text:
Talk:The Amazing Race 7

Season 7
Just a note, I added the info on Season 7's DVD being released to the main article. It works along with Season 1's info, I feel it fits.

The spoiler that appeared here now appears at the end of this page. --AStanhope 18:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Table
What is the "Roadblocks Completed" column meant to contain? There's only one roadblock that is completed each leg, and it's the same for each team. What's up? Mo0 [ talk ] 03:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's used to keep track, since no player can do more than 6 roadblocks in the race. Look at this old version of Season 6 to see how it was used. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

New location chart
I love the idea of the new location chart, with the location of all the route markers and clues on the race. The only problem is that the show doesn't always show all the locations (and challenges) in each leg of the race. Like last season's finale, they took out a challenge between the church and Gino's Pizza in Chicago. They didn't air a Roadblock in Dubai during Season 5, even though they had pictures of it on the CBS website.

I don't know, maybe whoever edits the location list needs to do a bit more digging to see if any challenges (or locations) were edited out of the program. --Madchester 18:25, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

 * Since it was my idea, I'll chime in. I'd prefer we keep it only to the route and challenges which actually aired (for simplicity).  As with previous seasons, we can list out what was edited out in another section of the article, if necessary.  I really want to see this section be a reference for people who watched and want to come find the specific locations they saw on the show (as a traveler myself, I find it interesting). -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

 * I thought it'd be nice cuz last yr's finale made it blatantly obvious that something was missing... One moment they're opening a clue at a church in downtown Chicago, the next moment the teams are looking for a cab in the middle of some industrial neighbourhood. There's other cases where the editing make you go... how'd they change locations so quickly? :)  --Madchester 23:10, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the location chart be organised by leg than by country? It would be more interesting to readers who want to read more about the Race. --User:192.169.41.33 00:59, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, I did just that. I was thinking of doing the location list like that all along, but Netholic is kinda territorial over that section. --Madchester 09:31, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

non-elimination legs
I removed this spoiler (highlight section to view) - "In an interview with host Phil Keoghan, he mentioned that there will be a new twist for teams who finish last on a non-elimination leg." - because it doesn't provide the source of the information, and because nothing about it has aired yet. I'm sure we'll get something in later. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

This was from an interview with Phil @ TVGuide.com The link needs a password though. You can read the full article here, just scroll to the bottom.

But I'll quote an excerpt from the article: "There are a lot of photo finishes, and there are a couple of new twists and turns that will really engage people. For example, teams that come in last place will face new consequences that we haven't seen before."

Since this information is in regular print media, it's not really spoiler material. --Madchester 05:04, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

 * Don't put spoilers in the intro. I consider any information that has not yet aired on the show as a spoiler.  We do not need to be in a hurry to put this in. -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

why was that bit of info removed? I think it's relevant to the show; it's no different than the info provided on the CBS website or previews at the end of each show. it's not a spoiler if something is the news is readily available public domain.--69.198.108.83 15:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, we could just put these tidbits under the first spoiler heading, if we're really so picky here. The first "twist" was already revealed (the new money prizes) so the information provided by Phil in the interview is definitely relevant. I like to be reading as much info as I can from the show, cuz the Amazing Race 7 site @ CBS is not really kept up to date that well (lots of spelling mistakes and incorrectly naming teams too!)

If Wikipedia wants to remain a good resouce of info, it should include such details, cuz they're hard to find elsewhere. It's good that there's some people that have so much prior knowledge to the show that they can share with everyone.--129.97.58.55 16:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * First, it's legs not rounds.

Second, I don't get the double standard used here. It's okay to include a "spoiler" and use it to create 2 brand new articles (i.e., Phil's mention of future season on The Early Show when they presented the checks to F/K). Yet it's not cool to add one sentence based on a printed article based on a full interview in an existing article. It's not a spoiler anyway; Phil was just previewing the new season. He does that for every season. It's no different than that 30 sec. clip at the end of each show. AOL actually has a 2 minute preview each week as well.--LeoTheLion 18:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AR 7 Preview
Since some people may not be able to read the TV Guide Article at their official website, I copy and pasted it here for referral.

