Talk:Treasure Hunters (TV series)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Team Results

Do we think that modifying the team chart similar to how the Amazing Race charts are done, ordering the teams in order of finish each week, is a good idea? I like being able to look back at that information on TAR pages. I don't know how to do it, though. Otto4711 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so, I diddled around with the chart and put the teams in finish order for leg 1, but it looks kinda wrong and ugly. There's probably some template I could've used that I don't know about, right? If you can make it look any better please whack away at it but be aware that if you just revert it I may cry. Otto4711 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone who can set up the chart so that the results for leg 2 can be entered? Would be good if this can be done today since the show is tonight. I've tried but can't quite get it right. Otto4711 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to yet. A blank box won't look good. And we're also not 100% sure that all of leg 2 will air today. Until we're certain we should keep it off the page.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be OK to have boxes ready for upcoming legs. That way editors who don't know how to do the charts (like me for example) can contribute to the chart without being dependent on others' largesse. Otto4711 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wait to update the results until the show has been shown in all time zones?

Sorting the Table

I noticed that the results table had been re-sorted into alphabetical order, and I'd like to bring that decision up for discussion. Although that's obviously one way to do it, I think that the most informative way is to sort it based on the finish order of the most recent leg. This gives you a quick glance at comparison to see how the teams are doing now, compared to how they've historically done. And since people were so keen on doing things "the Amazing Race way", I'll just note that on the TAR page the table was updated after each leg to put things in placement order based on that leg as well. ;-) Just my thought --Maelwys 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table should be the TAR way. The alphebetical order isn't even totally alphebetical. The eliminated teams are at the bottom in order of elimination, yet all the other teams are alphabetized. It looks bad when the fifth place team is under the first. The thing that should be alphabetized is the table that lists the teams and occupations (including the eliminated teams in their correct places. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both counts, that was basically my point too. Some people might like alpha, but it's not real alpha with some teams at the bottom. I like numerical order instead, and so it grates on me right now seeing the numbers all out of order. --Maelwys 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Everything I suggested and you seconded has been done.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greyed out eliminations

With the switching out of the Grads for the Browns and for spacing issues what do people think of losing the grey text and the elimination leg/date? IMHO it doesn't really add anything to the table by including it and with the Grad/Brown situation could become actively confusing. Otto4711 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that text even there to begin with, its just redundant and after time will make that table freaking huge. I say knix it. Amazingracer 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate the show is going, and assuming that each leg results in at least one team elimination, the least boxes there will be for eliminated teams is two. Not sure if this would be big enough to hold that information (obviously we can insert line breaks between the words in the sentence). I think that it'd look weird having a large empty box, but maybe that's just me? –Dvandersluis 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to harp on this

But I really think that the best format for the team results chart would be one like The Amazing Race pages use. Rather than losing information every leg by basing it off of who's eliminated, the TAR format chart would preserve information on previous leg results. If someone who knows how to add columns would be so kind as to add them so that we can keep the information, that would be super. Otto4711 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genworth Financial signs

I have this odd feeling based on the way the camera lingers on them that the Genworth Financial signs teams keep passing are going to turn out to be significant. I'm going to put the content here for now since putting it in the article would be speculation. If anyone has ep 1 on tape, can you post the signage here? I've already taped over it.

Ep 2: "Look on water for it is inspiration." Otto4711 10:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that they're just clues for the next challenge. That one was placed right before they got to the mine where they had to figure out to fill the bucket with water. The first episode I believe said something about "Rush" "More" (as two words in the sentence) while they were figuring out where to go next (Mount Rushmore, at the time). But you could be right, all the clues combined together might end up meaning something greater at the end as well... something to keep an eye on, though you're right that it's definitely OR/speculation at the moment and better to do here instead of in the article. --Maelwys 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's just advertising added in. I think after filming, producers add the sign into the frame to get money for advertising, since Genworth Financial is their only or main sponsor.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I added a Trivia section, like the one found on TAR pages. This for odd and random tidbits of info. Such as the deal with their RAZRa and that other phone they are seen with, as well as the Genworth Financial signs. Enjoy.

