Talk:The Amazing Race

New Format

It's awful. I love how singular users like @Bgsu98 can just come in and change years of hard work at the drop of a hat because they think they know better. Why are the tables thick and bloated now? Why are "notations that did not affect placement" removed when they still had an impact on the game, and who are you to decide that? Why are the results tables SORTABLE now, when there's no reason they need to be? Why is the information about what stuff means in the table now in a long, messy paragraph instead of the nice bulleted list as before? Why are you quoting WP:COLOR and then specifically ignoring it by placing a bunch of coloured text in the paragraph above the table that says "team on the receiving end of the U-Turn"? I remember the good old days where when someone decided there were BIG SWEEPING CHANGES that needed to be made to a page, there was a discussion about it first. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:151E:E3DB:EBEC:6B23 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Those were also the "good old days" of consistently breaking style policy for MOS:ACCESS. Discussions before someone being WP:BOLD has never been necessary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, please take a look at the two tables on any season of The Amazing Race (American TV series) up through, I think, season 15, and let me know how they look in terms of MOS:ACCESS. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I only checked the first one, but you should probably get rid of the colours/formatting entirely and just have notes. Personally, I also dislike the "episode titles" section, the logos and sheer length of the race summary section as well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried to maintain the format of the results table as it was already set up, but modified it to abide by MOS:ACCESS. I believe the use of color is acceptable if the information is also notated via another means (ie. the superscripts). I had nothing to do with those last two sections. I think the episode titles should be inserted in each respective episode (where the airdate is currently located). I also think the episode summaries should focus on the interaction of the teams and how they did instead of focusing exclusively on the mechanics of the challenges. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy, there's a whole lot to unpack here...Let's get started then.

Regarding @Bgsu98: I appreciate the hard work you've put into this, but your attitude towards other users has not been the best. multiple questions were asked up above and you've answered none of them. You've snapped at some users on user talk pages. You also constantly just quote MOS:ACCESS...I'm not sure if you've noticed but MOS:ACCESS is a very large page with a lot of information on it. It would be much more helpful if you referred other users to more specific sections, or just quoted the relevant information. This really is a very large and substantial change to a large number of pages, and even when taking WP:BOLD into account I don't think that decision should fall on the shoulders of just one user without at least a little bit of discussion beforehand.

Regarding @Lee Vilenski: WP:BOLD also says to not be upset if bold edits are reverted. However, in my personal experience, whenever bold edits are reverted or disputed, we users are either yelled at or given warnings on our Talk pages about "Disruptive Editing". To be BOLD does not mean to be ELITIST and believe that everything you do is correct and should be viewed as correct, which is why discussion for such a large, substantial change should be taking place beforehand.

Regarding red elimination placements: I have always been a firm supporter of WP:COLOR and there are users on here who don't seem to understand its purpose. Colorblind people exist, and using only color by itself is not going to be helpful for someone who cannot see color. That is why we added, for example, the ƒ symbol to Fast Forwards. In terms of eliminated teams (12th), this was never an issue before. The reason is that every single eliminated team would always have blank grey space to the right of their placement, clearly conveying that they had been eliminated and were no longer competing in the Race. WP:COLOR wasn't an issue. Nowadays, that's not always the case, with examples such as Regev & Helen, Arun & Natalia and Cassie & Jahmeek, who came back to continue racing immediately after being eliminated, so their 6th or whatever no longer works per WP:COLOR. That said, adding a footnote to every single solitary instance of an eliminated team is massive overkill and there has to be a better solution. Me personally, I would choose to write them like this: 12th

Regarding the excessive footnotes: This I do not understand at all. Please direct me to where on MOS:ACCESS it dictates that every single solitary instance of anything on the results table needs a footnote tacked onto it. The entire reason we added ƒ to Fast Forward placements was to address WP:COLOR and make the table accessible and viewable for users who can't see color. So why do we ALSO need the footnote that says "X team took the Fast Forward". That's redundant. It's also very excessive and messy, and it makes the table a huge chore to read. At this point, so many footnotes are going to make the table less accessible to readers, so what's the deal here?