Amazing Race 7 Preview by Ethan Alter

Last year was busy for Amazing Race host Phil Keoghan. Not only did he film three back-to-back editions of the reality hit, he also launched his new TV series No Opportunity Wasted and published a book based on the program. "I only had two days off and traveled 465,000 miles," says the exhausted New Zealander. "I really need to take a bit of a break."

Before he can slack off though, he's got to tell TVGuide.com all about the seventh edition of The Amazing Race, which premieres tonight on CBS at 9pm/ET. Keoghan acknowledges it's strange to be gearing up for another season so soon after the previous one wrapped, but he's very high on Amazing Race 7. "My favorite season before this was Season 5," he says. "There was something about that season that captured the magic of what the race is all about. I never thought it would get any better than that, but I have to say that Season 7 is now my favorite. It is, without doubt, the strongest one we've ever put together."

His enthusiasm will hopefully reassure fans of the reality adventure, many of whom were disappointed with last season. "Season 6 was quite a different series for us," Keoghan admits. "It got a very different reaction from people. It produced the best ratings we had so far, so more and more people were watching the show. But it was different, and I personally didn't know that we'd get the reaction to Jonathan and Victoria that we did. This season, the show has definitely gone back to its roots. There are a lot of photo finishes, and there are a couple of new twists and turns that will really engage people. For example, teams that come in last place will face new consequences that we haven't seen before."

Format changes aside, Keoghan cites casting as the main reason for this season's success, starting with the biggest names, Survivor winners Rob and Amber. "They stirred the pot up quite a bit," he laughs. "Some people were surprised by the choice, but just to be clear, they came to us about being on the show. We didn't go and find them."

Not everyone on the race was pleased to see them, either. "Right from the beginning, there was quite a bit of animosity directed towards them[romber]. I can't say they were warmly embraced. This was a totally different experience for them. I think they were quite surprised by the speed of the race. On Survivor, they're used to not eating and talking a lot. There's no real downtime here."

In addition to Rob and Amber, Keoghan says fans should keep an eye on a few other teams. (Click here for photos of them all.) "There's Ron and Kelly, a dating couple," he says. "He's a POW who was shot down in Iraq and was in the news for quite a while. There's also a married couple, Uchenna and Joyce. Both have worked for companies that went bankrupt; both have had financial difficulties in the past and both are absolutely desperate to have a child. They really came into this race to win. A lot of teams come on for the experience, but this team is there because they want to win the money and use it to have a child. There's a real focus there and you don't see that with a lot of teams.

"Boyfriends Lynn and Alex are one of the funniest teams we've ever had on the show," Keoghan continues. "I thoroughly enjoyed talking to them each time they came onto the mat and I think they're going to be hot favorites on the show. Finally, mother-and-son team Susan and Patrick are a dynamic mix. She's this bright woman who works in the judicial system and he's this wannabe writer from Hollywood who is also gay. So you've got a real contrast there. Also, it's a mother-son relationship, which is a first for us."

Now that Amazing Race 7 is in the can, you'd think Keoghan would take a work-free vacation. But no, on Wednesday, he heads out on a cross-country trip to promote his book and to scout contestants for the eighth season of Race, which will feature families instead of two-person teams.

"I'm driving through Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Albuquerque and Phoenix, arriving in L.A. on March 14," he says. "Mercedes has given me a G-series vehicle and my dad is flying in to take the trip with me. I've always wanted to do something like this with him, so this will be a great experience. I'm really looking forward to meeting the families. This is a great way to take the show out on the road and speak with people directly." And after that, maybe he'll finally get that break.