I'm thinking of deleting the trivia section. Most of the entries will be rendered kinda pointless by the season finale (the prize amount, the live broadcast and so on), other stuff is duplicated elsewhere (the different phones) and without that stuff the section's pretty paltry. The Genworth info could be noted in the opening or in a promotions section and the Canada broadcast thing if we want to retain it could be noted in the leg summary. Thoughts? Otto4711 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the silence on the topic I took out the trivia section and put in a brief section about the home games. Otto4711 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the silence- I don't think it should've been taken out, but after the finale we will probably have enough info to put it back. Also, one piece of trivia is that Laird has never appeared in person, though he probably will in the finale, so I would put, "Up until the finale Laird MacIntosh has never appeared in person". TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laird appeared at the State Capitol Building in Lincoln. When the two sets of 5 teams met for the first time. Thats the only time he's been with the teams in person. Which is weird compared to how much interaction Phil has with the teams on TAR. Also sorry for the delay in defending the Trivia section I had to stay away from the article because I keep missing episodes due to other circumstances. Im putting it back in, because TechWiz is right more stuff will pop up later. Just look at the TAR pages.Amazingracer 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at each trivia item - "A Genworth Financial sign, added in post-production, appears in each leg. Signs include an oblique phrase relating to a clue in the online game." - covered in the home viewer game section

"The staff appears on-camera frequently, as opposed to the great pains The Amazing Race producers take to avoid breaking the fourth wall." - I put this in originally, in the differences section, and as the hunt has progressed my feeling about it is a) so what and b) the TH staff appearances are not so significant as to warrant notation

"On July 3, 2006, all feeds of Global Television in Canada showed the first episode of Leg 4 out of order instead of showing Leg 3." - really unimportant, and if it's significant enough to mention it can be put in a footnote beneath the results chart

"The actual amount of the prize money has not been disclosed, but in promos it has been described as "millions."" - will be rendered completely moot by the season finale when the prize is disclosed

"The season finale will be broadcast live." - noted in the intro

"In Leg 7, teams used two RAZRs, as opposed to the other Motorola phone, to communicate with each other for the challenge in Philadelphia." - that there are multiple phones is noted in the TAR/TH differences section

If after the finale there's suddenly a flood of trivia then fine, make a trivia section, but the stuff that's there is either covered elsewhere in the article or so incredibly insignificant that it can't justify a trivia section. Otto4711 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Tags

Removed the Spoiler Tags because there are no spoilers on the article. However if you do add spoilers only mark the setion containing the spoilers with the tags. not the entire article.Amazingracer 04:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had added the spoiler tags as the content of the article can be considered a spoiler if an episode has been missed. While I perhaps misunderstand the purpose of the spoiler tags, I took this practice from articles about episodes of other TV shows (for example, Futurama). —Dvandersluis 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Spoiler tags are generally only used to flag information on upcoming episodes, or information not generally aired yet. The problem with flagging anything that's already aired, just incase somebody hasn't seen the episode yet, is you then have to define when is it no longer a spoiler? Is the episode 1 information still a spoiler? That was a few weeks ago now... or to take it to the extreme, should we flag the Star Wars episode with a spoiler, incase somebody hasn't seen it yet? Otherwise they'll be spoiled to read about the fact that Vader is Luke's dad. ;-) Anyway, I think as long as the episodes are clearly marked, we're okay without a spoiler tag. If you haven't seen Episode 2 yet, don't read the section called Episode 2. If we post information on Episode 4 right now, that's a spoiler because nobody's seen it, but otherwise no worries. --Maelwys 13:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the TAR pages, I see it's done that way there too. I'm not really sure why some shows get spoiler warnings around their plot and some don't, but that's cool ;) No spoiler warnings on aired episodes it is :)

As a second thought, what about previews for the next episode? I'd think that these should have spoiler warnings, and I know that people (myself included) don't watch the previews. –Dvandersluis 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there I agree with you. Previews for upcoming episodes would count as spoiler information, and should be flagged as such. On the TAR page we even made sure to keep the leg name (with future destinations) out of the index by making it simply bold text and not a header level, so that the index wouldn't contain that spoiler either. So if people are going to be including preview information, we should do the same thing here. Of course in Canada we often don't even get the previews, so I'm not going to be the one doing that, since I haven't seen them yet either. ;-) --Maelwys 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags because there are no spoilers yet. If and when they get posted one tag should go up at the very top of the page, to say "hey there are spoilers here somewhere" and then put a spoiler tag again, right before the spoiler info. followed by end spoiler following the spoiler. This is how it done on TAR. For example if some one was to create a Leg 3 section right now that said the teams were seen at so and so. Put a spoiler tag directly before the leg summary, as leg 3 has not aired yet. Sorry for any confusion.