Regarding the vertical widening of the tables: Why do this? Roadblock listings worked perfectly fine as "Rob 5, Brennan 7" on a single line. Bloating the table like this makes it look messier when it looked perfectly fine before.

Regarding sortable table: This also strikes me as unnecessary and can potentially be confusing to readers, especially if they click on one by accident. The table is formatted with the winners on top and the losers on the bottom, simple. I suppose you could leave the sort button for the team names to alphabetize them if you so want, but being able to sort each leg individually isn't going to accomplish much except to make the table even messier than it already is. Furthermore, it doesn't work properly. For example, I click on the sort button next to the "11" column on The Amazing Race 1. Instead of having Frank & Margarita be at the top (the winners of that leg) it puts every eliminated team first with all of their blank, empty space, and then it shows the other four teams in placement order.

Regarding non-elimination indicators: 6th is not going to be mistaken for a Wiki link. Wiki links do not have an underline. It's a bit pedantic, I know, but I still think that's a silly reason to change something that has long been established and is familiar to long-time viewers of these pages.

Regarding the table key: By "table key", I'm referring to the section that says "A green ƒ indicates that the team won the Fast Forward" and such. Please explain to me why it's better to have all of these notes condensed into a messy-looking paragraph instead of being neatly listed out in a clean, bulleted list. And, as mentioned above, what's with the random colouration of words in the paragraph, that would also fail WP:COLOR?

Regarding the removal of some notes: The usage of notes (before your changes) in the table is to address any noteworthy deviations from the main, established structure of the Race. It doesn't matter if it occurred directly at the Pit Stop or not. Peggy & Claire and Brent & Caite departed late, this was directly addressed by the television show, and had an unquestionable negative impact on their Race. I haven't seen what else has been removed, and there are one or two extraneous things that didn't belong (like Tara & Wil skipping on the Fast Forward) but if something affected a team's performance in the Race structure and was directly addressed by the show, it belongs in the results and is not "Fancruft".

Regarding the alteration of Intersection markers: So, instead of having matching symbols which fully abide by WP:COLOR, we now have a little ^[6] next to every single, solitary team on that leg. Please tell me how this is better than what we had before.

Regarding "episode summaries should focus on the interaction of the teams and how they did instead of focusing exclusively on the mechanics of the challenges": If you want to add summaries of how teams behaved during the episode, you can go right ahead, but doesn't that count as "Fancruft"? Either way (Not sure if you intended this or not, but I want to make it clear), if you do, then add them to the challenge summaries, do not replace the challenge summaries. If you compare the two, the challenge explanations are much, much more important.

In summary: There's probably something I've forgotten, or something else I have an issue with that I simply haven't seen yet. Either way, that was a lot of text I just gave, and it's all stuff I honestly believe needs to be said. It's a HUGE change you've gone and done without the consultation of anyone. Accessibility is important, sure, but I honestly believe that all these changes have gone and made these tables less accessible to casual viewers of these pages, simply by virtue of making them more cluttered and complicated. What's our end goal here? To make it readable, or to rigidly adhere to the manual?

Thank you for listening. Shadow2 (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"...if you do, then add them to the challenge summaries, do not replace the challenge summaries." I will not be able to address every point you've made right now, but I can clarify this one. I would never advocate removing the challenges as they currently exist. I think they should just be supplemented with additional events from the episode if applicable. Right now, they read like the summary of a Survivor episode simply describing the mechanics of the reward and immunity challenges and absolutely nothing else. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at The Amazing Race 17#Results and let me know if this new set-up for the key is more to your liking. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as being able to sort the table, I can't imagine not wanting to be able to sort each leg to see the players in result order. The team column doesn't need to be sortable. Please take a look at The Amazing Race 16#Results; it has been properly formatted for sorting and should display properly when sorting each column. Bgsu98 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As a long-time lurker, long-time reader, I have to weigh in and say that I don't see this as a fully acceptable outcome visually. It's a bit of a mess across the board. If the argument is that colours and symbols shouldn't be used to convey information, then they should be gone completely, not left as a weird hybrid. It's gone from colours and symbols that... conveyed information, to something that I can barely read. I can't tell the difference between these shades anymore. It basically exposes the fact that the symbols were used to avoid excessive footnotes... but for commonly repeated information, why is that bad?

