Talk:The Amazing Race 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Amazing Race 11 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Airing date 2 Confirmed 3 All star speculation 4 First country to visit for TAR 11: Ecuador 5 Title 6 Pre-planning new article content 7 Amazing Race: All Stars 8 What commercial? 9 SPOILERS:FInal 5 10 Future contestants 11 Filming dates 12 Team press release due on the 1/16 13 Table of Contents 14 New Flags 15 Fan reaction section 16 Trivia section - Previous race statistics 16.1 Previous appearance statistics 17 Team names 18 "First to lack X" 19 Straw Polls on new countries trivia 20 Interesting: Final Season? 21 Info Box 22 Ontario? 23 Possible future locations 24 Same Placings 25 Suggestion for those editing the episode as it goes along 26 Accurate Finish Order 27 Preview for Leg 6 28 Uchenna & Joyce Being marked for elimination 29 Pre emptive editing 30 No. of episodes

[edit] Airing date

I may be wrong, but CBS has only bought the rights to air Season 10 in their fall schedule. CBS is not obligated to air Season 11. Someone may have a source verifying this piece of infromation. --Madchester 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. When I reverted it I said if anything it would be Fall 06'. I was thinking I was reverting TAR 10, otherwise ???sox would have been just about right, even though it's not definate Why would they drop TAR. They have gone through 9 seasons. It's brought them pretty good ratings, so why drop it now.? And now that I think of it, why would CBS.com have TAR 11 aplications if they have no intent of showing the actual race. Also, where did you find out this broadcasting rights up to TAR 10, I would really like to see it.TeckWiz 00:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe CBS has only bought the rights to air the next season of the show for the time being. TAR is confirmed for its fall lineup. Even though TAR 11 is in production, I don't believe that it's been officially picked up by CBS yet. May have to wait a few months to see if CBS adds it to its winter or spring schedule.

Networks have in the past shown committment to pick up a show, but may not end up doing so. That new Aquaman TV series is a good example; a pilot has already been created and the show was expected to be picked up by The CW to compliment Smallville in it's lineup. But The CW backed out last minute and right now the show is looking for a taker on another cable network. The pilot teaser has making the rounds on various websites for the past week or so. --Madchester 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed

An anon confirmed that this race is happening. However, there was no source so I took it out. I left a message on his/her talk page asking him for a source. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All star speculation

Again, I would wait until multiple sources confirm this format. TVGasm is a blog, and not the most reliable source of information per WP:RS. --Madchester 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree to wait to add All Star stuff until we have a more firm source of confirmation outside a blog (CBS or WRP would be best), but there are more rumblings at TWOP about who has definitely not racing in the All Star, which seems to suggest that there is something and they weren't invited or didn't want to participate.Masem 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm not sure about All Star, lets have another look on this report on realitytvworld [1] And the source is depend other to ensure it is reliable. --Aleenf1 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There's some more "rumor-confirmed" reports from past racers (w/ blog references, natch) that All Stars is happening, with 4 teams "confirmed" from information provided already. I'm thinking we are at a point that we can say this race is factually been rumored to be an All-Star race from reports from past teams, but provide no details beyond this (that is, until CBS/WRP confirm that TAR11 is an All-star, at which point we refocuse the scope of the article) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masem (talk • contribs).

The posts by Chip and ClownAl on Return of the Racers pretty much blabs about TAR11 being All-Star, so I think we can move that from rumor to fact. However, the race list is not yet known and shouldn't be added until we get CBS confirmation. (The list I've seen based on Andrew/TAR3 doesn't include CHip/Kim or Tyler/BJ, so it's still very iffy. Masem 05:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that Al even goes as far as to say if All-Stars is a rumor to tell him. Return of the Racers isn't CBS. It's a blog of former racers that have no info on whats happening in the race except whats aired on TV. For all we know, they could tell people not to blog on RotR to make us think they are running all stars. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First country to visit for TAR 11: Ecuador

Although this season will be an All-Star edition, there's a confirmation that the 1st country that visited for TAR 11 is on Ecuador (in Quito) and the starting point is on Miami, Florida and they'd started the race since Nov. 20, 2006.