--Madchester 19:09, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Race locations
I prefer this to be separated by country, then cities, and then special locations. Separating by leg is redundant, considering the pit stops are marked. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll give you that. Perhaps put numbers on the pit stops, to mark each leg? Radagast 12:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. If you hover your mouse over any of the pit stop or route markers, it will give the details. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Road blocks
I've removed the road blocks column from the results table. There was no mention of the Season 6 rule limiting the number of road blocks each team member can perform. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * "...and no team member may perform more than six roadblocks in the entire race." Right there in Phil's spiel. I'll put it back in. Radagast 12:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll have to take your word for it. If he said it, I missed it. I also checked the online site's glossary, which doesn't mention it as it did before - compare season 6 and season 7. -- Netoholic @ 14:05, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * I was listening for it, so I'm very sure. Others on message boards seem to agree. Radagast 14:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't bother with the official Amazing Race site. They have some webmonkeys running that place... last season they spelt "Hungary" as "Hungry".  And they make mistakes on the leaderboard every other week. --Madchester 22:58, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Ron/Kelly count
I was just looking at this... is it accurate? I thought Ron did the first two (shoeshine, beef) and Kelly the third (Gaucho riding)... Radagast 03:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, this looks to be right. I've adjusted the tally in the article. Radagast 14:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Meredith/Gretchen count
Just updated the tallies after Leg 7... looked like the total there (M2 G3) was wrong coming in (Gretchen has done only the shoeshine and market shopping, I beleive). It's fixed. Radagast 14:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Eliminated players
Hi all, I've added cells to the results table for the number of roadblocks performed for eliminated players. Was there some reason they are left out? If so please revert, otherwise please help fill in missing data. Monkeyman 22:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think they were left out because the numbers didn't matter. The article is now more than 6 screens long (at least for me), so my personal preference is to keep the information clutter down. Elysion 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Can we just reverted it back? The only reason where the Roadblock count really matter is when it comes down to the Final 3 teams.  The question marks right now look so cumbersome. --Madchester 02:03, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

The Amazing Loophole
Not only did Rob/Amber set a poor precedent for the race (let's get everyone to skip a Detour/buy a business class ticket/not do what the clue says, etc. and take a penalty together) but they created a potential loophole. How will the "# of Roadblocks Completed" be tabulated? Because none of the 3 teams completed the Roadblock. Hayden didn't complete their Xi'an Roadblock either in Season 6, but it was a moot point, since they were eliminated anyway.

Anyway, it'd be curious to see how the producers actually scored that last Roadblock, because Deanna/Meredith/Rob never actually completed the task. If none of those players had that RB counted in their total, and they make it to the Final 3 (*lol*), then the penalty could end up playing to their advantage again, since they'd have more flexibility in choosing RBs.--Madchester 12:51, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

 * I would presume that, as all those teams chose a Roadblock performer, they've used one up even if they quit. If not, I'll personally track down the producers and give them each a well-deserved wedgie... Radagast 18:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

How about add more information
How about add more information about the race like the money the they got for each leg, the time they arrived the pit stop (can be known from the start time of next long), the detour each team choose and which memeber play the roadblock?

 * That seems to be, in my mind, a bit more than an encyclopedia article should cover. We track the basic progress of the teams and the Race; if you want to know more there are external links to the official site and fan sites with summaries, analysis and statistics galore. Radagast 13:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree, the season articles are just supplemental information to the main The Amazing Race article. -- Netoholic @ 16:57, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Trivia
Is it just me, or is a lot of the trivia just stating some pedestrian information? Like is the fact that the race has visited Argentina twice that interesting (or important for that matter)? It's like stating that Uchenna and Joyce are the 3rd black couple to compete in the race. I've personally been putting a lot of behind the scenes and unaired info cuz it's actually interesting and note-worthy. --Madchester 00:25, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I cleaned up the trivia a bit, though I imagine some of it will be put back later (e.g., once we find out what the "twist" for non-elimination legs is). Elysion 02:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * 69.175.12.135 keeps adding frivolous details to the page. I think we need to decide what should and shouldn't be included in the trivia and Race pages as a whole.  I'm for adding behind the scenes information, and stuff that may have been edited or not mentioned on a show due to time contraints. --Madchester 20:17, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Spoilers
Moved from the top of the page ... --AStanhope 18:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Final 3 end up in (hidden) before returning to the States. Won't guarantee it, but I did start the AR7 page with the Rob and Amber sighting.

