Talk:The Amazing Race 15

Image copyright problem with File:Tar14-card.jpg

The image File:Tar14-card.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

TAR 16

Can Somebody Create A Page For TAR 16.

Here Is The Application. http://www.cbs.com/casting/amazing_race/Application_Form.pdf

And Here Is The Requirements. http://www.cbs.com/casting/amazing_race/Eligibility_Requirements.pdf Gonzalochileno (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until Season 15 has aired? Although CBS may be giving applications, it may not get a renewal. That and we know less about Season 16 than we do 15, I think you may be jumping the gun.

It's already created by (me) less than two weeks ago. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually you created the page after gonzalochileno posted, I still think its too early. But anyway.

articles for TAR 14 and 15 were created only with Application and Requirements, i think for season 16 we have the same, also we know when it is going to be filmed. Gonzalochileno (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No we don't know when season 16 will be filmed, it's just speculation, note on the article it even says *Expected* Things may not go to plan and it may not even film this year for example. Just too many unknowns to really have a solid article for season 16 yet. And for example season 15 may not do as well as 14 and CBS may call it a day.. who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.13.121 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this the rummored celebrity edition or even all stars 2? John Goslin of Kate and John Plus 8 is in discussion to go on amazing race or survivor.--Cooly123 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Clarification

Hi, perhaps it's early in the morning... but can someone clarify this sentence?

"This season will be the first season in which the old route markers on the clues will be replaced by the newer route markers since they were introduced on the television broadcast of Season 14."

It's very confusing! Nzseries1 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone could rephrase to something like. "This season will be using newer forms of route markers as introduced in Season 14". If someone has better wording for that, maybe it could be added to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.13.121 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nzseries1 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text a few days ago, however the paragraph does need a lot of work in general but when the season airs on TV this will only be improved upon. As it stands now it's reasonable and is perfect for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.13.121 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They never changed them for this season. Unless there is a source, let's not try this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsfair234 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues in the Production section

Tell me which of these examples looks better:

A: "Development and filming: CBS will be airing the cycle during the start of the 2009-2010 television season. The announcement is the first such television series announcement to be made by a broadcaster on Twitter, following Keoghan's own initial announcement of the renewal via Twitter.

Cast: Applications were originally due by February 24, 2009, but were later extended. As of April 4, 2009, applications were still being accepted. Semi-finalist interviews were to be held sometime between March 20 and March 29, 2009. Following this, finalists would have been invited to Los Angeles sometime between April 23 and April 30, 2009 for final interviews with the producers. From there, about 12 teams will be selected to be contestants in the show, which was scheduled to film around July and August 2009.

Casting calls were also held as host Phil Keoghan cycled across the United States during the month of April and early May 2009 to support the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and made stops to help with those casting calls.

Poker players Maria Ho and Tiffany Michelle, Miss America 2004 Ericka Dunlap and her husband Brian Kleinschmidt, Harlem Globetrotters Nate "Big Easy" Lofton and Herbert "Flight Time" Lang. The race starts in the Los Angeles River basin. The race was featured in a Dutch news broadcast as the teams were racing in Groningen. On August 3, teams were spotted racing in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. They came from Stockholm, Sweden. The finish line is at Las Vegas, Nevada."

or B: "Development and filming: CBS will be airing the cycle during the start of the 2009-2010 television season. The announcement is the first such television series announcement to be made by a broadcaster on Twitter, following Keoghan's own initial announcement of the renewal via Twitter.

The race starts in the Los Angeles River basin. It was featured in a Dutch news broadcast that spotted the teams racing in Groningen. On August 3, teams were spotted racing in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, after flying in from Stockholm, Sweden. The finish line is in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Cast: Applications were originally due by February 24, 2009, but were later extended. As of April 4, 2009, applications were still being accepted. Semi-finalist interviews were to be held sometime between March 20 and March 29, 2009. Following this, finalists would have been invited to Los Angeles sometime between April 23 and April 30, 2009 for final interviews with the producers. From there, 12 teams were selected to be contestants in the show, which was scheduled to film around July and August 2009.

Casting calls were also held as host Phil Keoghan cycled across the United States during the month of April and early May 2009 to support the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and made stops to help with those casting calls.

The teams include Poker players Maria Ho and Tiffany Michelle, Miss America 2004 Ericka Dunlap and her husband Brian Kleinschmidt, and Harlem Globetrotters Nate "Big Easy" Lofton and Herbert "Flight Time" Lang."