Spoiler Tags should be at the top. All legs are spoilers since some people haven't seen them yet, so it is a spoiler to them. See an article like The Amazing Race 9 and see where the tag is. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to dumb it down. If the user has not seen Leg XX of the show why are the reading the article anyways. This not something Im gunna fight till the death over, because I honestly could care less. But upon encountering the tags last night I had to read the article with caution. Only to discover there was nothing revealing. Also the "TV Show in-progress" banner should be a big heads up as to the fact that the article contains summaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazingracer (talk • contribs)

As I said above, you can apply that logic to ANY show past or present, and then you've gotta put spoiler tags on every single TV show article on the entire Wikipedia. And movies too for that matter. If you haven't seen the most recent episode, don't read the article. If there's stuff here about a not-yet-aired article, THAT is a spoiler and should be flagged as such. --Maelwys 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ExactlyAmazingracer 04:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstoof the point of spoiler tags. Spoiler tags are for plot details for every single TV show and movie where plot details are revealed even though, as is obviously the case, you would know the details if you have seen the movie or show. Whether or not the episode has been broadcast somewhere is largely irrelevant. Remember this is an encylopaedia not a fan site. Someone might be visiting this article because they've heard of the show and want to know what it is about. They may not want to know the details if they are considering watching it. Spoiler tags are for a reason and that reason is to mark spoilers for the show, regardless of whether the details may not be spoilers for you because you've already seen the episode Nil Einne 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and overall length

I took out the sections on clue messages and artifacts because it seems that all the information they contained either was already in the article elsewhere or could easily be added without breaking out a separate section. I also tried to condense the leg summaries because, with at least another five legs and possibly more to come, a summary that lists every single detail of every single episode is going to be enormous. Also corrected some factual errors and tried to reduce some of the repetitive phrasing. I'm wondering if the article would be better served by having a very basic summary here (two paragraphs or so) and, if people want to write out all the minute details there could be a separate "list of" article. Otto4711 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been good to discuss deleting two sections with everybody else before you actually did it, which is why I reverted it. You also disguised it by putting "cleanup" in the edit summary. Cleanup is not delete two section. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 11:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I cleverly hid the removal of two duplicative sections by calling it cleanup. That was my evil plan. Curse you for foiling it! Since when is it necessary to clear the removal of duplicate information with anyone? The identity of the artifacts was already included in the summary of each leg, and that teams receive clues via cell phone was already covered in the section talking about the differences between TAR and TH. I also added additional clarifying information on both removed sections elsewhere in the article. Does the article really benefit from having two entire sections, consisting of a total of six run-on sentences, that are all covered elsewhere? I thought that clarity and conciseness were supposed to be goals. But looking at the two sections:

Clue messages - the first two sentences duplicate information from the top section and the third sentence doesn't really mean anything. Artifacts - the first sentence duplicates information I added to the introduction, the second and third sentences are speculation and the artifacts themselves are listed within the episode summaries. Otto4711 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added these sections so that the receival of messages, and the ultimate goal of each leg, wouldn't have to be explained in talking about each leg. Notwithstanding the fact that you deleted parts of those sections that I'm not quite sure why, I didn't think that the sections were inappropriate. Also, I'm not quite sure how those sections were made up of run-on sentences. –Dvandersluis 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the receipt of messages is explained at the top of the article (which it was and is) then there is no need to mention it in sections about the leg or in a separate section. If you don't like the phrase "run-on sentence" then I am certainly willing to retract it. However, the information is still duplicative of other sections and even within the sections themselves (e.g. "In order to know where to go next...These messages generally give the teams information as to where to proceed next..." in the Clue messages section). As for why I edited the information you put in on the various legs...in some instances it was factually incorrect. In some cases it was in my opinion clumsily or overwritten, in some cases you included POV or speculation, and in general I am of the opinion, as I said earlier, that the leg summaries are way too long. By way of example compare the summary of a single leg of TH to the summaries of entire seasons of a complicated, plot-heavy show like Alias. Is a single leg of TH more complex than an entire season of Alias? I tried in editing your material to preserve the significant details while cutting down the verbiage. Otto4711 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I expanded on the summaries of the legs because I felt that, as this show deals with the solving of various puzzles/challenges to get from point A to point B, information in this regard was missing. There was next to no discussion of the actual puzzles or how they were solved, which was my major goal in the rewrite. –Dvandersluis 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not suggesting that was a bad thing. All I've said regarding the addition of additional factual information is that it makes the leg summaries very long. Which is why I floated the notion of keeping short summaries in the main article and breaking out the very detail-heavy recaps into a separate "list of" article.