And here's a source via reality fan forum: http://forum.realityfanforum.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=b0945609f05e9263b19ee87484b04392&topic=8579.300

A forum usually isn't considered a reliable source. Please don't blank people's comments. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 02:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The producer bill it as "The Amazing Race: All-Stars", should we move it? --Aleenf1 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. We could make it a redirect to this page though. You should always wait. You never know. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 12:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd go by what was done for Family Editing - the real page is Amazing Race 8, but the 'official' title is noted for reference purposes, and "Amazing Race: Family Edition" redirects to the numerical page. --Masem 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. ON CBS.com, it's still referred to as TAR8, but there's the whole sub-title going on too. --Madchester 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we can expect people to call it All Stars, I have made The Amazing Race: All Stars and The Amazing Race All Stars (note colon) redirects to TAR 11. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-planning new article content

As this is the first time on the Race that every participant has been on prevously, there are some things we will probably add to the content of the article that will differ from previous seasons; at the very least, we should link to each team's previous season.

We also may want to note such things as the placement they achieved in that season, and perhaps a summary of their performance or racing style. Should we make a separate section for all these points? Should some basic things (like previous season) be in the results table? Any thoughts would be helpful. Radagast 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a summary is too much (as it's subject to opinion). I think by adding one column to the existing table, with race and placement in that race, with any footnotes on changes as necessary (e.g. one rumor has a racer and his/her SO racing but not the original partner), should be sufficient.

By 'summary' I was thinking of listing other hard facts of their performance: average leg-by-leg placement, how they used or were affected by Yields, number of times they survived by coming last in non-elimination, Roadblock mix by partner, etc. I agree that racing 'style' is not so quantifiable, and should not appear. Radagast 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've crunched the numbers and put up a stats table. Comments? Radagast 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the number-crunching. It's original research. Unless similar statistics have been published in a reputable source, it's simply fancruft. --Madchester 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing here (I've removed the table already) - save for average placement (which I've always found to be a questionable statistic), all the other information can be obtained by following the Season links and looking there. --Masem 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. It's a half-hour's work I have to say goodbye to, but I see the arguments and will stand by the consensus. Radagast 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Race: All Stars

The scenes during the credits of TAR10 confirmed the next AR in February 2007 will be All Stars. Could someone fix the article and it's title please? 24.92.43.153 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What commercial?

I never saw one after the finale of The Amazing Race 10. (watched on CBS)

Given what I saw on message boards, those on the east coast with football overrun did not see this commercial; it definitely aired on the west coast and other parts of the country on a normal airing schedule. I'm hoping someone youtube's it (for reference). However, the commercial, while saying that it is all stars, they show so many teams (more than 12) with ones we know can't be racing, and the spokeman said the racer list is secret anyway. But it did confirm the Feb07 airing. --Masem 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And as expected, patience is a virtual. Ad found and linked in from YouTube --Masem 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPOILERS:FInal 5

This board seems to have photo evidence of the final 5 teams. Dont know if it should be added here http://p085.ezboard.com/fsurvivorsucksfrm23.showMessage?topicID=7459.topic

[edit] Future contestants

I know Wikipedia is not a rumour mill, but should the names of the teams spotted so far be put somewhere on the page or do we wait until they are comfirmed on screen. the teams in the spoilers could be decoys?????? but at this stage!--Irishboi 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the reasoning to hold off is that we do not have a strong confirmation on all 12 teams racing. While we could put up a partial list, people will be wanting to add in the missing gaps with unverified spoiler info as it could easily be decoy teams. We'll likley have a full list within a month from CBS direct , which begs no question of who's racing or not. --Masem 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CBS will probably have an official site and/or press release within the next month, considering the show premieres in Feb. 2007. No need to add speculation and filling in the gaps based on personal guesses or assumptions.

