Jump to content

Talk:The Amazing Race 9/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

{{spoiler}}

too early ?

This seems a bit superflous to be here this early; season 8, at least, has an unusual format and is currently in casting. THere's nothing this article can tell us that isn't noted in the show article. Radagast 15:55, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


How can we edit that Amazing Race box to include Season 9? --Madchester 15:18, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

The Denver Debate

It has grabbed my attention that there is a debate over whether the race has already started in Denver, Colorado, or if filming doesn't start until January. Well, I have photographic evidence from the Denver Post to aid the cause of those who believe the race has started already. Behold:

File:AmazingRace9Sighting.JPG

The photo means nothing. I saw it last week, but you can't see the surroundings (to verify that it was actually shot in Denver's airport) nor any clues to verify if its actual date. You also have no idea whether this is footage from Season 9, some decoy run, or some promotional material (like how they film actors demonstrating Roadblocks or Detours). Denver's a major airport hub, yet there have been no eyewitness reports giving it more credibility. Nor have there been any sightings around the world, given that those "photos" are 2 weeks old at least.
Phil has explicity stated in interviews that the next season is being filmed in the New Year. It'll be like Season 2, when they filmed at the beginning of the year, so that the finale could be ready around the May sweeps.
If you're from the Denver area, you could check the airport records to see if there was an application for a filming permit. Eyewitness photos for the Season 7 premiere at LAX were verified after people found that the crew DID obtain a filming permit for that particular day. The documents are readily available for the public, if you know where to find them.
Otherwise, basing speculation on a lone photo that A)has no eyewitness confirmation, B)has no verifiable details on its location/time, C)conflicts with public reports on filming schedule, and D) makes no mention of possible filming permits is ridiculous. It's as bad as those Toronto newspapers reporting about a race sighting for Family Edition in August when A) filming was already over and B) the report occured at the same time as one of many local Amazing Races. --Madchester 07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Now that there's multiple media and eyewitness sources, it's more than safe to say that the race is being filmed. --Madchester 08:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Advertising

Please don't include vanity/advertising pieces on Wikipedia. Especially ones trying to promote wannabe contestants on the show. Those two guys could possibly make great racers, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote their grassroots campaign. Especially when they're grossy over-exaggerating their "feedback"; they have few return comments on their blog and they don't even have an Alexa ranking in the Top 100,000. --Madchester 12:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

All-Star Speculation

If the new season the the Amazing Race (season 9) is an All-Star edition, does that mean the pervious 8 winning teams(7 if the winner of season 8 are excluded) will be racing again or a selection of teams from the previous seasons. It seams unlikely that all 8 will be willing to race again

It's 99.9% not All-Star, since there was an application for this season back in the summer. --Madchester 21:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Seasons 10 and 11 are not All-Starts either, as there were applications up on the website, and now The Amazing Race 11 one is up.TeckWiz 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail recieved (possible spoiler)

If the filming dates are true, then I might have some information to contribute. I was looking into zorbing when/if I head to New Zealand in 2006, so I sent the company an email; here's part of the responce, I got

"(Dated 11/20/05) Thanks for your email. We had Phil Keoghan (host of the Amazing Race) here the other day, he stopped in for a coffee and to say hi to the team! "

I don't know if to you guys this means anything, but thought i'd share.

There's been a lot of reports of teams in Australia, with sightings in Perth, Darwin, etc. I don't know if they'll be going back to NZ in the near future; Phil does hail from NZ however. --Madchester 22:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please remove info on unaired legs

I'd, and probably many other people, would love it if we could refer to this article without having our viewing experience destroyed by unexpected ending spoilers. When I see thespoiler warning, I expect to see info about episodes I may not have seen, but should never expect that there will be speculative information about episodes that haven't been shown.