Having said that, even though they don't look great right now, the various yields, passes, and intersections were always a bit hard to read and the main saving grace for their placement in the table was the vibrant colours. I'd be interested to see how other people would feel about stripping information out of the placement table and putting it elsewhere.

So, if visual shortcuts are unacceptable, I would see that as an argument to provide better individual descriptions of what actually happens in each episode. I get that this is an absolutely daunting proposal, but it has always stood out to me that this site only documents the route and challenges, which are significant but only make up half the show. It arguably was a better reflection in the early seasons, but the Race now places more focus on the contestants than ever before. Most competition show articles manage to address the balance of covering both the challenges AND events.

Keeping things from getting crufty would be its own challenge, but "A and B excelled at the Roadblock and beat C and D to the mat. E and F u-turned G and H because of a crude remark. I and J got a penalty for speeding. It wasn't enough to save K and L, who made a poor Detour choice and were eliminated." should be considered a reasonable level of coverage.

And while we're changing things, what purpose does the roadblock count even serve at this point? It seems to be a case of keeping track of something for the sake of it and is probably more suited to other sites. Basically, I do think that there's a case for improvement instead of "we've always done it this way, how dare you". But there's more work to do. I feel that the removal of flag icons ignored the counterarguments, that doesn't need to happen again. 123.136.50.134 (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The format of the results table is far from perfect, but it is at least compliant with Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely. I think the table is far too busy. It's supposed to be a results table, but was cluttered with all sorts of esoteria that had zip to do with a team's placement on a particular leg. I have cleared out a lot of the fancruft, but more can still be done. The issue with color is not the use of color, but the use of color as the only means to convey information. Color is fine if the information is also conveyed alternatively. The problem with those Lucky Charms that filled up every table is that a) many of the colors used (especially the yellow used for the Yield) were difficult to read against the white background, and b) screen-readers used by visually-impaired users cannot interpret those symbols. Honestly, I'm fine with stripping out the special icons and colors if that's what people want, but I don't think it's ultimately necessary.

You are absolutely correct that the biggest problem with these articles is the complete lack of episode summaries. This is a TV show, right? TV shows have episode summaries. Look at the Survivor articles. Not only do they give the general mechanics of the different challenges, but also important interactions between contestants that took place. The Amazing Race articles are completely missing those, as you said. Excruciating detail is provided as to the race course, locations, and challenges (which is fine), and zero to the interactions of the contestants. Hell, there wasn't even a table with the contestants' names until I began adding them recently (modeled after the contestants' tables from the Dancing With the Stars articles). The sort of information that used to be plugged into the results table (ie. Team X was eliminated while still holding an unused Express Pass, or whatever) should be in an episode summary and not a results table since it ultimately didn't affect the results. Like you said, Team X u-turned Team Y because they heard Team Y plotting against them, or whatever.

As for the Roadblocks table, I agree completely that it's fancruft and should be removed. In fact, I'm tempted to begin doing it right now. It's not just fancruft, but also a bit of original research. And it ultimately doesn't matter because the show keeps track of that so contestants can't go over their Roadblock allotment. What does it matter whether Derek did 5 Roadblock but Drew only did 4? Or whatever, I'm just making that up. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