I'd also suggest using more reliable sources when these photos are republished in another source. --Madchester 07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filming dates

I'm sensing how to someone so sure about filming dates ended while CBS doesn't officialy released the date racers racing. Anyone can explain or any source can as evidence? --Aleenf1 03:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team press release due on the 1/16

I think tracking this page just got a bunch easier... --Masem 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:( :(-I go back to school on 1/16 (we have off on 1/15 for Martin Luther King Day. I won't even be near the computer when they set up the site and announce it. At least the unsourced team lists will stop. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

-How did you find out that the team press release would be released on 16th January 2007? And have there been anything confirming that the season premiere would be on 18th February like on the Wiki article? 121.6.38.39 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

CBS press release (which I can't find directly on the web, but the user of this TWOP post likely works at a wire service or the like. This tiny blurb shouldn't need to be in the article, as by Tuesday we'll know all the real details for sure. --Masem 06:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The photo that I put up earlier was by the Early Show, who would have to had verification from CBS or WRP in order to show the picture; hence surely it falls under the correct guidelines? (unsigned post by 212.56.102.74)

The photo is so blurry that you have to guess at some teams. I know the spoilers, so yes, I can figure out who is who, but the photo without knowing the list is just a bunch of blurry teams and is not verifiable. The full list will be out tomorrow. --Masem 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And thank goodness Aleenf1 found that photo, no more deleting team lists, yay! Hopefully CBS will have relationships tomorrow --Masem 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it should be satisfied. Cheers! --Aleenf1 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did some hunting around and found the Official Amazing Race All-Stars website. Blipadouzi 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Contents

A table of contents should be added as the article is already starting to get fairly detailed. I would do it, though I don't know how. Blipadouzi 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any idea to fix the table not wide like currently? My idea is to replace the "previous appearance" and "previous result" with quote mark and note below the table, is that OK? --Aleenf1 02:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Flags

If you look at the glossary on the TAR 11 site, it shows a new design for the route markers. It may just be an example, or they may be a change in the look. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 01:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that Season 1 route markers? --Aleenf1 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i think so, they just reused them from Seasons - the Yield description says there is a YIELD on every leg of the race, the exact same description from Season 5, but now not at all the truth. The flag will most likely still be red and yellow. Survivorfan101 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan reaction section

I noticed that an anon posted a "fan reaction" section. Is this necessary? That is because such early comments come too early! This new Race hasn't even started yet. - 上村七美 | talk 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section - Previous race statistics

I am creating this article as a place to discuss whether or not the following should be included or not:

[edit] Previous appearance statistics

Team	Final placement	Average leg-by-leg placement	Legs completed	Non-elimination leg(s) in last place	Fast Forward used?	Yield effect?	Roadblock balance
Kevin & Drew	4th (of 11)	3.1	11/13	None	Leg 3	N/A	Kevin 5, Drew 4
Joe & Bill	3rd (of 11)	2.77	12/13†	Legs 10, 12	Leg 9	N/A	Joe 6, Bill 4
Oswald & Danny	4th (of 11)	4	11/13	Leg 10	Leg 4	N/A	Oswald 5, Danny 3
John Vito & Jill	5th (of 12)	4.8	10/13	Leg 8	Leg 9	N/A	John Vito 4, Jill 3
Teri & Ian	2nd (of 12)	4.46	13/13	None	Leg 6	N/A	Teri 2, Ian 8
Charla & Mirna	6th (of 11)	3.71	7/13	None	No	None	Charla 4, Mirna 2
Uchenna & Joyce	1st (of 11)	3.17	12/12	Leg 11	Leg 8	None	Uchenna 6, Joyce 5‡
Rob & Amber	2nd (of 11)	2.42	12/12	None	No	Used Yield power (leg 10)	Rob 6, Amber 6‡
Eric & Danielle	2nd/8th (of 11)	1.75/8.25	12/12 / 4/12	None/None	Leg 6/No	None/Yielded once (leg 4)	Eric 6 (of 11), Danielle 1 (of 4)‡
David & Mary	6th (of 12)	6.13	8/12	Legs 5, 7	Leg 6	None	David 4, Mary 2‡
Dustin & Kandice	4th (of 12)	3.27	11/12	Leg 10	No	Used Yield power (leg 10)	Dustin 6, Kandice 5‡

† Joe and Bill began, but did not finish, the final leg of their Race.

