3 locations. Where it says Virginia - Alabama, a detour and routemarker appeared in Chaleston. Alabama - Louisiana leg had 2 route markers there. Shouldn't these leg's titles read Virginia - South Carolina- Alabama and Alabama- Mississippi - Louisiana ? There are some others too. Why did you delete them Madchester? In season 3 they seem to be okay.