For whatever reason, Madchester and others keep reverting version B (which is clearly a better written, more organized read), to version A (which has numerous errors that for some reason haven't been addressed). Can we please change the Production section to version B? I see no reason why not to. 128.187.0.178 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that your IP address has had a very extensive history of vandalising Wikipedia, I know it's a shared one but it doesn't really add much credibility to your edits if you've had many warnings and blocks. Regardless, Madchester and everyone else only have the best interest of the article in mind, all of them have been editting wikipedia for a very long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.9.117 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Race Route

Just putting it here first. USA -> Japan -> Vietnam -> Cambodia -> UAE -> The Netherlands -> Sweden -> Estonia -> Czech Republic -> USA ZephyrWind (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not right now. Please wait the route announcement until a reliable source will be found. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 08:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I put it here and not on the main page. ZephyrWind (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure leg 1 is entirely Japan? Apparently there's a startline task in the USA which will eat up time no doubt. I wouldn't be surprised if teams get released before the end of the leg to go to Vietnam(Speculation) How would this work on Wiki?82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean but if they just pass by Japan, then similar to Season 3, it'll be put as Leg 1: USA -> Japan -> VietnamZephyrWind (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I understand, thankyou for mentioning. It has been officially confirmed that a startline task exists where one team will be eliminated before they get released to leave America. Depending on how much time CBS uses for said task would mean less time in Japan. and With this being a 2 hour special I kinda think it'l be USA.. then mostly Japan, then maybe released to Vietnam.. I could be wrong though. Let's see how CBS does this. 82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the route has been announced on September 24 and it is on EW link. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue underline for NEL

This is confusing since the blue underline usually indicates a Wikilink. Can another color be chosen? Otto4711 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes!This was confusing for me as well. Perhaps you would be willing to undertake the project? --Atpb789654 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This color has been used on like every Amazing Race season thus far. I see no reason why it should be changed.82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is incredibly confusing. It must be changed. On every season. It is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.109.191 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You must be new to Wikipedia, the article clearly outlines the purpose of the blue underline in the results table. It shouldn't be changed, if it confuses you just read the article properly.82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It NEEDS to be changed. It is extremely poor UI to expect a website's visitor to learn that this long-standing internet standard convention (underlined blue text means the text is a link) is used for something else here, in this article on this site. There are dozens of other colors and text modifications (italics, bolding, strikethru, etc.) that can be used instead. Pick some other color/modification, make the change across all articles. 71.202.60.72 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

About the Harlem Globetrotters Team, CBS is using their nicknames and finale episode.....

I know that normally we use first names on the board, but since CBS is referring them as "Flight Time" and "Big Easy" on the show, should that be reflected on the wiki page? Because this is the first time that CBS has used nicknames on the show.

I like the first name. It depends though. On their website, http://www.cbs.com/primetime/amazing_race/bio/herbert_and_nathaniel_15/bio.php?season=15, they recognize them by their names, but not on the show. Anyone else have input on this? --Atpb789654 (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can only think they are doing that to promote the fact they have 2 basketball players on the show. Thinking perhaps some people may not recognize their real names.. It seems silly to me. CBS have never done this on TAR before..82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above post - more people may recognize them by their nicknames. I know one of my friends who watched the show instantly recognized them as Flight Time and Big Easy, but couldn't have recalled their real names if you paid him.Hirachio11 (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This wiki article is about the television show. It is not about the show's official web site. If the show and the web site use different methods of identifying the racers, the article should use the method used by the show. --Notbyworks (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree but it makes no sense the official website saying one thing and the show another. It's like changing a characters name in a random series say... Star Trek and the site saying another name. I hope they don't do this again, if only to avoid confusing.82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should just go with what is being shown in the show itself, and isn't their relationship "Teammates?" There seems to be an edit war in that between putting them down as the "Harlem Globetrotters" and "Teammates." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsfair234 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Episode 1 refers to them as the Harlem Globetrotters. Also worth nothing Phil refers to them both as Herb and Nate when they check in on the 2nd leg, itd be interesting to see what term Phil uses in future episodes, which may point out if CBS used the nicknames at the last moment. So yeah I think they should be down as Harlem Globetrotters IMO it was in the 2 legs shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.9.117 (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced, we should use fighttime and bigeasy and relationship being harlemglobetrotters after watching the last episode. --24.93.109.191 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the episode finale, an Elvis Presley impersonator sang "Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound" where the teams arrived at Graceland chapel in Las Vegas. But the quote was not said by Meghan. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Roadblocks

Please update who did the roadblocks, leg two. --Atpb789654 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally the CBS website will have it a couple of hours after the show is aired, when it comes up, then we can accurately know who did the second Roadblock.