‡ These teams' Races had a Roadblock-balancing rule in effect, limiting the number of Roadblocks one team member could attempt.

---

User:Radagast added the above text to the Trivia section...not long after User:Masem removed the text stating "Table too much , can get info by going back to previous race pages (linked in on teams table"

Personally, I like the table. I think it adds character & reasonable information, and seeing as it is in the Trivia section, it is quite relevant to the page. Also, it prevents internet users from having to surf to 10 different pages to collect the information for these few racers.

So rather than add it back, and then have someone else remove it, and add it in again...let's discuss it.Blipadouzi 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out that even though it compiles this information (except for the Average Finish), all that information already exists elsewhere by simply clinking links. Much of it is of little benefit for understanding TAR All-Stars from the standpoint of Wikipedia. I can totally get into the preponderance of stats that exist to estimate how a team does and the like, as a fan of the show, but that's excessive information for this article, and as stated before, fanwankery. From someone that has never seen TAR and wants an idea of what the teams are, the current table on the page has enough to get started (names, relations, season and placement in that season) to understand the teams span the whole of the TAR seasons, and include people that placed all over the board in finishes; more information is also available but the reader is not swamped with it all at once. But something like if a team used a yield or how the roadblock split happened really doesn't help this purpose. Given that the individual TAR pages are already edging on being large pages >32kb, I'd think any effort to remove trivia (especially that that can be found elsewhere on WP) is helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masem (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I did not agree to put this table, for reason:

1. Final placement already shown, no reason to repeat.
2. I do not agree the average placing, for example, Kevin & Drew finish fourth, 3.1 average, but did not change the fact they is fourth overall
3. The final placement already told how much legs they completed (can can think at least).
4. Fast Forward usage decrease to just 2 since Season 5, not all able to use, also Yield is only use since Season 5, so no need.
5. We are looking to this Season challenge, so why noted the previous challenge.

--Aleenf1 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team names

"Romber" and "Mira & Shmirna should not be included as team names.

"Romber" was never used in TAR...maybe on user websites and so forth, but never in the actual show.

"Mira & Shmirna" was a derogatory name...if you include it, then you have to include "The Old People" for Ian & Teri, which is totally in appropriate. Blipadouzi 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree "M&S" was derogatory (given by Lance and MArshall), and "Romber" is fan-based, but so is "Frats" (the 4 other names were either self-named, as Guidos, or names that other teams used regularly in the show). However, the names are consistent with other seasons, and given that people are still trying to go back and add in "Barbies" for the BQs (which is derogatory), and other fan-made names, I think as long as the seasons are consistent, the names are fine, though we should consider the names used in all seasons to be consistent. --Masem 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then for encyclopedic reasons...is there a wait of adding the names in, but indicating somehow that they are not official team names (like a footnote or something). If we do that, then I'd see no problem with them being included.Blipadouzi 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dustin and Kandice weren't called the Blondies, but the Blonds, and I have no problem with names being included unless it was all fan based, BQ were called Barbies by Peter and Sarah. banana 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take. We get rid of the team nicknames instead and see if the show actually comes up with new ones for them. What does everyone think? --Destron Commander 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly...the only thing about previous shows that should be posted, is the fact that these teams have raced previously...otherwise, this is a whole new season with completely new rules. We are to expect the unexpected.Blipadouzi 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider, I've always found the use of nicknames in articles rather excessive, unless the show explicitly displayed such a nickname (ie. Guidos, Grannies), or if the nickname's vague and isn't implied by a team's appearance, name, or relationship (ie. Chas, teams nicknamed after their home state). The season 9 article is a particular offender in this manner. It's also particularly jarring to have them in the "relationship" column. I'm just wondering if anyone agrees. 24.80.24.99 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "First to lack X"