Please leave out any information about legs that have not yet aired. Please be respectful to your readers. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Once again, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer says that "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content that you mave find objectionable." Just because you don't like spoilers, doesn't mean that other readers are not interested. (Notice the number of editors adding such details?) Remember that a fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to "document(ing) all human knowledge". Isn't it poor faith to remove information that other people are interested in? Just like the featured articles, just because you don't like the topic, it doesn't mean that other readers are not interested and vice versa.
Likewise, articles for television programs such as:
etc. all contain details about upcoming episodes To exclude this information would be a disservice to the objectives of the website. --Madchester 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The content disclaimer is a legalism to protect the Foundation or editors from risk. What I'm trying to describe is courtesy to fellow editors and readers who would not expect to see information on unaired episodes. If other articles are doing this disservice, it does not excuse the practice. Please stop inserting unsourced speculation about the future of the show, and please respect other editors until the episodes air. The objectives of the project on not hurt at all, since as soon as the finale airs, we'll have an updated article. We just don't need to jump the gun. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a static encyclopedia; the beauty of the site is that it adds details and information as it becomes available. By your logic, the article should contain nothing except the air dates of the show since everything else would contain details from unaired episodes. You have to be fair for both sides of he coin. First, you should consider the readers who would like to know as much information about the show. At the same time, you need spoiler tags warning readers who may not to see these details. The current spoiler system is the best; it doesn't alienate the spoiler and non-spoiler audience. (Refer to WP:SW, spoiler details are welcome, but they should contain a spoiler warning as a common courtesy)--Madchester 20:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If information is given on their website, in press releases, in interviews, in commercials, or during the AR8 finale, it's all fair game (normal spoilers) - so long as you cite your source for the info. My last edit left a lot of that in. "Some guy saw them at XXXX airport and posted on a message board" is NOT valid information for an article here. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I personally enjoy the spoilers about the unaired legs. Most of the information listed for unaired legs is at the bottom of the page and users must scroll past the spoiler warning. Perhaps a better option would be to use spoiler tags, such as those seen in new versions of messageboards. That way the content is hidden until the user clicks on the button to reveal the spoiler content. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Aathorp (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 December 2005
Then Wikipedia is perhaps not the best place for you to enjoy that information. There are several fan forums that cater to show speculation and pre-spoilers. -- Netoholic @ 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines stating that spoilers are forbidden from the site. As long as they are isolated with the appopriate spoiler warning tag, it's more than sufficient for the article. Note that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that "Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a reliable and free encyclopedia: The largest encyclopedia in history, in both breadth and depth." To purposely exclude information would be harmful to the goal of the project. --Madchester 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
We must purposely exclude unverifiable information. That is policy. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Red Rocks is from the teaser (with teams and Phil at the starting line), Denver Airport is from the Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News article. Instead of removing information immediately, you should simply ask the editor for references before doing so. That's a common courtesy. Thanks. --Madchester 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What "Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News article" are you talking about? Give me the date and author so I can call the paper. -- Netoholic @ 23:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Because everyone at a newspaper is just DYING to talk with an obsessional fan boy, that's a great idea.

TAR 9 preview

Great discussion on the locations shown in the teaser preview, with vidcaps [1]. Quite spoiler-heavy. --Madchester 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sao Paulo

Where has it been confirmed (or rather, spoiled) that Sao Paulo will be the first destination? While it might seem logical, what's to stop the race route from, say, first going to Europe then down to South America then doubling back across the Pacific to Australia, upwards to Japan, Alaska, then Denver? A route not unlike Season 7 --HansTAR 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A neighbourhood in Sao Paulo was shown in the trailer; it's the scene where two older ladies are walking on a bridge overlooking some highway or major road.
The Denver newspapers reported teams at the airport on the 7th. If you look at the dates of Phil's telephone interview with the Salt Lake Tribune (Phil says he was in the Middle East around the 21st) and the team spottings in the Australian newspapers (24-29th), it more or less suggests that the race is travelling in an easternly direction again. I wouldn't be surprised if teams were in Japan from 21st to 24th, but there's no sources to confirm that yet. --Madchester 04:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Time