Thank you, it has now been updated. --24.93.109.191 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings Source

I noticed a few people over the course of a day have editted the ratings area, with numbers ranging from 10 million to 13/14 million. Do we need a source for this? It stands to reason.. At the moment we have none listed.

I tagged Unsourced and Refimprove for this section. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 22:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case...

Based on Marcy's comments from leg 3, I think I've pinned down her father to this fellow, but unfortunately, he's not got a page on WP (yet) to use to indicate that. If there was, it would be useful to indicate this relationship but presently no need. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the link, he was a Vietnam War veteran and considered as not notable soldier. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bus... ?

I saw a mark indicating bus transportation from Ho Chi Minh City to Cái Bè. Should that mark be there while bus transportation is so often in TAR? If the conclusion is yes, opposed to my thought, I suppose it to be also in the legend. --Bypeng (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it should only be there if the clue says *Take a bus to *X location*.. You know officially confirming it's a part of the race.82.15.9.117 (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Prize for Leg 4?

As you might have noticed, Phil didn't announce the prize for coming in first for Leg 4 (supposedly because Zev and Justin WERE supposed to win the prize, but in the end they couldn't be checked in). How should we describe it in the Prizes secion? Mylife2702 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylife2702 (talk • contribs)

in previous races when the leg prize was not always there, we would just skip that leg. If it is the case that all other legs have prizes, we can mention it, but otherwise, leaving it blank works. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The prize was revealed to be motorcycles. As someone has editted the prize in and provided an interview source with Zev and Justin telling about the prize.. 82.15.8.248 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Leg 5 results?

Tonight, I found that the entire results for the leg were added to this page prior to the main broadcast of the show. As of right now, no one in the US knows for sure as the program's been delayed for over an hour and broadcast is just beginning. The diffs are here: [1] [2].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How was it revealed before broadcast, I saw it too and during broadcast.Metamorphousthe (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The program had not aired yet in the US market when the results were posted. It was delayed, but not in Canada.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

ahhhh, forgot about that. Metamorphousthe (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And also here in Philippines, Singapore and Australia. Thanks to Ryulong. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Realize that people post stuff on here because of the NFL overrun that occured (The Jets and Bills game went an hour longer than it was supposed to, and some stations may not have aired the game) thus allowing the other people who saw the Race an hour earlier to post accurate information.Playsfair234 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unaired U-Turn in Leg 3

Could someone clarify about the unaired U-Turn in Leg 3? Thanks. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking it out. The only source I can find is a poster at RFF that assures us it was there but doesn't reveal the source of that. That's not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly agree with the above, if there is no photo evidence and just word of mouth, that can't be acceptable, since Wikipedia requires a proper source for things like this, such as an image/a comment from the racers 82.15.9.117 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you all know, it's a very high possibility that Mika & Canaan are out next, but even if they don't ever make mention of this with a "verifiable source", if there is only one U-turn and it is in the latter part of the race, that fact by itself will effectively confirm that there was in fact an unaired U-turn. I don't have any reason to doubt peach's judgement. She has never yet been fooled by a source, even if the source must remain anonymous. Wait and see. Hooky6 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS - a forum poster is not a reliable source. Nor can you draw said conclusions via original research. --Madchester (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I threw that out there for "realitybitesback.com" one of several sites that does legit interviews and said they'll ask the next team that got eliminated, they didn't ask it this week. Playsfair234 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was told that in the interview by realitybitesback.com via Maria & Tiffany that there WAS a U-Turn in Leg 3 (whatever it was Blind or not they didn't say), but they currently don't have the link to it. Should a "Citation Needed" be posted until we can find one that confirms it? Playsfair234 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked realitybitesback.com(It's a forum??) and noticed the interview is a copy paste of the tvguide.com interview and mentions nothing about a Uturn. Here is what I found http://www.tvguide.com/News/Amazing-Races-Maria-1011494.aspx 82.15.9.117 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the only one they haven't done yet or posted up....:/. It's the only copy and paste of all the interviews....I'll look elsewhere. I'm convinced but I'm still looking for a source.Playsfair234 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I found an interview with Sam McMillen which states that there was a Blind U Turn on that leg, only problem is that he doesn't know who used it or received it, likely because the team using the Blind U-Turn was actually behind the team receiving it. I've included a link to that article, hope this is enough.... Tahna Los (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Penalty on Leg 6