--Madchester 06:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I hid the spoilers above. Check the page history if you really want to see. Please be more careful next time. -- Netoholic @ 04:20, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Posting results
Is there a policy of when to post results, so not to spoil it for people PST and mountain time?Saopaulo1 05:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No policy. When I post results, I put in the edit summary "leg x results" or somesuch... also, the race locations is down at the bottom.  I'd say, if you're in PST, don't read the article for the 3 hours before it airs :). -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

 * Like you said there's no policy concerning spoilers, so please do not remove other people's edits regarding spoilers. The spoiler tag already warns readers before they continue reading. --Madchester 02:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

 * There is a vast difference between spoilers from episodes which have aired, and "inside information" or spoilers from futures episodes.  The former is acceptable and to some degree expected on an encyclopedia page, and its discussion section.  Information which provides spoilers about future episodes is quite unwelcome.  I myself do not want my enjoyment of future episodes ruined.  Please keep that sort of thing off of Wikipedia until the episode has aired.  -- Netoholic @ 04:02, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense at all. By that definition, then you should not be revealing that the next unaired episode will be 2 hrs long!  In the same vein of thinking, there should be no information on the next 2 seasons, because they have not been aired.  Please include all information provided, as this is as you said an encyclopedic resource.  If people don't wish to be spoiled, then they won't read ahead.  --LeoTheLion 04:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be cynical, it's not very productive. This article and talk page are read also by people who just want to catch up on the latest episode.  Lately, I've been adding in some expanded links and information on the various race locations, so that people can visit and perhaps learn about the places visited.  Read my other reply below. -- Netoholic @ 06:38, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

 * My 2 cents: don't scroll down past the spoiler tag if you don't want to be spoiled. Simple as that.  You're just preventing people here from putting in any relevant information to the race.  Last I checked, they show "scenes from the next episode" at the end of each episode.  They also have a 2 minute episode preview at AOL.com.  The official site and TV Guide have 50 word previews before each episode.  And in case you didn't know it, they splice scenes from past and present seasons into the opening credits.  So in reality, you've already been spoiled because one of the scenes (the colourful smokestack) is the location from the latest unaired episode.
 * If people are posting inaccurate rumours then remove them immediately. But there's no reason to exclude cold hard facts. People should have an alternative source of information besides the official site at CBS.com.  That's what Wikipedia articles should be about; to dig up more details that the official site just won't bother to mention.  This site should be an excellent companion to the official material available. --Madchester 05:24, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, nor does it necessarily need to be timely, but it certainly shouldn't be very forward looking, and positively should not include information which hasn't been published by reliable sources. Think about this... what real benefit are you giving by added spoilers of unaired episodes?  While I'm sure you want to be helpful, you may end up scaring people away from the article because they're afraid of being spoiled and that is what we don't want.  Someone reading this article pretty much expects that the article will be current up to the last episode.  Those "next episode" teasers and summaries (ala TV Guide) will just end up being removed one week later in favor of the actual episode information. Spoilers date quickly and should be avoided.  Err on the side of caution so that we can appeal to the widest audience. -- Netoholic @ 06:38, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not even answer my question... you are so hypocritical that it's so unbelievable. Like I said, seasons 8 and 9 have not been aired, yet there's already pages up and running for them.  Little to none of the information on those pages are from the actual CBS site.  You feel that it is perfectly fine, yet information on future episodes, from fully credible news agencies, enterainment outlets, and the official site itself is bollocks?
 * I don't understand why you're willingly let information slip through, when so many people here want the page to be comprehensive as possible. If you look at a Wiki article on an upcoming album, there's a lot of speculation on potential tracklistings, release dates,etc.  Similar situation with other types of media such as upcoming movies, other television shows, novels, comic releases, etc.  There's also numerous pages speculating future product launches, whether its for the next iPod or the next Porsche.  Hell, the PSP and Nintendo DS pages were all about speculation/predictions for the months leading up to their release.
 * You're the only one here who is adamant against "spoilers" getting onto the article. Why does the whole wiki community have to conform to your standards, just because you don't wish to read any spoilers.  I'm sorry, but any sensible person who doesn't want to read spoilers would just simply stop reading after seeing the spoiler tag. --Madchester 07:42, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