Hey-Even though I am not in the Pacific Time zone, it maybe nice to not post information on the race until 3 hours after it airs because peopel in the Pacific time zone may not want to see what happened. And if you don't agree with me, we should still keep the spoiler notice on until after it airs in the pacific zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs)

The spoiler notice is ALWAYS on; someone may not watch this till it gets rerun on GSN, say. Fair warning to all.
I think most West Coasters know to stay away from info on shows a few hours before they air; comes with the territory. Radagast 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's put it this way, when we were editing the pages for the 2006 Winter Olympics, the medal results were updated as soon as an event was finished. Those pages already had sufficient spoiler warnings, in case anyone was watching the event later or on tape delay. Same rules apply here: the spoiler warnings are already adequate. --Madchester 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible rule changes?

Is it known for certain that the penalties in play in previous seasons still apply? For example, Phil made no mention of penalties for finishing last in a non-elimination leg. Perhaps they all know what's coming, but, at least for the moment, we (the viewing audience) do not. Stismail 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because he only does the voiceover for those details when a team comes in last on a NEL. For example, Phil won't be explaining the rules of a Fast Forward, unless there is one for that particular leg.
Note in Season 5, Phil explicitly stated that there was a new non-elimination penalty in the premiere, but he never expanded on the details (i.e., that it was begging) --Madchester 16:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You haven't said anything that refutes my basic point: while the penalties for TAR9 may be the same as those enforced in previous races, we simply don't know that yet. For all we know, teams may be given a choice of penalties this season. I revised the wording to indicate that teams will almost certainly be penalized, but that the exact penalty--at this point in the race--remains unknown. Also, the reversion took out one important fact: that not only were teams not given any money at the start of the next leg, but that they were not allowed to collect it until after they had started. --Stismail 17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are any rule changes, then

A) Major rule changes are announced in the season previews. For example, previews for Season 5 indicated that the number of FFs was reduced, and that a new non-elimination penalty had been added. Such rule changes are often found in CBS press releases or interviews with the producers or Phil Keoghan.
B) Minor rule changes are disclosed during the season. For example, the 4 hour penalty for an incomplete Road Block was mentioned when team were doing the lock challenge in China.

Otherwise, there's no reason to assume that there will be any changes from Season 7. Making guesses on possible rule changes is considered original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Madchester 21:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of rule changes, there wasn't any metnion of the 6-roadblock rule on tonight's episode. Unless, of course, it's become standard and supposedly understood. --HansTAR 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was mentioned during the first couple episodes of TAR7 either, I think it's SOP now... it'll be mentioned eventutally. -- SonicAD (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

Where the heck the trivia section. I know every AR article has one. Or is it too early to set up one? - 上村七美 09:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Usually the trivia bits come from interviews with the eliminated racers. So there's not too much to go by right now. --Madchester 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on removal of country flags

This discussion is archived. Please do not edit the text in this box.

This is a straw poll to gauge opinion on whether country flags should be removed from the Locations section of The Amazing Race 9.

Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~), with a vote of either Support or Oppose; additonal comments are appreciated. Voting will last until March 9, 2006. Voting has been closed. The result of the discussion was Keep Country Flags by a vote of 0 support, 13 opposed.

Support (remove country flags)


Oppose (keep country flags)

Comments

Challenge #1

It was said above "the country flags help users identify countries on the Race". Ok then... without cheating (on your honor), tell me that you instantly knew what country these flags belong to: , , , , , , , , , .