I have twice removed text that explained Mika & Canaan would have been subjected to a 2-hour penalty for failing to complete the Leap of Faith task, but were not assessed the penalty since they came in last. I do not recall the program explicitly stating this, and I did a search for a post-Race interview that might have mentioned this, but found none. Unless a WP:RS is found stating that they would have been subject to a penalty, it's WP:SPECULATION and doesn't belong. As always, I'm open to correction. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: [3], [4] KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to The Amazing Race 1 article, one team skipped a detour and were issued with a 24hour penalty. On the Brazil version one team was faced with disqualification. With this being said I would think 2 hours is rather tame. I think they probably would of been ejected from the race or told to complete the roadblock if there were teams behind them before they could check in. As a team refusing to complete a roadblock hasn't occured in ages. It's hard to say what the penalty would be. But it's brutally obvious it wouldn't be 2 hours. Of course this is just speculation on my part 82.15.9.117 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the main article on The Amazing Race - and it has already occurred once this season - that a team not able to complete a task that is outside of a Roadblock and a Detour is 2 hours. The Roadblock is WELL KNOWN as a 4-hour penalty by ALL verisons of the race, the most recent being the 3rd Asian edition which was just a year ago, and anything that is 2+ hours is a harsh penalty, it seriously puts you very far behind in any race. Someone quitting a Detour is a 24 hour penalty (because it is TWO tasks they're skipping and not ONE) but hasn't occured since Season 1. Ejection of the race would be very harsh for ONE little task like that. However something like that should be noted, but not as a missed penalty, because one was never said, another racer in Season 10 knew they were in last and quit the Roadblock to go to the Pit Stop. Playsfair234 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the same issue for Note 7 as quitting a Detour is a 24-hour penalty but we can't clarify that at all as they never took the penalty and again wasn't issued on air. On the same note, Maria & Tiffany decided to quit the Race and not just the task, it was for the reason they couldn't do they task. Phil never eliminated them because they decided to quit. Playsfair234 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do note that unlike the above case, we do have Tiffany stating in her blog that they were eliminated after quitting the detour, incurring the 24hr penalty. We do not have this confirmation from Mika/Canaan. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad :P, didn't see any reference and just went with what was aired. Playsfair234 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh Some spilleded the beans

But is it true? What is the source of the information of the results of the remainder of the race?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.100.64 (talk • contribs) 2009-11-08

EDIT: Someone deleted it. But what could have been the source I wonder....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.100.64 (talk • contribs) 2009-11-08

My guess is you're referring to this edit. It's entirely possible that it's vandalism based on who someone wants to win. It's happened many times before. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into it. Quite a few people did it with The Amazing Race 14 whilst it was airing. If anything as KuyaBriBri mentioned it's just vandals with wishful thinking on their minds 82.15.9.117 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rail travel on Leg 8

Not sure why the rail travel icon is warranted for the trip from Stockholm Arlanda Airport to the Stockholm city center. My understanding is the air/rail/bus/water travel icons are to identify travel from one major task location or city to another, not from a city's airport located away from the city center—as many major cities' airports are—to the city center as was the case on Leg 8. There were no clues at either end of the train ride either. As far as I can tell, the Arlanda Express in this leg is a mandated mode of transportation from the airport, just as with driving, taking a taxi, or some other public transit. Thoughts? KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason Stockholm metropolitan area has four airports. Arlanda is the busiest and located near the town of Märsta, 23 miles (37 km) north of Stockholm and nearly 25 miles (40 km) from Uppsala. The airport is Stockholm's primary air transportation since 1959 replacing Stockholm-Bromma Airport for commercial travels. The other airports in Stockholm area are Bromma, Skavsta and Västerås usually operates charter and low-cost flights. Stockholm-Västerås Airport is actually located in Västerås, 68 miles (109 km) west of the city. Greater London has nine opened airports than Stockholm. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

KuyaBriBri, Got your point and will no longer update that particular entry. Dinispachadoro —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

US/CAD Ratings references

Last month, I left a "unreferenced-section" tag for that section, yet none of the contributing editors for the ratings provided proper inline citations and references for those figures. That's not acceptable per WP:RS as said contributing editors carry the burden of evidence for those details. Feel free to restore that section after the proper citations and refernces have been added to the section. --Madchester (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for Leg 11