Since you're the one who added the two sections in question and since you haven't really responded to the possibility of removing them other than to say that you don't think they're "inappropriate," would you please comment on the removal idea itself? If the information within them is satisfactorily represented in other sections of the article, do you have any objection, in the interest of streamlining and shortening the overall article, to their removal? Otto4711 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have any specific objection. As I said, I had added them for clarity purposes, but if it is thought that they are unneeded, then by all means delete them. –Dvandersluis 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suggest that In order to know where to go next, teams receive recorded video messages from host Laird MacIntosh via their Motorola RAZR. These messages generally give the teams information as to where to proceed next, and sometimes also include various cryptic clues that can help them at the next challenge. is covered by the second and fifth points of difference between TH and TAR, and the fact that teams generally get one message per leg is self-evident. For the artifacts section, I added the information from sentence one to the introduction (Teams travel across the United States and around the world in search of seven "artifacts" which when assembled will "lead to the key. Find the key, and find the treasure."). The second and third sentences are speculation, since we don't know if there may be a future leg in which (similar to TAR non-elimination legs) there may be enough artifacts for all remaining teams or a non-finding team can somehow stay in. The artifacts themselves are mentioned within the episode summaries. Given all that, and given that the person who put the sections in initially has no specific objections, I'm going to go ahead and take out the two sections. Otto4711 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Global (Canada) play the wrong episode?

Last night I tuned in to watch Treasure Hunters, and rather than Leg 3, Leg 4 was shown (from 9-10pm EST). Leg 2 was re-aired from 8-9. The NBC official site seems to have Leg 4 as 'next on', so I'm thinking that Global was playing the wrong thing; did anyone else experience this? –Dvandersluis 13:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they did indeed. The descriptions everywhere were for the correct episode "(Don't) Trust Thy Neighbour", but it looks like somebody at Global loaded the wrong tape in the machine. I recorded it (stopped watching when I noticed the "Last time on..." was recapping stuff I'd never seen before) and I'm hoping that they'll realize their mistake and play the correct episode sometime later, maybe this weekend. Or, I believe next week they'll be doing the two episodes back-to-back again, so this time maybe they'll properly do Legs 3 and 4. --Maelwys 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, so I didn't miss anything after all. Would anyone object if I added a summary of (the first half of) leg 4? JYolkowski // talk 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to wait until it's actually aired in most markets (or at least in it's home market, that being USA) before posting anything here. People already complain if the page gets updated before the show's aired on the west coast, I get the feeling they wouldn't appreciate it being updated a week early. ;-) --Maelwys 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did Canadian TV do regarding the episode mix-up? How did they show the following two episodes? Otto4711 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every week they've been doing double episodes anyway (previous week at 8, new episode at 9), so last week we just got two "new" episodes (Leg 3 which we'd skipped at 8, and Leg 4 again at 9). --Maelwys 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superimposed phone message videos

Mrschimpf added to the Trivia section a sentence on the videos being superimposed onto the phones. I'd like to see a source for this, especially since I'm pretty sure I've seen shots of teams viewing the videos, with the video visible. –Dvandersluis 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching an episode and in the instance I saw, it's clear that the image had to be superimposed on the screen. It's not one of my regular shows by any means, so if someone knows more about it you can edit it out, I just thought it was used for all scenes involving the phones. Nate 04:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's both. The teams see the video on their phones, and for the bits showing the home audience just the phone and the message it's a superimposed image. So I'm taking out the bit about the superimposed images since that's clearly not accurate within the hunt itself. What I'd like to see a cite for is that some of the places they've gone don't have cell service at all.Otto4711 23:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Double Length' Leg 4