These were all taken from an actual season. I feel good that I know plenty of flags, but at those small sizes and without context, I only knew two and one was a lucky guess. I don't think this argument holds up. The bolded name of the country is already given and is instantly recognizable -- it also links directly to the article. The flags can't really "help users identify countries". -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If they werent clickable this might be the case, but you can easily click to find out the country, or (at least on my browser) when I mouse over them I can see the country name at the bottom left of screen -- Astrokey44|talk 13:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so you can hover over them and get the information, but that is bad Wikipedia:Accessibility. The flags are clickable, but it takes you to the image page, not the country article. We already give teh country name, in bold... why is that not enough? -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's still a good idea to link to the images to make the article seem fuller. BTW, I don't mean to brag, but I knew all but two flags. Royboycrashfan 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Seem fuller" doesn't strike me as a very objective. While you like it for fullness, I see them as clutter. -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"Seem fuller" as in "adds to the quality". Removing the flags from the article would be like taking salt out of a pretzel. Royboycrashfan 03:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The "salt" on this "pretzel" is the detour/roadblock/pitstop icons, not the flags. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Flags put emphasis on nations visited, just like salt puts emphasis on taste. Royboycrashfan 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you two milked the analogy dry.... :-) --Madchester 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Challenge #2

Another rationale presented points out that flags are used on other articles, like Total Olympics medal count or World Baseball Classic. I believe this argument does not apply here. Even assuming that flags belong on those pages, one has to point out that national pride plays a large role there. Countries compete as teams. In the case of The Amazing Race, there is no need to show "national pride" as the country destinations are largely incidental. -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be underestimating the role of (national) flags in the history of The Amazing Race
  • When teams were in Vietnam in Season 3, the Race banners were changed to Red and White, so that it wouldn't be confused with the red and yellow of the Flag of Vietnam.
  • The US flag challenge in the Season 8 premiere. Teams had to cross the Delaware to retrieve a Flag of the United States; this included a flag-folding ceremony where families discussed the national pride of participating in such a challenge.
  • In Season 1, teams were given the Flag of Tunisia and they had to figure out which country it was, since it was the next destination of that leg. Likewise in Season 4 Season 3, teams were given a photo of the Petronas Towers and a Flag of Malaysia. They had to figure out that the Towers were in Malaysia, by identifying the flag.
  • In Season 5, teams had to identify the Flag of the Philippines, which was located on one of three islands. The island with the correct flag contained a clue leading to that Giant Clam.
Therefore, to say that flags are not useful identification tools, or that they don't invoke any sense of national pride seems farfetched to me. Cheers, --Madchester 08:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying that flags were never used... you're confusing the issue. I am saying that "national pride" does not play a roll as it does when talking about the Olympics. -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you could say that there is an issue of national pride; the Philippines, Australia, and Canada have all been immensely proud of the fact that their country was featured on The Amazing Race, and a foreign user browsing the Race pages at the sight of their flag would probably feel the same National Pride that they would feel if they saw it on an Olympic page --HansTAR 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitely agree. I remember when Season 5 came out, and people were wondering when teams would finally visit Canada. It was a pretty big deal in Canada when they visited Calgary and Banff. The media was abuzz with that final leg, and ratings went thru the roof; within a year the Race became the most-watched television program in Canada. [2] --Madchester 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is archived. Please do not edit the text in this box.

Fansites - TV IV

I do not understand how linking to the TV IV site for the Amazing Race 9 is considered spam. It's just as valid as the Tarflies site. --Ryvius 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

TARFlies has been used for reference for various race pages, and it also includes commentary from past racers. TV IV doesn't provide such features. --Madchester 06:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Winner on Wikipedia?

Hey. I know they have spoilers on the Amazing Race pages like the next route, but would someone be allowed to put up the winner if it is revealed some how before it airs (like seasons 7 and 8 were revealed in an online betting scam. I know you can post spoilers, but would someone post something that big. TeckWiz 13:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's been no unusual betting this season, so the winner hasn't been leaked yet. But if the winner were revealed, we just externally linked it from a trivia entry. --Madchester 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
But would the winner be written on the page like *** and &&& won? TeckWiz 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
No, the writing would simply be: "The winners were revealed due to an online betting scandal. [link here]" --Madchester 01:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Prize section

Umm, is it better to put the info on prizes won before the legs information? I just think it works better the prize section come after the legs. Or integrate them together. --Destron Commander 09:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason is two-fold. First, the prizes (usually) go to the winner of individual legs, so this section should follow the results. Second, this leaves the Locations list at the bottom of the page, so that spoiler-free readers can avoid future episode details. --Madchester 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames?