While we're at it, why not just remove the placement of each team on each leg of the race? Clearly Fancruft that doesn't matter as long as we list the order they finished overall, and it's definitely original research to get that stuff, including usage of the Fast Forward, the Yield, the U-Turn. Y'know what, let's just delete the entire table while we're at it. Delete every listing of the locations down below. Delete EVERYTHING. It's all fancruft according to our master all-powerful overlord Bgsu98 who has the final say on anything that happens on these pages because we apparently elected him king. Just delete it all. None of it matters. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:9C4C:1DD6:DE9D:5241 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No kidding- the old format was fine for years before this dude decided to ruin everything. If someone wanted to change it because it was against style rules or whatever, they would have already. @Bgsu98 you’re only doing this to be pedantic when it’s completely unnecessary. Multiple Amazing Race communities I am in have voiced displeasure with your edits. It’s you vs. everyone, and I’d say it would be best to undo all the changes and revert to what most people prefer. 74.105.15.157 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It isn't "Bgsu98 vs everybody" as they're following WP:PAGs that have been established by wide community consensus. If the "Multiple Amazing Race communities" don't like it well that's unfortunate but at the end of the day doesn't matter as Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki, and thus should be assessable and understandable to as wide an audience as possible.

If you have suggested improvements that conform to WP:PAGs, such as MOS:ACCESS, I'm sure Bgsu98 would be happy to listen. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

To add that all reality show coverage on WP is being corrected to meet ACCESS. Tables have been completely avoiding ACCESS in terms of info content and color use. We're not a fan's guide to the show, we are presenting just enough to give an idea to the casual reader how events played out. There are plenty of fan sites for TAR (and other shows) to have the details that we are purposely omitting. Masem (t) 12:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me how all these extra footnotes, changes in the colour wheel from blue to purple, adding daggers and double-daggers - does anything to support a wider ACCESS for readers? It baffles me that these different things are being used as reasons for changing these articles, when the results section was a perfectly good way of showing the casual reader 'how events played out' as you put it. Frankly, I now cannot read the results page. It's excessive and clogged with the notes, the colours don't work together, and now the addition of all these daggers etc. It's ridiculously unreadable. So talking about MOS:ACCESS is an interesting hill to die on when it is deeply unaccessible now. Kiwi Jaden, 13 October 2022. Kiwi Jaden (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I will just copy/paste the response I left on your talk-page here as well: Per MOS:COLOR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method." The use of the red font is the only means currently used to convey elimination, which is not permitted. The dagger and double-dagger templates allow for alt-text which is read by screen-readers, but otherwise invisible to normal readers. In this case, I set the alt-text to read "This team was eliminated from the race." This was a good compromise reached working with some other users in order to avoid the clutter of having a superscript in every cell. Had you looked at the source code instead of blindly deleting, you would have seen the alt-text in place, which meets the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. As far as consensus goes, there was an RfC in 2021 which addressed this issue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs. Per that RfC, "There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs... tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." I have been adapting existing tables to conform with accessibility guidelines laid out in MOS:ACCESS. If you have suggestions about how to improve them while still meeting these requirements, you are free to suggest them, but undoing these changes to once again make the table non-compliant is unacceptable and tantamount to vandalism. You are free to "report" more if you want, but the last person who went bellyaching to administration about the improvements to the Dancing with the Stars tables was shut down because I have correctly been following Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WOW. Here we go. I've found it. I knew this would be the case. So YOU @Bgsu98 have just come in here after almost two decades - yes 20 years - of Wikipedia readers recognising the format and it being completely readable. And you've just come in here and totally changed it to suit you. And it appears from all the disgruntled comments from other users/readers, only you. Stop NOW. This is unacceptable. I will report you for unreasonable behaviour, not me. People have expressed across all Amazing Race online communities that these Wikichanges are not good. Do not help readability. And here you are leaving notes saying 'oh I'm just trying a new thing, I'm going to pop a dagger in as well as red for elimination, just for fun'. That is UNACCEPTABLE. And the change from blue to purple? What consultation was had there? Alert me immediately to which other editors have agreed with this change. You've done this across Amazing Race, Survivor, and many other Reality wiki pages. It's maddening. I know the rules, and I know you're breaking them. This thread shows you have no support, and I want you to show me other editors who are supporting the changes you are making. Immediately. Or I will report you. Kiwi Jaden.