 * Err on the side of caution so that we can appeal to the widest audience. Someone reading this article or talk page past the spoiler warning expects to see information about the current state of the race, they would not expect future race locations and the eventual winners to be here. -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I'm a casual watcher of the show and i feel that there's no problem with spoilers. The spoiler tag provides enough protection. In that same regard, just take a look at other pages on Wikipedia. Look at the page for Casino Royale, 80% of it is pure speculation and rumours about the casting, plot, etc. of the new Bond film. Same deal with the new Harry Potter novel. Should similar articles be deleted to a clean state, because they provide spoilers? No, people come to Wikipedia expecting a wealth of information. It's their choice whether to read on or not.

Like you said, you "expect" people to be reading about the current state of the race. But with the spoiler tag, it basically cautions people that there can be other potential information about the race. And personally, I would love to read more about the race than provided by CBS. I didn't come to Wikipedia to read a carbon copy of what's provided on their official site.

I don't get what the whole fuss is about. The race was filmed months in advance, and the results and itinerary is known to hundreds of crew, racers, etc. Revealing that there's a twist to the race is no big deal. Nor is revealing the potential winners; each installment of Survivor has had the same online betting problems. I encourage all contributors to include any news about the race ASAP. For the benefit of everyone reading. It's simply their choice whether to read or not.

I hope all the contributors keep up the good work. I'd like to know all the latest breaks on the race. --129.97.58.55 17:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-

I was reading the Spoiler warning info and this is part of the Wikipedia policy:

More than spoilers

''A strong point of a good encyclopedia article may be that it contains plot details which are not easily available elsewhere, because they are spoilers. However, ideally the article should also contain much that cannot be seen from only reading the book or seeing the film in question.''

I've been driving this point for the longest time, if we want this article to be comprehensive, you have to include information outside the actual show and official site. That's why I'm a proponent for including information from alternative sources, whether its a news article, AR messageboard or an interview with the contestants. That's the best way to create an article that covers all the bases, and not simply re-hashing the official site. --Madchester 21:26, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

possible winners?
http://tv.insidepulse.com/articles/35353 is reporting that sportsbook.com has stopped taken bets on (a certain team) because of "a disproportionate amount of wagering" coming in on them. Should this be added to the article? RickK 06:45, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I hid the spoilers above. Check the page history if you really want to see. Please be more careful next time. -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

 * Please. I put a spoiler warning on it.  And you didn't answer my question.  RickK 06:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * You know full well that tag is insufficient. You put the names right on the page, when you could have just posted the link. Cold move. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

 * I put it on the Talk page, with a spoiler tag, because I honestly wanted to know what people's opinion was about including the information in the article.  I think it's relevant, but I wanted to get opinions on it.  If anybody else other than me had done it, you'd be happy to see it, Netoholic, but because it was me, you decided to have a hissy fit.  I'm still hoping to get an answer as to whether or not to include it in the article.  It's all speculation, anyway.  RickK 07:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * Something has to be done with all this non-spoiler nonsense. I'm sorry Netholic, but you're just censoring everything that people want to include on this page!  I'm with agreeance with RickK, ease up on the policing and let people put in potential spoiler information that is below a spoiler tag.  If you or anyone else don't want to be spoiled, then avoid this page for the time being.  Very simple solution that suits everybody.
 * RickK, I haven't looked at your article, but I'm pretty sure that it's the online betting scandal. I already heard about that a month ago, but I didn't put it up, cuz I knew "someone" would  immediately delete any hint of a spoiler. --Madchester 07:31, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