I do not believe there should be a note for this, since previous penalties like this were not mentioned (Season 7), nor the fact that notes included sending teams to the Pit Stop. I haven't edited this because I figured an edit war would ensue. Should there be a note because it occured during the leg. Normally notes are there if there is a penalty at the mat. I'm not saying we should erase it. Just wanted to know why is it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsfair234 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the note about the penalty should remain, as it does for TAR 7 Leg 3. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is another issue, though it's a small one. As Brian & Ericka reached the mat, Phil announced to them, "You are the third team to arrive..." What would normally follow is an announcement that the team reaching the mat has incurred a penalty of some sort. There was an obvious spot where there was an edit, and then the team is seen jumping for joy for finishing in the Final Three. During the Detour, Brian & Ericka took a cab from where they dropped the mugs of beer to the brewery. Normally the team would incur a 30-minute penalty for this kind of infraction. Did they indeed incur the penalty? It wouldn't affect the standings as the Globetrotters were still at the Roadblock counting down their 4-hour penalty. Ed (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed and thought the same thing, but we can't add speculation to the article. Also due to editing we don't really know if B&E's arrival at the mat came before or after FT&BE's penalty time elapsed. I suggest waiting a week until Brian and Ericka do post-Race interviews and see if anything turns up. KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm, but not reliably (though a co-forum poster that is friends with Meagen/Cheyan that watched with them yesterday) that B/E did get a penalty for writing down the letters while in the phone room - a specific no-no per the RB rules. But we can't source it - maybe one of the GT interviews will include it or it will be mentioned after next week w/ interviews, but without a sourced cause, we can't say anythin. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do know that whatever penalty time B&E might have served elapsed before the Globetrotters reached the Detour, as the Kryocentrum route marker told them to proceed directly to the Pit Stop. They wouldn't do that unless a team has been indisputably eliminated. Samer (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per wikipedia standards, we cannot put it down unless there is a source. Therefore though we may think we know what happened, we cannot put it down. (a web source if you will unless it is explicit on TV), I have to agree with Masem with this one.Playsfair234 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolding 1st place finishers

Is there a reason for not highlighting the winners of the individual legs (e.g., 1st instead of 1st)? It would certainly make things easier to see. Samer (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The way you see now is the way Wikipedia has always done the results table and I see no reason why it should change, the results table is clear and easy to see for anyone wanting to view 82.15.9.117 (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of easy. It's a question of easier. And just because something's always been done that way doesn't mean that's the best way of doing it. Tell me: in which row is it easier to see which legs the team won? Samer (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Team	Relationship	Position (by leg)													Roadblocks Performed1
		1	2	3	4ƒ	5	6ƒ	7	8ƒ	9	10ƒ	11	12	13
Rob & Brennan	Lawyers / Best Friends	1stƒ	3rd	3rd	6th	4th	3rd	3rd	3rd	1st	1st	2nd	1st	1st	Rob 5, Brennan 7
Rob & Brennan	Lawyers / Best Friends	1stƒ	3rd	3rd	6th	4th	3rd	3rd	3rd	1st	1st	2nd	1st	1st	Rob 5, Brennan 7

No difference besides the bold looking more obnoxious. Other people may think differently. 82.15.9.117 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks horrible it seems, besides it just looks more arrogant to do it that way. Stick to what's been going on for the last 14 seasons. Look at other results tables, especially Survivor. I don't ever see those winners being bolded out.....Playsfair234 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race General introduction

Other Seasons of the Amazing Race have not had the winners listed in the opening article because it simply isn't needed, this appears to be a general opinion because Seasons 1 to 14 haven't had this treatment. Because we have an area for the winners this just makes the article seem less professional in general. What are other peoples opinions? I am looking into WP:DR as I believe we need a proper active discussion on this issue as it affects 15 seasons worth of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.9.117 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The other seasons should also have more information added to the lead. You are absolutely wrong that is is not needed. By that philosphy, there should not be any lead at all because it is all redundant to the information later in the article. In fact, a good lead should have no information that is no included elsewhere. Have you even read WP:LEAD? The point of the article's opening is to be a summary of all information in the article. Yes, there is a section that lists the winners of each leg of the race, but that should be summarized in the lead by giving the winning team. What really looks less professional is a summary that doesn't summarize. All fifteen of the season articles need to have their leads expanded to thoroughly cover what happened in each season. And in absolutely no way is anyone abusing their rights by warning you about edit warring. Reywas92^Talk 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone last month tried to erase an entire section without properly talking this through and she has since been barred from making edits for 30 days on TAR 15 article. This should be talked through as this is out of the ordinary from normal writing leads of every TAR article done to date.