If you guys are so obsessed with making everything "accessible", can someone maybe finally address this issue that I brought up years ago? None of the parameters on Template:TAR Clue actually do anything...It just shows a preview for the general TAR page. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:71E5:60C1:9A9F:520D (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The Express Pass are still to be kept with a color orange and the symbol ɛ in all seasons. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs 03:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Orange is not a suitable color against white per MOS:ONWHITE. Additionally, the use of an Express Pass has been relocated to the individual episode summaries rather than the results table. Bgsu98 (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The damn icons (yet again)

Since the flavour of the day is removing "Fancruft" from the Amazing Race pages, can we maybe once again consider getting rid of the one piece of "Fancruft" that I adamantly think does not belong on these pages, the one I've been trying to talk about for years but nobody even wants to engage in conversation about.

Why do we need to put the Detour/Roadblock icon in a different spot on the destination list just because they picked up the Roadblock clue here or they picked it up there. Literally who cares? It makes the destination list look clunky and awkward to read, when really all we need is an icon that says "A Roadblock took place here.

• Sydney (Sydney Opera House)
• Sydney (Sydney Harbour Bridge)

In this example (of how we currently do things), the teams would have received the Detour clue immediately after performing the Roadblock, thus would have picked up the yellow Detour clue while at the opera house, not at the bridge. That's such a small, minute detail that we really don't need to pay so much close attention to. What major impact on the game does it have if they got the Detour clue at the opera house, or if they got it at the bridge? Almost nothing about the racecourse itself would change. It's not important. We can just list the icons to the right of all destinations on the list to make it consistent and readable. (Would also probably help avoid confusing people using screen-readers, otherwise they'll be hearing the Detour information before even hearing the location)

Please answer. I'm tired of people blowing this off by just saying "It's important" and saying nothing else. 96.48.233.241 (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering we should never use only images to convey information, I don't think the logos are suitable in these cases regardless. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time I am hearing of this issue, and I agree that the placement of the icons should be more uniform (like after the location). Bgsu98 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this what you have in mind? The Amazing Race 22#Race summary Bgsu98 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's how it used to be before someone came in a while ago and decided to move them around. This tells the reader what is important: A Roadblock was here. @Lee Vilenski: The icons have alt text to account for screen readers. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:E004:F053:54EB:9310 (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an accessibility issue, this is a fundamental style guide violation for MOS:ICON. See the three subheadings under MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS, which to summarise says we shouldn't use icons to display information on their own. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see three subheadings there; I only see two. Please clarify. Bgsu98 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I specifically mean MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS, MOS:DECOR and MOS:TOOMANY. You can also see The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged under MOS:LOGO. The way we have things set out at the moment is very much against MOS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DECOR - "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation." This is their entire purpose. MOS:TOOMANY - Page does not specify how many is too many; icons are not overused on this page, there is one where one is needed and no more. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:74F4:4B68:2CF9:97C5 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I counted over 80 instances of logos or tiny images in The Amazing Race 1#race summary on its own. This isn't a fanwiki, we are an encyclopedia. That's clearly too many, and we aren't supposed to use icons to display information on their own. Whatever way you wish to put it, there is no argument that they are suitable on these pages. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Except for the counterargument to MOS:DECOR I included above that you conveniently decided to ignore. God, I fucking hate dealing with people on this website. Everyone's so high and mighty. It AIDS the reader's COMPREHENSION by showing WHERE a specific TASK took place, providing USEFUL INFORMATION on the SUBJECT. Problem? 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:74F4:4B68:2CF9:97C5 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack me. We are an encyclopedia, we say things in prose and use images to state things about a subject. Your interpretation goes against pretty much all of Wikipedia's aims of usage with images. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You're still actively ignoring my point. I claim that "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation" applies to the icons on these pages. You have given me no response besides "That's wrong because it's wrong". And to counter your other point about there being 80 instances of icons on TAR1, there are way more than 80 icons on Greece at the Olympics for example. How many is "TOOMANY"? The page doesn't specify. In regards to how they are used in the context of this page, it's not too many.