I'd be careful about that type of trivia. "First to have X" makes sense, eg first mother/son team, first all-asian team, etc. are fine. But the current "First to not have a parent/child" combo, while perfectly valid, could lead to a lot of trivia creep. For example, it's the first season to lack an alpha male team, or any engaged couple. Sure, if it's something that has always been there because the rules stated it had to be there and then removed (like our precious Fast Forwards on every leg), that's notable, but I'm wary of adding that level of trivia. (And this applies to all TAR seasons, not just all-stars). --Masem 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Polls on new countries trivia

I'm found that the new countries trivia is wrote in every seasons of TAR except the first one in general trivia. First, I'm opposing this kind of trivia because TAR can visit any country, so it should be not noted. Second, to keep the fresh of the show, the producer must choose the new country to make the show, instead of visit the same country for several times (except US as hometown). --Aleenf1 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the discussion whether the new countries trivia should be noted down in every seasons, either oppose (deduct) or support (note down), or give the comments below,

Support

Most of the time it's not a long list. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 14:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TeckWiz about this. It's not a long list and is worth noting. If the countries are listed, it will be a better way to know the new ones. I disagree with Masem because I do not see why anyone would want to go through the entire map and pick out the ones shaded for each country. That's tiring and can hurt someone's eyes! Just keep it as a trivia on each season's page! --UWAFanatic05 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

It's excessive. The pages are already trivia heavy and while it takes a bit of work, it can be deduced which countries are new. A better way to do it is to modify the "countries" visited map on the main tar page to add in the season of first visit (or the seasons when visited, period). --Masem 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

[edit] Interesting: Final Season?

Only just noticed this phrase on the AR11 official website: (Emphasis mine)

SEASON PREMIERE
Sunday, February 18, 8pm et/pt THE AMAZING RACE: ALL-STARS reunites some of the most memorable, entertaining and controversial Teams from previous seasons and sets them on a new adventure of a lifetime. Traveling more than 45,000 miles, spanning 5 continents in 28 days, these Teams will pair up for one final trek around the globe as they battle the best of the best in a fierce race to the finish for their second attempt at the million dollar prize.

– Chacor 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Most people believe this is just a bad copyedit, since CBS has applications for TAR12 already out there. It should be read as "these teams will pair up for their final trek", implying that these teams will never be asked to Race again even if there's another All stars. --Masem 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we won't know until CBS actually says something, then. (Chip A. talked a lot about this in the AR10 ROTR blog - it's possible that they accept applications then choose not to go ahead with it?) – Chacor 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure - that could definitely happen, and if TARAS doesn't get a good ratings chunk, they might consider it (they would need to figure this out by May-ish to have a race run for the fall season). I know that unlike Survivor which has out to season 16 in contract, they've yet to option TAR for another run beyond that. Basic point is, like most studio-sponsered websites that write copy, there's usually mistakes and bad wordings aplenty, so "one final task" written by a CBS webmonkey can have a very different meaning than if it was written or said by Phil, Bert, or Elise. --Masem 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be their final trek. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CBS website copyeditors are very bad at their job. They routinely mess up names and facts in the bios. The rumor that this is the last season is disinformation from the ungracious Hippies who were upset they were not included. This was covered in an interview with BvM somewhere (I can't remember which, sorry). Good kitty 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this means that the teams won't be asked to do The Amazing Race again. Apple 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive it should be parsed as none of the all star teams will be allowed to compete in any future seasons of amazing race even if at some point they do another all stars. Jon 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Box

Why do Rob and Amber have their own information box? everyone in this seoson is a former reality tv contestant. unless Season 7 and every survivor series they were in has this box on it, it should go--Irishboi 12:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario?