With that said, I believe Reywas was right in noting who the winners are in the lead, even though I myself reverted an edit of his/hers. But was wrong into heading a edit war without going to here first and talking about why you were making the edit. As noticed, most of the topics here was to discuss whatever such things should be in the article and/or included in it. This is what makes editors get banned from certain articles. I believe that the winners should be mentioned even though it is already fore-mentioned (either directly or indirectly) at 3 other locations in the article (from the top of the page on the right to the results table or indirectly saying so in the Elimination Station portion.) If we look at pages such as the American Idol pages, Biggest Loser, Survivor and even the cartoon ones in "Total Drama" series on Cartoon Network, they mention the winners in the leads. So I agree in mentioning the winners in the lead. Playsfair234 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be included per WP:LEAD. Syjytg (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Get off your high horse about WP:LEAD etc etc etc - how about NOT adding the winner in the opening paragraph out of courtesy to those people who don't happen to live in the United States of America, and haven't seen the final episode yet, but might want to look up how details on the race and check, for example, the number of episodes without getting the ending spoiled ????? This has worked perfectly on previous series until some of you idiots started screwing around with it. --124.169.155.232 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:SPOILER and the general disclaimers. You read info here at your own risk of knowledge. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And so how about pretty much every other Amazing Race season article that HASN'T mentioned the winner in the opening paragraph??? The winner is mentioned further down in the article anyway, so this has NOTHING to do with the knowledge content of the article or WP:SPOILER. And there is nothing in WP:LEAD that even hints at having to mention the winner of a reality television program in the lead section. As I say - how about some consideration for other viewers from other countries, at least for a couple of weeks until it's been shown around the world? --124.169.155.232 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1. If you're playing the "how come the other Race articles don't have it" argument... reviewing each season's edit history, you'll find the race winners were mentioned for some time. But per WP:LEAD, information as important as the season winners never should have been removed by other editors in the first place.
2. WP:SPOILER states It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. We don't hold off on edits until an episode airs on the West Coast - once it's been aired in the Eastern time zone it's public knowledge. That logic extends to viewers who watch a show outside of the original broadcasting country, on reruns/syndication/DVD/DVR, etc - we can't constantly "hold back" on edits to let them catch up on the plot! --Madchester (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's please use some common sense here. If you are a foreigner or anyone else who has not actually watched the final episode yet, do not even go to the article! Our job is not to protect you from what happens in the the show that you don't want to know! Sure, the other articles don't list the winners in the lead, but they SHOULD. All fifteen articles are of very low quality, and one way to improve them is to have thorough leads that summarize the entire article, including the winners. Reywas92^Talk 03:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But per WP:LEAD, information as important as the season winners never should have been removed by other editors in the first place. - in your opinion, that is. Clearly not the opinion of the editors who removed them. WP:LEAD does not dictate this information be included in the lead - it means nothing to someone unless they have a high familiarity with the season anyway. And as to your WP:SPOILER quotes, the information is still in the article. It hasn't been removed - only from one place. That's all I'm asking. --203.36.183.50 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Heck, it's still in the infobox on the right! You obviously still don't understand that the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the entire article, even if it's also elsewhere. WP:LEAD does not go into detail about every possible topic - no duh it doesn't directly dictate that. But it does dictate that it "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and "summarize the most important points". Without the winners, it cannot stand alone as an overview, and the winners are clearly one of the most important points. Reywas92^Talk 03:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are episodes readily available on youtube etc., so your argument on being spoiled is not really a good one. Syjytg (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I went to the article to confirm I was looking for Season 15 and not an earlier season, as I live outside the US. So "don't look at it" is a poor justification. The result was spoiled for me by the lead. HamishMoffatt (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Discussion on the 'spoiler lead'

Okay, so firstly the argument seems to be that we should include the sentence 'Dating couple Meghan & Cheyne were the winners of the Race' at the end of the lead, as the lead acts as a summary of the most important points. Why then were the details of the winners relegated to the side bar for all The Amazing Race pages for years (I've been looking at these pages for a long time and I can't remember it ever being convention to spoil the winners in the lead)?

But unlike Survivor, where strategy and alliances are talked about in detail in the article, the focus of the article in all of the The Amazing Race articles, the body barely gives mention of the winner. In fact, the article barely talks about the content of the race at all. How then, is plonking the winners in a blatant, poorly thought-out one-sentence spoiler a 'summary' of the important points in the article?

The winners of the race are barely an emphasis of the article, which means it is barely an important point, so it does not need to be mentioned in the lead, where the main points of the article should be summarised.

Now what does the main focus of the article seem to be about?

• The production of the race, including the casting, development and filming
• The countries and the locations visited
• The eliminated racers - do you notice how Garrett is mentioned as actually saying something (about six or seven times), whereas besides from being mentioned on a table and in passing reference, the winning racers don't seem to have any mention of doing anything in the race?

Look, even all of the text on the notes for the results doesn't even give the winners a mention!

If the emphasis on the winners of the race consists of from filling out a template at the top and an insertion into a table, I doubt it's really an emphasis of the article at all. These shouts of WP:LEAD seem to be unsubstantiated as no-one really explains how this is an emphasis of the article.