Should we be including nicknames in the table? I'm talking specifically about the "Team MoJo". There's seems to be a surplus of them this season as compared to recent seasons sans TAR8, and I dunno if they're really encyclodpedic. --HansTAR 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Having a section entirely devoted to nicknames is fancruft. Teams that are regularly addressed with their nicknames can probably warrant their "nick" being listed in the table. --Madchester 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative text for images in Race Locations section

I don't think the use of alt text for the detour and roadblock images is being done appropriately. Read the section "Choosing good alternative text" paragraph in Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, which says "The alternative text should communicate the same information that the image communicates." Seeing as the detour and roadblock images (though I think the others, excluding nations' flags, are problematic too) only imply that the teams have reached a certain point, it doesn't relate what the details of the choice(s), thus the tasks assigned shouldn't include it, and it should instead be included separately. I've seen this change made in the past, and soon after reverted, so I'd like some comments before I do it myself. -- SonicAD (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, all pertinent information should be visible at a glance, without the need to hover-over a particular image just to learn what you need to. Maelwys 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a bad suggestion, seeing the alt-text "Motorhead or Rotorhead" really doesn't give you any information. It could be possible to briefly explain each roadblock or detour for every leg like so:

Detour - "Motorhead or Rotorhead", teams had to....

Roadblock - there was no roadblock this leg.

Of course the problem would then be whether there is an issue of clutter. --HansTAR 22:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, better to be cluttered than for those who aren't net-savvy to miss the information totally. I even didn't notice the information in the past, until I happened to put my mouse over the detour image. Certainly if I hadn't found it right away, others won't either.-- SonicAD (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

However, we could simply insert a link to the official CBS website, it has it already. Bobman123 02:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Task Information

I think the task information was unneeded unless it was not shown in the official website of the race. TAR oficial website aiready details up about the task information.Aleenf1 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking the talk page before reverting your changes, hadn't realized you'd already mentioned it. That said, most televsion shows do have epsiode summaries if there's enough information, and so I've reverted it for now. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

While I agree that not all team nicknames should be listed, ones that are "official" or are used by almost every team such as MoJo, should. See past race articles for reference. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with "MoJo", considering its printed on their shirts. Some of the one-time or fan-created nicks should be excluded. --Madchester 15:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think "Double D's" (crass as it is) would equally apply to Danielle/Dani: they were asked in Episode 1 if that name could be used by another team, and they agreed; plus it seems to be getting a good amount of use on some fan forums. But I just cite that as a possible example/precedent; I'll leave it up to others as to whether it is indeed used. Radagast 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Fan fourms don't matter. Nicknames aren't put in unless that is what they are called on the race. If MoJo wasn't used on the race, and only in forums it probably wouldn't be put on. So Double-D may still be good but the reasoning about the forums is not.

countries airing?

Should it be mentioned when it is aired in different countries? I think in Australia it is a week behind (Leg 1 was split in 2 with the 2nd part last week and Leg 2 hasnt aired yet) -- Astrokey44|talk 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Airport Information

Is suit or not The Amazing Race put the airport details, which airport the racers should be root for??? But i wonder that some racers could be transfer the plane at the other airport, so why we must put the airport name??? Is not suit at all. Aleenf1 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your comments are rather unintelligble... am I correct to think that what you're saying is that the name of the airports shouldn't be included, because they may go to other airports for stopovers along the way? While there are stopovers, the teams almost always fly from the same airport, and land at the same airport. The stopovers aren't relevant to the location, as they all end up in the same place. But the airports they start and finish at are, with only a couple exceptions in past races, always the same, so inclusion makes sense to me. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sonic towards the end of 1 season (season 3 I believe) teams went to 2 different airports in Alaska TeckWiz 20:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I know, though it was season 2, actually. However, they both left Alaska from the same airport, as the teams that went to a different airport, flew to the one the other teams were at before catching a flight to the mainland. It doesn't happen very often, thus why I said "almost" always. If they do go to different airports this season, we can find a way to deal with it. -- SonicAD (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally i found one example through Season 4, that's the example of two teams goes to the two different airport. Aleenf1 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So FAST