 * I would like to point out that the best idea really would be to hide that information via an outside link. The last spoiler I read on an online betting scandal, for The Apprentice 2, turned out to be dead on.  I will only read those after the shows end now, since I ruined the experience of watching it that time.  A spoiler tag is helpful, yes, but I agree with Netoholic in that some spoilers simply shouldn't be on there.  It's hard to dodge around the spoilers sometimes. Mo0 [ talk ] 02:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Was there anybody else who could have possibly won last season's Apprentice? Trump would have looked like a fool if he hired Jen M, with the negative edit that she received in the 2nd half of the season.
 * Anyway, like I said below, for me it's the journey that's more important than the goal. I like watching teams who are enjoying themselves on the race.  I love teams that have respect for their partner, their competition, and the local culture.  I like watching teams who can co-operating as a unit and can complete challenges with relative ease.  As long as the teams entertain me, it doesn't matter who wins or loses.
 * If people are so up in arms over being spoiled, then don't read anything related to the show leading up to it. I download the show to watch the day after it airs (Wednesday), and I just avoid reading ANYTHING related to the show so I won't be spoiled for that particular episode.  If you can control yourself, then you won't read possible spoilers anywhere on the net whether its here or elsewhere. --Madchester 04:38, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, the spoiler announced the two finalists on the show the week that Bradford was eliminated. At that point in the game, those two seemed rather unlikely to me.
 * I personally don't mind spoilers that result from timezone differences. Those are inevitable, and make me glad I live on the East Coast.  What I do mind are spoilers that can ruin the entire show for people who DO care who wins.  I personally know which teams I'd like to see win and which I want to see eliminated next episode.  Knowing who wins ahead of time ruins the experience of the show for me, and I'm sure for many others that may come to browse this site for information.  Exercising self-restraint is good, yes, but at some point the line needs to be drawn. Mo0 [ talk ] 09:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Survey for spoiler policy
Can we start a survey to decide some spoiler policy for this and future Amazing Race pages. I find it very frustrating that every piece of information seems to be labelled as spoiler material and removed immediately, even though there is a spoiler tag at the top of the article. --Madchester 08:02, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
 * I'm a casual watcher of the show, and I really don't mind the spoilers on the page. I think anyone should be willing to read the rest of the article at their own risk.  So many pages already have a spoiler note and it's the responsability of the reader to decide whether to continue reading or not.  I hope the contributors here keep adding interesting and relevant details bout the show.  So I'm '''for spoilers, provided they're written below the spoiler tag'., 28 Mar 2005

 * I'd have to agree, KEEP SPOILERS AS THEY ARE'. People should have access to as many detailz possible.  The more comprehensive the article the better.  28 Mar 2005

 * I agree. There's a spoiler warning, let the reader beware.   Mar 28, 2005

I was reading the Spoiler warning and I think that's the best reference here. Refer to what I wrote under Posting Results. According to the guidelines, a spoiler tag alone should suffice. A compromise can be made by rewording the spoiler tag if necessary. :-X 005 Mar 28

 * As long as the spoiler warning is present then spoilers should be OK. That being said, only the WARNING should appear at the top of a page.  The spoilers themselves can NEVER appear at the top of a page.  I also think that (as somebody did here in the example above) obscuring the text of a spoiler in a bright color forcing a reader to highlight it is a good idea...  People should do that if they have the ability/inclination to do so.  - 04:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-

I visit and contribute to this page often. Personally, as a regular watcher of the show, I have no interest in knowing where the show is going or who will be there. I do, however, like to see where the show has been because that has been broadcast to all of North America and is common knowledge. If a potential winner, or possible future location, is listed I DO NOT want to see it there. If some people can find out by reading TV Guide or viewing an AOL video, great, let them. But I fell (and note, this is me personally) that the average show-viewer would not want to be spoiled for anything upcoming unless they specifically choose to do so.

The links posted to race locations after each broadcast are the real meat of this article, as a part of this encyclopedia. In my opinion, that's why the majority of the article's readers would come here, and I would recommend not posting anything relating to what has not aired on the show itself. My two cents on this. Mar 31, 2005

- The only thing I find that really "SPOILS" the show is the editing. The Race editors do a smart job creating story arcs and if you watch carefully you can usually spot some foreshadowing telling you which teams have to come to the end of their story and will be eliminated in an episode or two.