Now these policies that all these editors seem to be jumping on also seem to advocate a notion of using common sense.

This written line that everyone is so eager to insert for every article is so out of place, redundant, unnecessary and achieves only one purpose: to spoil the outcome of the race to those who accidentally stumbled across this page without enough time to escape.

Every other article that spoils like this does not include a one-line spoiler line at the end of the lead, and I think this part is poorly written. Every article mentions the winner in the body of a text describing the events of the season, where the outcome is not completely, blatantly obvious for those who accidentally stumble across a page.

You can escape the Big Brother 10 page quickly when a casual web browser may realise, 'hey, maybe the season might be spoiled on this page' when they look at the dates. But when the brain scans a page, and there is such a blatant, separate sentence as the spoiler-sentence on every Amazing Race page, once it recognises a team name it goes straight for it and bam - spoiler.

It's more sheltered on the right side of the page, where the information used to belong. Exercise some common sense, people! Not all people who read Wikipedia are Americans, or people who watch illegal, copyright-infringing pirated programs on the internet because it's uh... illegal. Wikipedia is a global information source, and we should at least be tasteful about the way we deliver spoilers.

Also, Snape kills Dumbledore.

Not a blatant sentence like that sticking out in the middle of a page to the woe of any casual browsers. If it's on the right, where it's a less significant detail like it seems to be treated as in the article, all of the important information still stays in the lead.

If you really must be this stubborn to keep this redundant, insignificant-to-the-article spoiler on the top of the page, include some information that seems to be significant or relevant to the article. For example, put some notes about casting (which actually get a mention in the body of the text), some notes about interesting locations (which actually get a mention in the body of the text) along with the mention of the winners (which uh... don't seem to very significant at all throughout the course of the article).

It's been asserted that the winners are an important part of the article but I don't see where it is. I'd like a removal of the information, rewrite of the lead or at least some discussion about these points. Hoogiman (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Actually, the winners details were in the lead for sometime across multiple Race articles - but they were discreetly removed them from the lead over time. There was no "fuss" when the winners details were originally added, so it's a bit odd why they're causing a fuss now...especially with
2. WP:SPOILER - we don't withold information from the sake of the reader not wanting to know a result; while WP:LEDE states that we highlight the most important details to the reader. i.e., the 2006 World Cup article lists the winner in the lede... even though it's present in the infobox... and much further down in the Finals section of the article. --Madchester (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read my first post. The winners are barely an emphasis of the article at all - the lead is there to emphasise the main points of the article. How important is Meghan & Cheyne winning to the article? They barely get a reference in the article itself. The info is already on the right, there doesn't need to be this summary. It's redundant.

My main argument is common sense. The spoilers listed are blatant and can't be avoided by those not up to date. Including these details in the leads in this form does not improve these articles in anyway, the winner details are available on the right and all this does is to make it impossible for anyone who accidentally stumbles across this page not to be spoiled.

Does giving an opportunity for someone who could be spoiled to exit the page make wikipedia more enjoyable for all involved? All decisions should be made to improve the site, and I'd say this move does more harm than not.

Also, the world cup winner is a main point in the article itself, and it includes a several-paragraph-long description of the final. The winner of The Amazing Race is not a main point of this article, it's treated as a little fact. Garret seems to be a much more prominent figure in this article and he was second out. If the lead mentions the winners, the winner's victory or some reference to their racing or something actually including them should be in the article.

That is what is prominent in Big Brother, Survivor and any other . In other articles (of reality tv competitions), it does not just state the winners in the lead and nothing else. The lead is a prelude or an overview, of the article.

Does stating a redundant fact give an overview to anything in this article?! No, because the winners have no mention in the body itself, besides from of course the table and the sidebar. Do we really need the same fact to be stated again?

Now please actually respond to the issues raised instead of giving some blanket response. Ignoring big chunks of what I've said is not really discussion.

Additionally, I'd like to see some proof of the winner details being in the articles' leads for sometime as you state, as I've been visiting these Amazing Race articles for more than four years now, and never have I seen such a spoiler in the introduction until as of yesterday. Hoogiman (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You just recognized the solution to your own problem...i.e., take this as an opportunity to expand the lead sections to the Race articles. Re-incorporating the winners details is just the first step in that process. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why this, irrelevant, redundant, phrase which only serves a purpose to spoil the Wikipedia experience is so important that it must be included in the lead for every article, yet you seem to be so quick to edit it back. I'm challenging the reasoning behind this alleged 'consensus' on the lead and none of my comments so far have generated any proper discussion.Ignoring big chunks of what I've said is not really discussion. Hoogiman (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a debate per se; other parties involved in a discussion don't need to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your comments.Your main concern is that the winners details "stands out" too much - but per WP:SPOILER and WP:LEDE we don't withold information from the reader - especially not in the lead, which acts as an article summary. That may be acceptable in a TV guide/preview...where the intro only whets the appetite of the reader, but not in an encyclopedia. Wiki caters to all readers whether they have or haven't seen the series.... and our content disclaimer (which covers WP:SPOILER) explicitly states that it may content that some readers may find objectionable. --Madchester (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