I wonder which the website told episode 3(Leg 3) info so fast until someone can edit the leg 3 places tracking??? Unless you prove it or it was no valid. Aleenf1 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It airs at 10PM Eastern in the USA, and so ended at 11 (about 3 hours ago)-- SonicAD (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

seven "implying"

channel seven in Australia doesnt imply that Australia is on the itinerary, it has Phil stating "And this time we are coming to Australia" it then goes on to say "Which city will it be? Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth"

By the way, Big news in my local area was that at the end of november the Amazing race was filming in a town called Bruthen in Gippsland, Victoria, could this be true?

Roadblocks count

If you watched the Moscow episode, it's implied that there's still some kind of quota for number of Roadblocks performed by each racer. You can see Ray/Yolanda and Wanda/Desiree clearly telling their partner "you need to do one (Roadblock)." after reading the clue at the pool. --Madchester 22:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Straw poll if the challenge descriptions are necessary

This is a straw poll to see if the descriptions of roadblocks and detours are necessary, as we have a link to the official site which explains this info already.

Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~), with a vote of either Support or Oppose; additonal comments are appreciated. Voting will last until March 25, 2006.

Support (remove descriptions)

  • Support - While official website already mentioned, we should respect them even Wikipedia is a reliable source and short in description, but as you know they is explained very clear about the leg route markers. Aleenf1
  • Support for Detour, oppose for Roadblock and Fast Forward. Royboycrashfan

Oppose (keep descriptions)

  • Oppose -Even though TAR 9's site has information on tasks, Wikipedia's descriptions are much shorter. Also, once the fast foward comes into play, that should have a little info also TeckWiz
  • Oppose - Doesn't really matter what's on the site, Wikipedia's meant as a stand-alone information reference. Otherwise you could use that argument for every single article here, as it's all referenced already, somewhere else... As such, a brief synopsis of each task completed is good for reference. Maelwys
  • Oppose - Plenty of TV shows have episode descriptions, with some even spun off into their own pages. While TAR isn't big enough to need that, a description of the tasks involved should be a must.-- SonicAD (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same reasoning as Maelwys. -Reuvenk[T][C]
  • Oppose - After my short little spat with Mo0, I always make a point to think before I edit. Even though those descriptions appear in the official website, as Mo0 said to me in the past, one can just read it here than to go a Flash-heavy site like the official website and wait for the page to load. (He was referring to Survivor: Palau, what I said is relevant.) - 上村七美 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment. I have no problem with the descriptions. However, each episode write-up should be no more than 2 or 3 sentences in length. I found in some other leg summaries (especially for the TAR8 article) that clues were copied in verbatim; either from the official website or from Phil's voiceovers on the show. Such writing should be avoided....
As an aside, is there some kind of editing or content dispute between some users? Otherwise, a straw poll isn't really needed. Cheers, --Madchester 19:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What it MEAN???

As in season 7, the second part of leg 3 had a task which involved finding a Travelocity roaming gnome; unlike that season, there appeared to be no potential reward for carrying it to the Pit Stop, though teams were specifically instructed to do so.