Is there any evidence, other than the fact that the episode is being shown over two episodes (which of course doesn't prove anything more than that there was more content that could fit in a single episode)? If this is the guideline we're going by, Leg 1 should be double-length as well, as it occupied the first two episodes... –Dvandersluis 02:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Unlike TAR, it's not actually double length. It's just an episode that takes up more than an hour. It could've been the exact same length of any other leg. In TAR, Phil has greeted teams and told them it was double length, and they had twice as many tasks. Here, nothing like this happens, so I'm going to remove it. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite edit war

Before this possibly degenerates into one, what's the generally accepted standard for fansites? Otto4711 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you know, people could just get into a fight and call it "vandalism" without further comment. That works too I suppose. Otto4711 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as a certain some one has taken the "be an ass about this entire page" route, calling it vandalism is a little harsh. While yes the fan stie is an external link, those are normally for citing sources and the official show page. However creating a simple fan site section will cure the problem just fine. And thats what I did.Amazingracer 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom quote from 4.2

Can anyone identify the source of the quote from the quilt panel clue? I googled it but got no results. Otto4711 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music From National Treasure

The anymous edit about the music coming from National Treasure may stem from the fact that a/the producer of National Treasure also worked on this show( stated in promos for the show). The music sounds familiar, but I have not seen the movie in a while.Amazingracer 05:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Hunters Fansite

Amazingracer keeps putting back in [treasurehuntersfansite.com]. I keep taking it out since Wikipedia is not for fansites. Furthermore, amazingrace is calling me removing it "vandalism." However, you, amazingracer, is the one doing the vandalism. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 22:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Not that I care much one way of the other about whether fansites are included (although why you felt the need to create a separate fansite section on the talkpage when there already was one does somehow fascinate me). Is there an actual Wikipedia policy against them? Because they're pretty much all over the place. Otto4711 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeps" putting it back in? I put it back in once after you removed it. You called adding the fan site vandalism and removed it. So I reverted your “vandalism” of removing stuff for no obvious reason (don’t get mad at me for calling vandalism, you called it that first). I have not seen any rules about fan sites on Wiki, so I would love some proof as well. You seem to change any and everything on this site that you don’t like. And act as though you are the owner of this site, well I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Wikipedia, you are not. I get just as much say as what goes on this article as you do. And the point is you are being an ass. Oh yeah guess you had to be all special with this new topic too, guess Otto's wasn’t good enough for you. Now concerning the whole fan site deal, I really could care less about the thing, just as Otto said. But removing it and calling it vandalism is quite harsh. Now if the user had created a Wiki article just for the fan site and posted the article link in the Related Links section, ok that’s a good reason to remove it. But just posting a fan site, there's no problem with that because we are all fans of this show aren’t we. Not quite sure what your deal is TechWiz, but our main goal here is to make a Treasure Hunters article, not to piss you off, it comes across as the other way because apparently your main goal is to piss off the other users by trying to make this page your own.Amazingracer 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way trying to make this page on my own. You also like to call people rude names, as you have done to me in other discussions. From Wikipedia: External links:

Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

Everything on this site is on the official site, even the forums. I'm also going to remove nbctreasurehunters.com, since it has nothing but fourms that aren't informative at all. And now that I look at the article of this talk page, I'm also going to take out Treasuurepedia since it hasn't been updated since episode 3 and has very few articles with very little information. Also, on Treasurepedia, the recaps there are shorter than the ones of this article. When you have the word fansite in the URL, you know it's not worth a spot on Wikipedia. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dooly Noted. You should have pointed that article out from the get go. It does not say they are not allowed, they are just frowned upon. I think that fact that you called vandalism is what caused a ruckus. Sorry for the name calling as well. Hopefully we can carry on a peaceful article for the rest of the show.Amazingracer 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fogal Family

This is not related to the article, but I find it weird that the Fogal Family, with the pastor, sort of violates the Ten Commandments. Examples include:

Leg 1: Stole the box with the pilot's log from the Grad Students. "Thou shalt not steal"
Leg 2: Mislead two teams to get ahead at the 13th star. (This is not really a commandment but more of a sense of morals)
Leg 4: Kayte started to scream (from what I think is dehydration) and yet she refused help from her parents. "Thou shalt honour your father and your mother" (This is a sort of one)
Leg 5: Margie admitted that she did not want to tell the Air Force about the arrow at Dover Castle because they were the last two teams (by the last checkpoint). (Again a sense of morals)