Seriously stop for a moment and consider this. Are you thinking about this issue in regards to making the pages an easier, cleaner, more streamlined approach for the reader so that they can easily digest the information, thus visually and structurally improving the pages in whatever way we can. Or are you thinking about it along the lines of "The manual says we can't so we can't", not even considering how the proposed changes will impact the reader? See the notice at the very top of WP:MOS... "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:74F4:4B68:2CF9:97C5 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The cleaner, more streamlined approach is to have things written in words, not used with icons that only some readers will understand. Sports flags have an exemption to the rules - see MOS:SPORTSFLAG. There's a separate issue that perhaps a lot of the info we have isn't really suitable for an encyclopedia at all - do we need a list of all the cities and locations the people go to are? It's seems like excessive details to me. Thinking you can just ignore the MOS just because you like that there are icons rather than words isn't really a tennible position. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Setting the issue of the icons aside, the prose sections of each leg summary need significant work. For one, as this is still a TV show, this is essentially the plot of the episode, and should be chronological. The tasks are not listed chronologically, and it makes it very difficult to follow the action of each episode. Bgsu98 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this is ridiculous. Removing the locations from a show about the locations it travels too? Stop the insanity! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they need to stay. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This might be one of the most embarrassing things you could ever write. You clearly don't have any idea what your recommendations should be anymore and if this is your honest to god opinion on what should be happening on Amazing race pages you should not be a part of the process anymore and no one should call you in when asking questions. You are an embarrassment. Mmfann (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack me. I think everyone forgets this isn't AmazingRaceTheWiki. We have style guidelines that fit across all of our articles. These pages aren't supposed to be designed for fans of the show to read about them in minute detail, but rather be readable for all. We do have general character length maximums for things like story and episode titles, which seem to just be ignored because WP:ILIKEIT.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You think a casual reader just perusing an encyclopedia doesn't want to know where a TRAVEL show went? You're so far off the pulse of a regular person that calling you embarrassing isn't a personal attack, it's simply a fact. Mmfann (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For every task? It seems like a bit of overkill to mention exactly where every task takes place - baring in mind this is a reality TV show rather than a travel show. But, more to the point, this thread was about the usage of icons within these articles; which clearly don't meet our guidelines on usage. Before I start up a formal RfC, I'll reiterate that the icons are not suitable and I really don't think having such long intrinsic episode summaries are of any help to readers, except those who just want to retain the status quo. I'll remind you not to personally attack me, as I don't appreciate it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking you, I do think it is embarrassing for you to hide behind vague guidelines to say that every part of a wikipedia page needs to be stripped for parts until it's just a set of 1s and 0s so robots like you can understand. Yes every task on TAR happens at a location and those locations are pertinent info, not that you would understand that since the only things you care about are not making wikipedia pages easy to read or helpful to anyone coming across them, as you pretend. No you only care about kowtowing to the holy wikipedia style guide until you have taken every round wikipedia article and jammed it through a square hole, whether it makes it better who cares? Mmfann (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

So, you agree these articles don't follow the MOS. I'm glad we agree. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that you don't want what is best for a page if you think cutting locations out of TAR pages is what is best. It makes you look like a dictator. Here's something for you. Someone watched TAR and is like hmm, where did that one task happen, I can't quite remember. Surely a wikipedia article with info about the show would tell me because it has general info. TAR is a travel show, locations are important, surely an idiot named @Lee Vilenski didn't decide it was too much to show where a travel show did things because a book he has been brainwashed by told him so. Do you even watch TAR, do you even understand why locations are important. This is exactly why I said you should leave this page and never come back. Because the opinion you expressed about TAR is so wrong headed, so stupid, so entirely devoid of logic that I question whether you are even a real human being, or a program created by a rules nazi to try to turn everything into a blank page that just says [insert TAR season here] these were the contestants, this team won. Mmfann (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the personal insults aside (ahem), I can see where an average viewer might be interested in knowing more about particular locations shown in episodes of TAR, and here we have them nicely listed, often with wikilinks to the specific city or museum or castle or whatever. It would be a detriment to lose those. What I have taken the liberty of removing are locations that may have been filmed but were omitted from the episode as aired, especially when those were rife with Wikipedia:OR or unreliable sources or no sources at all. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