Like Ray and Deanna, how many episodes did he spend mocking the old folks and saying they're not fit to race against him. After winning Leg 5, R/D came first while Meredith and Gretchen came in last; the editors had told all they could with the ageism angle. R/D's story was done. In stinging irony, Meredith and Gretchen beat them in grinding corn in the next leg... and Ray gets beaten in a foot race by the brothers who are a good 20 years younger than him at least.

Even with Brian/Greg so behind the other night you knew they were fairly safe to live another day, because they hadn't recieved much character development up to that point.

Actual spoilers and rumours don't ruin the show for me. Some people simply focus on the race elements like the locations and team placements, but I'm more interested in inter and intra team interactions. I enjoy seeing how teams handle themselves; like I was impressed with how Brian/Greg handled the accident and happy at how Rob and Amber turned the other cheek. That's what makes the Race appealing to me. 2005 Mar 31

Current Tag
I added the current/ongoing events tag, cuz the airing of the race is still in progress. This is to appease people who don't like how certain details may become outdated quickly. I'm just borrowing the idea from the Jeopardy Ultimate Tournament of Champions page. Feel free to remove it, if it's not really in the best interest of the page. --Madchester 21:42, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Trivia
The background in the pictures is not trivia. It leans towards speculation. If the speculation holds true, the facts might become trivia, bus as of now it means nothing. I also removed the fact that episodes 5 and 6 were broadcast together. Again it's a fact, but it's not trivia. googuse 00:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, I read on several Amazing Race boards and most posters there feel that it's more of a coincidence more than anything else. It's not really worthy of a mention IMHO.  It's just like a conincidence how the first 3 teams eliminated the past 2 seasons have gone males, females, females.--Madchester 01:09, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

 * Right - like I said, if the speculation that the backgrounds have some precognition of the outcome is proven at the end of the race, then and only then will it become trivia. Until then it is meaningless. --googuse 01:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm just curious bout who changed the order of the sections... --Madchester 23:58, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Location list by leg
Netholic, could u please stop reverting the list back to your compacted format? It's missing certain locations (like that animal reserve) and it's harder to read cuz it's all over the place. A lot of people above mentioned sorting things by leg cuz it's how the results board is sorted; also helps new viewers of the show keep track of things. --LeoTheLion 04:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If the information is wrong, fix or add to it. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Agreed. Neto, the old version was impossible to read (I personally couldn't figure out the order of anything visited based off it), was TOO compact, and was inelegant. The new version is much better. Mo0 [ talk ] 09:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am open to readability changes, but the "expanded" format is impractical and ugly. We have a lot more episodes to go, and the long list of locations wastes a ton of space, with no practical improvement.  Sorting by country makes this more appropriate for an encyclopedia, rather than an episode summary guide.  This article is not a replacement, nor an attempt at improving, CBS.com.  I find my version very elegant and welcome, compared to previous seasons.  -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

 * I have been debating whether the article should even have that much detail for each leg. This is an encyclopedia entry, and there are already plenty of fan sites that have that information. Elysion 18:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Can we bring back the improved locale list? The existing one is really hard on the eyes!  Confuses me too when I'm trying to keep track of what's happening with each eppy. --129.97.58.55 20:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate spoiler
Just as a note, I removed that note in the trivia section, which disclosed the ultimate winner of the race, for the simple reason that it's one thing to have spoilers from one episode, but another thing to spoil the entire end of the race. It makes it real hard to root for your favorite teams when you know they aren't going to win anymore. Mo0 [ talk ] 18:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second comment: At some point it becomes not about policy, but about courtesy for all readers of Wikipedia. I will acknowledge that there is a community of dedicated "spoilers" out there who want to try to figure out the end, and view it as a way to keep the show entertaining for them. The vast majority of the viewing audience, from what I see, is more interested in rooting for their favorites and booing their non-favorites, and trying to guess with no outside help who's going to win. A spoiler based on a time zone is something that's unavoidable, really. I do it on the Survivor article. About 30 seconds to a minute after the end of the episode, I've edited the article completely. I would never EVER consider putting something like "Dolly has been the winner of Survivor: Vanuatu due to a betting scandal." I would say "The winner of the show was predicted in an online betting scandal. *link to scandal*". Again, it's not about policy or spoiler tags, it's about being courteous. Wikipedia is not a spoiler site. Mo0 [ talk ] 19:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. - MattTM | talk 00:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly don't agree! Don't read if you don't want to be spoiled.  Period.  Curiosity killed the cat. --Madchester 01:28, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Leg 8 (Double-length)
If you read the intro at the CBS Amazing Race site... "Winning the hard-fought match, Rob & Amber stepped on the mat and received a shock when Phil told them that he had their next clue. The leg was not over."