I haven't heard any spoilers about Ontario. Who keeps adding that to the possible future locations list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.35.247 (talk)

The person who added Ontario to the possible future locations list, please at least tell us why should Ontario be in that list. Have you seen the teams in Ontario? Did anybody tell you about it? Aranho 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible future locations

When I was re-viewing The Amazing Race: All-Stars Introduction video on YouTube, I saw a few images that may be the possible future locations:

• A drawing of a head and a hand with the following words "For hair plating with extension & for Heena Painting" at 0:39 minutes in the video.
• Two buildings in a single image: one of the building looks like a Bank of China Tower and another building that looks like this building in the picture below. These two buildings can be seen at 0:40 minutes in the video.

To play the video in slow motion, press play-pause-wait for ½ second-play-pause-wait for ½ second continuously for slow motion.

The video can be found here (link was removed, see below for reasons). Aranho 08:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

About the "A drawing of a head and a hand with the following words "For hair plating with extension & for Heena Painting" at 0:39 minutes in the video.", it review no possible future locations to me. And for the two buildings picture, the possible future location would be Hong Kong so I will be adding that to the "Future Locations" section. Aranho 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object, WP:NOR. We shouldn't be interpreting the video for nuts, it doesn't necessarily mean what's on the video is on the show. To interpret it ourselves without any reliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, links to youtube videos are not allowed here unless they have been specifically licensed, otherwise it's a copyright violation. Please remove the link. – Chacor 11:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The building is actually the HSBC building in Central, Hong Kong. But as stated above, we shouldn't be interpreting information and locations that appear in the opening titles per WP:NOR. Especially when the images presented are not common knowledge like an Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty. --Madchester 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

From the warnings you guys just said, I have remove the link. Thank you for telling me guys. Aranho 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same Placings

This is probably the season where the most teams placed in the same position in 2 consecutive legs during the same two legs (I wonder if there's a way to shorten that.) If those two legs are 1+2, there were 7. I haven't checked, but that's almost definitely the most. Should we add it to trivia? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is kind of noteworthy. ----SCSI Commando 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for those editing the episode as it goes along

I've no problem with during-show edits, but I would recommend if you watch what you include as the change name and not include too much spoiler information, such that those that live on the west coast aren't too spoiled but can still use their watchlist page in the 3 hrs between here and there. Certainly after a half-day after the show's aired, specific notes are ok, but it's just for the short term edits. --Masem 01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate Finish Order

Okay:Tough decision: We have an an accurate finish order for the entire race. Do we put it on Wikipedia to keep articles up to date and of the highest quality, or keep it out because it's way too spoilery. I say put it in. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we don't. Since this show has not completed yet, it would be too much of a spoilery. Besides, who would want to watch a show when you know the winner already? Sattonm 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Sattonm

Concern with Sattonm. Location spoilers are one thing, as they reveal where they go but not the tasks or who's winning. And while WP can't stop for spoilers, any such list is really unverifiable, which is definitely outside WP territory. --Masem 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty verifiable. Check the first four teams they said were going to be eliminated. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be very bold and add it, as well as spoiler warnigns. It doesn't matter how much of a spoiler it is. Wikipedia doesn't run on tape delay. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be just as bold and remove it while Wikipedia does not run on tape delay, this is nothing but a rumour up until the final episode airs, plus it seems concensus does not want it on the page. EnsRedShirt 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about it being verifiable. The pictures caught for sightings tells you that some teams don't get to a certain point, but there's enough lacking detail that you cannot spot the boot order perfectly with the limited location sighting information, even if it's got the first 4 boots right. On the other hand, if this is a leaked bootlist from CBS/WRP, and thus being correct, it can't be verified unless said source wants to come forward.... which is unlikely to happen. I agree that there's no tape-delay, but as we have it, we have already linked in the F5 pictures which spell out the last 5 teams based on a location sighting, so I think that is appropriate for the article as it stands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masem (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I would suggest including the leaked bootlist as a trivia item. That has been done in the past, such as the article for TAR8. While Canoe-Jam is a verifiable source, their use of an anonymous messageboard poster as reference is not. Without knowing the identity of the leak, there's no assurance if the entire list is accurate.--Madchester 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe it either, but the first four were correct, and it included a team you would never expect to be last. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete reference to finishing order or place at bottom with plenty of advance spoiler warning.--RexRex84 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with adding it right in the middle of the page. Having "spoiler warning" one line above it doesn't keep people from reading it if they do not want to read it. If it is absolutely necessary to add it to Wikipedia, then make a separate page for it and link to it. Then, a casual reader will not accidentally see the list. Unlike normal spoilers, which require you to read, a list of names is easily absorbed with a simple glance. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for a different page, and the section is cleary marked Future Finishing Order. If it must, it can go at the bottom. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I did not make any sense before, so I will try to state this differently:

Regardless of what the header is or what color the warning is - the textual contents of a future finishing order is so small that it is very easy for a person to read it BEFORE realizing what it is. It is idiotic to assume people will read every word on the page from top to bottom and stop when they see the word "future" or "spoiler". A normal person scans the page for interesting information and will easily read the finishing order BEFORE reading the note that it is a spoiler - because there is so little text, it is easy to read. Once that happens, you cannot unread it. If that is too difficult to understand, I will attempt to explain it differently. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As per the above, I think that the "spoiled list" isn't sufficiently verifiable, since it's from an anonymous source, and so it shouldn't be included in the article in any fashion. However, the fact that there is a spoiled list that appears accurate is verifiable and has been reported on by the Canoe article linked above, so I think that we should put in a section discussing the fact that a list was apparently leaked. Basically, we have a Canoe article as a verifiable source to talk about the fact that a list exists, and what it means, but we don't have any verifiable source for the list itself. So we can talk about the fact that there is a list, we just shouldn't include the actual list as fact. Does that make sense? (I think I just gave myself a headache) --Maelwys 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preview for Leg 6

I could be wrong.....but when watching the previews, on the plane where Eric and Danielle were thrown off, I saw a flag, and after doing flag browsing, it looked like the flag of Malawi . So it could be assumed if I'm correct; that the next leg will take place there. --Squall41269 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well we know at least part of the episode takes place in Tanzania, or Zanzibar to be specific.--Irishboi 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I finally saw the CBS ad during tonights survivor to confirm what you said. What i typed was almost immediatley after the previews when no information was at the time available. :) --Squall41269 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably a connection flight but it's possible (and I hope it is) that part of the leg could be in Malawi. DanielTAR

[edit] Uchenna & Joyce Being marked for elimination

The article stated "Uchenna & Joyce received the 30 minute penalty on Leg 6 for not coming in first place when marked for elimination. They are the first team to incur this penalty without being eliminated since the "Marked for Elimination" penalty was introduced in Season 10". I removed this as it is incorrect (in season 10, Dave and Mary were Marked for Elimination and won the Fast Forward clue. They came in first and were not eliminated. later on, they were marked for elimination and were eliminated then). So, Ucheena and Joyce were not the first team to be marked but not eliminated. Iamtall47 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact was true- it added the stipulations that they were the first MFE team to NOT place first (and thus suffer the penalty) but yet not be eliminated. So the fact is actually true. --Masem 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre emptive editing

Why is route for the next episode (7 and 8) up on the page. the episode hasn't been aired yet and thought a decision about posting spoilers--Irishboi 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ads have confirmed the locations that the teams are going to for this leg. --Masem 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No. of episodes

Was the 7th episode counted as one episode or two seperate episodes. the cbs website counts the entire two as episode 7, NOT episode 7 and 8 I guess what i'm asking is, are there five or four episodes left in the season--Irishboi 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Every guide listing I've seen, if they separate it out as two one-hour segments, have it "(part 1)" and "(part 2)", which implies a single episode. --Masem 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)