All right, I'm done. Lee, you don't seem to want to directly address any points I've brought up and now you're suggesting that we remove even more information from these pages than we already have. It's pointless to talk about this because nobody will listen. Accusing me of "Just because you like the icons" even though I've explained previously and repeatedly why they are useful to readers is just insulting. "Only some readers will understand" you say, even though we have a legend at the top of the page WITH LINKS that explain what a Detour, Roadblock, etc is. Suggesting we remove the itinerary of locations from a TRAVEL show? It's clear you're not even reading what I say and just want to keep hammering the point until you get your way. I'm so tired of fighting this and I don't know why I still try to keep these pages from becoming just a mess. Do whatever you want. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:1DA:7F8F:87E8:FD6C (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I like the icons, and I agree with the original poster that they could be more streamlined by moving them all after the related locations. I also disagree with the suggestion of deleting any of the locations, with the exception of unsourced, unaired tasks, but there aren’t many of those to begin with. My biggest complaint is that the sequence of events in each episode needs to be listed chronologically - which they currently are not and it makes it difficult to understand the sequence of events - and the excruciating level of detail that is often included. Specific distances, weights, sizes, and prices; the make and model of whatever vehicle teams are driving in a particular leg; specifics about whoever is handing out clues at Roadblocks and Detours (ie. “Teams received their next clue from a fishmonger”); specific departure times or flight times; and so on. I keep coming back to the concept that this is not a fan wiki and is meant for the average viewer to be able to get the gist of what happened in a particular episode. We also have the issue that the season is broken down by legs and not episodes, when this is still a TV show, and TV shows are divided into episodes. The recent mega leg in Italy is a good example of this. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on using icons in prose

Should the icons (such as those for planes, detour and route marker) be used in race series articles such as at The Amazing Race 1? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, should the icons (generally seen in the #Race Summary section, but also elsewhere) be used in place of prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should continue to use the icons, especially the ones denoting transportation, as long as there is an alt-text present so MOS:ACCESS is not violated. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Altext seems a bit ridiculous, considering there isn't any actual text. I can't see how these things meet MOS:ICON. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt-text is always important for any image, or icon, if it has words on it or not. It is used by people with visual disabilities so a screen reader can explain what is there visually. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 23:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't use altext, I'm saying use the word plane or boat, or route marker. Don't just put images in the middle of text to show something, especially without a key! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The icons are not in the middle of text; they are at the beginning of a bulleted list indicating travel to and from given locations, and there is a key at the top of the section identifying the different travel logos and what they mean. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Below is an extract of where the issue lies - why is everything written in bullet points? Why can't we write in prose that someone took a flight somewhere? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s a chronological list of events that took place. Personally, I think it’s easier to read than one single paragraph would be. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I have edited the first ten seasons to reorder the events chronologically. If you look at the seasons after ten, you'll see that the events are broken up very bizarrely. It is very difficult to follow the events of an episode. I have also streamlined every season by eliminating a lot of the excruciating detail that was previously included. It's still a work in progress. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Leg 1 (United States → South Africa → Zambia) Knife's Edge Bridge in the midst of Victoria Falls' inverted rain was the first ever location visited in the entire series of The Amazing Race. Episode 1: "The Race Begins" (September 5, 2001) Eliminated: Matt & Ana Locations New York City, New York (Central Park – Bethesda Fountain) (Starting Line) New York City (John F. Kennedy International Airport) to Johannesburg, South Africa (Johannesburg International Airport) Johannesburg (Lanseria Airport – Ryan Blake Air) Johannesburg (Lanseria Airport) to Livingstone, Zambia (Livingstone Airport) Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park (Victoria Falls – Knife's Edge Bridge) Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park (Victoria Falls – Boiling Pot) Livingstone District (Batoka Gorge – Abseil Zambia) Livingstone District (Songwe Village) (Unaired) Episode summary The teams' first clue instructed them to fly to Johannesburg, South Africa on one of three flights: the first was a direct South African Airways flight which arrived first, the second was a Swissair flight connecting in Zurich which arrived second, and the third was an Alitalia flight connecting in Milan which arrived last. After arriving in Johannesburg, teams had to go directly to Lanseria Airport, where they had to find Ryan Blake Air and book one of four charter flights to an unknown destination (Livingstone, Zambia). After arriving in Livingstone, teams had to find a vehicle with their next clue, which instructed them to find "the smoke that thunders", which they to figure out was the local name for Victoria Falls (Mosi-oa-Tunya). Teams could drive themselves or hire a driver (who could not provide directions) to the falls in order to find their next clue. For the series' very first Fast Forward, one team had to hike down a steep canyon to the Boiling Pot on the Zambezi River in order to retrieve the Fast Forward award. Rob & Brennan won the Fast Forward. The series' very first Detour was a choice between Air or Land. In Air, teams had to take a quick trip along a zip line across Batoka Gorge and then experience a 54-metre (177 ft) gorge swing to reach the bottom in order to receive their next clue. In Land, teams had to take a long hike down the rim of the gorge to receive their next clue. All teams chose the zip-line. Teams had to check in at the pit stop: Songwe Village. Additional notes Near Songwe Village, there was a Roadblock that required one team member to cook an ostrich egg, which both team members had to eat, before they could check in at the pit stop. This task was unaired, but was shown as a bonus feature on the DVD. The zip-line Detour at Batoka Gorge was later revisited in season 27 as a Switchback in Zimbabwe.