I also found it ironic that they were eliminated at a church. Typer525 ^Talk 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the morality of sticking with the agreement with Air Force, the Fogals violated one of the Ten Commandments of Reality Show Competition: Thou shalt not honor alliances when you're racing for last place. It's sometimes a smart move, especially on this show where you don't actually have to solve the clues to advance (I'm looking at you, Southie Boys), to ally if you're in the top half or third of the remaining teams. You're not going to go out if your ally lands ahead of you. But if it's between you and another team going home at the end of the day, screw the alliance. The irony is that whenit made absolutely no difference the Fogals screwed over other teams pretty much at will, but when it was potentially the act that would send them home, they refused. Not so much immoral as nakedly stupid. Otto4711 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point...I have nothing against the Fogals but they do throw me off at times because I expect them to be more moral in their actions. Typer525 ^Talk 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least they acknowledged that they were overly "competitive" in the finale. Typer525 ^Talk 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Clark Cipher

The cipher is actually an altered Vigenère cipher. A full copy of the cipher shows a 26 by 26 Vigenère square with the A cipher alphabet as "B,C,D,E..." and using a special character for when the letter would be encoded as itself (the letter A in the A cipher alphabet would be encoding by the special character). In the article, the cipher is called a double substitution cipher and being not familiar with the term, could the person who put it there explain to me why it is a double substitution and not a modified Vigenère cipher? Typer525 ^Talk 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the notation based on how the show identified it on-screen. Otto4711 13:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. For a supposedly "historicly accurate" show, they sure did not do any research about cryptology.Typer525 ^Talk 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race to open the cryptex (Leg 7)

Anyone else think that it probably wasn't as close as it was made out to be (between the Geniuses and Ex-CIA, I mean)? Some crafty editing, perhaps? ;) –Dvandersluis 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I'd imagine that it was fairly close, but probably along the lines of minutes instead of seconds as it was shown. JYolkowski // talk 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finale air time?

On the article, it states that the finale is being aired on August 21, 2006, but on the NBC schedule, it states that Episode 109(which I assume is the finale, unless I'm wrong) is being shown on August 14th. Is Episode 109 a special or something like that? -RagolSlayer // talk 09:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Leg 8 will be split over two episode, similar to Leg 4. Tv.com (among other places) says that there will be an episode 110. I also read somewhere (I can't recall where offhand) that 109 is the teams finding the 7th artifact (which would make 110 be about finding the treasure). –Dvandersluis 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco

In Monday's episode Martin from the Southie Boys was saying how people dream of going to Paris and Monaco. The teams never went to Monaco did they?Amazingracer 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was never stated on-camera that teams went to Monaco but since Monaco shares a huge common border with France it's possible that as part of the leg they crossed the border. Otto4711 05:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home games

Can someone clarify whether there are two separate home games? Currently the article cites the weekly $10,000 prizes with the $100,000 grand prize and also a $200,000 game. But the $100,000 plus the weekly $10,000 prizes add up to $200,000. Seems like it might be the same game. Otto4711 01:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The total was $200,000. They just had ten rounds of $10,000. I nailed a lot of the questions too... thank you wikipedia! :D Toastypk 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So was it one game or two, and if it was one game what did the Genworth signs have to do with it? The section really needs to be clarified. Otto4711 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was $200,000 up for grabs total. At the end of every episode they had the winner of the question of the day. He/she won the $10,000. There were ten winners in total, which was $100,000 so far. Those ten winners came back for the mini-hunt, and the winner in that recieved $100,000. Altogether, that's $200,000. So it was a 2-stage game. Win the end-of-show question, and you get the chance to play in the second phase, the $100,000 minihunt. Toastypk 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Genworth signs were just little clues for the specific legs of the run. Toastypk 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official site includes a contest with a $200,000 grand prize. Each leg contains signage, sponsored by Genworth Financial and added in post-production, which includes a clue to the online game.

Pending clarification on the online game I'm taking out this section. Otto4711 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the pointer in the final cryptex

Wouldn't it have been a magnet to have pointed the right way? There's no way the spin could have landed exactly on the star like that, I suspect the pointer and the floor thing were magnets set to align themselves the right way. Should that be in the article? Toastypk 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Unless it's stated in the program it's speculation and it doesn't belong. Otto4711 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There also could have been a stopper in the cylinder that spins the pointer. It couldve been anything really. Amazingracer 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Series performance

Does anyone have any information on how well this series performed in the ratings? --Destron Commander 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]