U-turns on Leg 3 and Leg 8

I previously put an article up that stated that there was a blind U-turn at Leg 3 and that it was used but no information was given on who used it and on whom. Someone has edited the table to say it was Lance and Keri who used it on Meghan and Cheyne. Someone also later modified the table to indicate a U-turn at leg 8. There is no information that I know of that states a U-turn did exist at the Stockholm leg. Can someone confirm? Tahna Los (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I know this probably isn't enough "evidence" for including it in the article, but I've deduced which leg had the second U-Turn.
  • Leg 1: No Detour
  • Leg 2: No Detour
  • Leg 3: First U-Turn
  • Leg 4: Too close to first U-Turn
  • Leg 5: Detour comes last (The U-Turn always occurs on a leg where the Detour is first)
  • Leg 6: Detour comes last
  • Leg 7: Detour comes last
  • Leg 8: Clue after Detour sends teams too far for there to be a fair U-Turn.
  • Leg 9: Detour comes last
  • Leg 10: Second U-Turn
  • Leg 11: Detour comes last

174.1.48.24 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Stop Adding the U-Turn on the Sweden leg without sources. Teams were seen reading a clue AT the Detour directing them to the farm, which is too far away to have a fair U-Turn174.1.48.24 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Leg 1 Starting line placements

I do not know why someone refuses to put the first coluum placements, but this made me confused (not anymore.) here is the part that the coluum works.

Team Name	Relationship	Leg 1 (1)	Leg 1 (2)
Megane & Cheyne	Dating	3rd	1st
Sam & Dan	Brothers	7th	9th
Brian & Ericka	Married	10th	6th
Flight Time & Big Easy	Harlem Globetrotters	4th	5th
Gary & Matt	Father / Son	5th	7th
Maria & Tifanny	Professional Poker Players	1st	11th 3
Mika & Cannan	Newly Dating	8th	10th 2
Lance & Keri	Engaged	11th	3rd
Zev & Justin	Best Friends	6th	2nd
Marcy & Ron	Dating	2nd	4th
Garreth & Jessica	Dating On and Off	9th	8th
Eric & Lisa	Married Yoga Teachers	12th 1

I think this would not use that templete, but however this would not be confused between Leg 1 SL and PT. (Singaporeandy (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

Final Leg got roadblock again?

Many viewers and i found that the last leg challenge (the monte carlo) show that the counting chips challenge could be confused by the viewers on the world. i thing it is an major error to show viewers on the part about the final scene. it would be nice to put up the note here. (Singaporeandy (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Extra episode - "I Don't Like Herding Around Animals"

So, where is the info come from? I think there is no source for the episode and had only 11 episodes, plus a two-hour first episode. Don't alter it. ApprenticeFan ^work 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. After extra searching of the CBS website I found no evidence of the existence of such an episode. Please do not re-add without citing a reliable source. And do not place hidden text stating "Do not remove" on the article unless that text reflects consensus gained on this talk page or other appropriate discussion page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Race 18 Results

Since the Amazing Race 18 is yet to air in most other countries in the world, PLEASE stop writing the results of that race on this page. It is not relevant to the information on this page. If people want to see the results of that race they can visit that page. We did not write race results for All-Stars on season 1-10's pages. Saying they competed in Unfinished Business with a link to that series is fine. 93.96.23.89 (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See response at Talk:The Amazing Race 17 and please post any response there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Amazing Race 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Leg 3 U-Turn

Don't you guys think it's much better if we don't include the part that says Sam & Dan were U-Turned, and only put the part that says Lance & Keri used it? Since Sam & Dan weren't affected, it shouldn't be placed in the table. Even with the superscript, its confusing whether they were actually affected. I'm gonna remove it for now, since that's what it is on the other The Amazing Race pages. Albertdaniel222 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Amazing Race 15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120420080831/http://www.cbs.com:80/primetime/amazing_race/cast/18/zev-and-justin/ to http://www.cbs.com/primetime/amazing_race/cast/18/zev-and-justin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090903221830/http://www.cbs.com/info/schedule/index.php to http://www.cbs.com/info/schedule/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)