.

Question - Why did we put so much effort into arranging the task descriptions so they're in chronological order while, at the exact same time, rearranging all the results table footnotes so they're no longer in chronological order? 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:8C05:9D7:508A:A360 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

What a mess...

This is honestly kind of hilarious at this point. The pages for The Amazing Race pretty much act like a microcosm of all the bigger problems on Wikipedia. They are pretty much all showcased on this talk page.

Big important users coming in and making big sweeping changes without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages or with any of the relevant editors... @Bgsu98 @Binksternet

Even though we are told to resolve disputes on the talk pages and generally use the talk pages for questions or concerns, those legit concerns are just flat out ignored... @Binksternet just refusing to answer a lingering question directed at him, @Lee Vilenski abjectly ignoring points brought up in an argument and choosing to answer only the points that make him right.

A lot of bullies run these pages now, and it's not appreciated. It's no wonder people quit working on Wikipedia so much these days. Maybe you should all try being nice and actually treating each other like human beings and not assuming every IP editor is a troll. Smarten up. 2605:8D80:445:E018:3A46:655C:B954:F315 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting I have done (especially as I haven't made a comment on this talk page for half a year), but from having a read back, what "points" have been made that somehow make this article meet our MOS? The issue with being an IP is that it's incredibly difficult to look through any of the above and confirm which IP posts may have been made by you.

Realistically, you are complaining that some of these articles now have MOS compliant tables (or at least better in that respect) along with other items meeting things arising from a RfC. If there's any items that you do have that you think are "bullying" or unaddressed, feel free to make them here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not anybody on this page, I'm just reading what others have said above. I see one user telling you that you kept ignoring a counterargument, and I agree with them. You never once replied to their arguments of mosdecor. The argument itself is moot now, but it's just an example of wikipedia bigwigs ignoring others. If someone gives you a counterargument, then exercise basic humana decency by at least acknowledging it. 2605:8D80:443:6C51:26F4:FCC4:BB08:BED8 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

TAR 36 filming

Started around June 14 or 15, given the sightj Ings in Bangkok. Hopefully more than just reddit posts to confirm once that page goes live. Masem (t) 14:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Better source [1] — Masem (t) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)