What the trivia information it brought to us, what is that MEAN??? Aleenf1 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"that" is referring back to season 7, as mentioned at the beginning of the sentence.-- SonicAD (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
but i see Season 7, where come the same task involved??? Aleenf1 03:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not the exact same task, but both involved finding the Travelocity gnome. I believe that it was the roadblock on leg 9 of season 7.-- SonicAD (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
it wasn't the roadblock. It was a route info clue that said to find the gnome. Also, I'm guessing that at the beggining of the next episode they will Phil at the Pit Stop asking teams to show him your gnomes and if one has this on it you win. Or maybe it will come into play at the next pit stop and they juat want the racers to take it with them to add weight TeckWiz 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yield

I was looking in the glossary on the TAR 9 website to see if it said the 6 roadblock rule still aplied since it hasn't been mentioned and I found this: YIELD

Each leg of the race has a YIELD point. Teams must stop at the YIELD location to do two things before continuing along the course: 1) They must check to see if they have been YIELDed by another team; 2) If no Team has been YIELDed, they must decide whether to use the YIELD or not. If a Team is YIELDed, they must turn over the hourglass and wait until all the sand runs out before they may continue with the race. A Team may use the YIELD to stop another Team only once throughout the entire course of the race. However, there is no limit to the number of times that a Team can be YIELDed by the other Teams.

It says there is a yield on every leg, however we have seen the first 3 and none have them. HOw is this? Or did the website editor just copy it from a pre-season 6 site? TeckWiz

It was probably copied from Season's 5 site since The Family Edition's website says the same thing. Tazz765

Keep in mind that you're watching an edited-down version of what happened on the race. If the yields weren't used or had no impact on the race on a particular leg, then they wouldn't show it. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The trivia says : " Lake & Michelle became the first team not as leader when arrived at the Yield point to Yield another team." I don't think this was the first time that happened. --SCSI Commando 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Commando. I don't think anyone has watched all nine seasons and checked what place each team is before they hit the yield mat. So, I'm removing it until some proff is given.TeckWiz 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lake=4 Roadblocks

Don't you think Lake is making a pretty dumb decision doing all of the first 4 roadblocks, while Michelle has done none. He'll probably do the next 2 also, and when a roadblock comes up that he's really good at he won't be able to do it. (assuming the 6 roadblock limit still applys). TeckWiz 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Leg 5 (April 4, 2006)

The leg 5 of this race is still in Italy. I saw the preview for following episode, A marketplace in the streets of Sicily, Fran/Barry buy some Italian seafood for the detour in early leg. Monica had made a tantrum for carrying a swordfish.

Source link: Reality fan forum board

By: ApprenticeFan - 05:05 UTC March 30, 2006

Leg 5 Detour

When I watched the episode, The detour was a choce between 'big fish' and 'little fish' so I don't know why it's listed as 'cash' or 'carry'. I'm going to change them, but please tell me if some other country has different names or something.

No Penalty???

Despite the instruction, BJ and Tyler did not carry their gnome to the Pit Stop; however, no penalty was assessed for this failure.

Any evidence to prove this statement??? Aleenf1 14:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the time if a penalty doesn't affect the order of the teams it isn't mentioned on air. Tazz765 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, it looked like the gnome was hidden under one of their shirts, I'm just going off of memory, though. JerryArr 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's with them, i just reviewed the tape I made for my sister who works that night. They have it with them but it's not visible to the camera. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Leg 6

Do we know for certain that the bungee jump is a roadblock? I got the sense it might be a Fast Forward. Radagast 01:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

{{spoiler}} Preview screenshots posted on the Reality Fan Forum show one person from each of several teams doing the bungee jump, as well as the fact that Eric & Jeremy are not seen in any of the tasks, implying that they take some Fast Forward offered. --HansTAR 01:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The weekly CBS press release states that the roadblock is a bungee jump. --Madchester 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fonte Umbertino OR Ponte Umbertino???

Isi't Fonte Umbertino OR Ponte Umbertino should be wrote on the leg 5??? I review official website is Ponte Umbertino, however someone CHANGED to Fonte Umbertino. Which one should be root for??? Aleenf1 06:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the official website, that "someone" might've misheard or misread (F and P do look similar). -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Amazing_Race_9/Archive_1&oldid=1136384523"