Some anonymous person keeps trying to revert the page so that it's 9 legs, when Leg 8 was obviously broadcast over 2 episodes. Just to let peeps know to prevent that person from starting some revert war. Cheers --Madchester 02:30, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

They are now considered to be two separate legs which they should be since they have 2 legs worth of tasks and a fast forward on the latter leg. A fast forward comes early in a leg not after it's half over. What Phil said here as well as seasons 8, 9 and 14 was to avoid controversy of why they weren't performing the money stripping penalty (or speed bump on S14) so the easy way out was to say "the leg is not over" to cover it up. Aceee1 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Elimination Notes
Do we actually need this? There's already a leaderboard to show how each team placed each leg. Not to mention the fact that the info provided is way off. --Madchester 01:30, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

 * Agreed -- this article is getting far too long in my opinion. Unless someone voices objections, I'll edit it out later today. Some information on the progress of the teams is nice, but the level of detail we've accumulated is a bit out of control. Elysion 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers
We seem to have a bit of an issue with future episode spoilers, and whether they should be included or not... I'd like to propose a way to handle it that both sides can handle: Keep past episode spoilers the same, but put future episode spoilers under another tag at the bottom. This should make it easy for us who want to avoid future spoilers to avoid them, but still keep them there for those who do. --SonicAD 22:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * When the preview for next week shows double-decker buses it doesn't take much intuition to figure out where teams are going next. Besides the opening credits splices scenes from past and present locations for the race very blatantly anyway;

 * Season 6: Raft Detour from Iceland, Shanghai skyline, skydiving Roadblock in Hawaii from the finale

 * Season 7: That spitting llama from Peru, Smokestack Fast Forward and Lion/Rhino reserve in South Africa, elephant from India, Rumeli Hisari, Istanbul and Big Ben/Great Bell of Westminster, London are shown at the start of each episode. It even shows a certain location in North America for the final episode.  But I won't comment on that till next week.

 * Hell, this tidbit can go into The Amazing Race trivia section. --Madchester 02:31, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

 * Please put nothing in the article until the appropriate episode is aired. When the season is over, you can be as complete as you want to be. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Considering the page is mostly a resource for people while watching the show, it'd defeat the purpose by not including relevant info. As Wikipedia's current spoiler policy indicates, it's perfectly fine to include such details, as long as they're protected with a spoiler tag.
 * Also, other shows like Lost, Alias, and Smallville include placeholders for future episodes a month or two in advance.--Madchester 04:10, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with that is that those shows that you mentioned are scripted dramas. It's a lot harder to get a reliable spoiler for a scripted drama than it is for a reality show, since the network has control over everything that comes out.  With a reality show, it's a lot easier to get your hands on an inside contact months before the show airs.
 * Also, I don't think information about future episodes is relevant to what's already happened. Wikipedia is not meant to be an outright spoiler site.  Spoilers are inevitable when covering an already concluded story, but there's no reason to bring them out when it's not necessary.  The only spoilers that, at this point, will matter anyway are the spoilers regarding who's won, and we've already had a long and drawn-out discussion about that.
 * What I think we need to work on is a solution for next season. This season is almost concluded, and I think what we have here in terms of spoilers (that is to say, it's a spoiler only if you haven't watched the episode yet) should stay for this season.  Next season, a small article at the very bottom of the article might be nice, but I still think that would run the risk of someone reading it accidentally, whether while just browsing or while editing.  Perhaps a subpage of the main page (The Amazing Race 7/Spoilers), which could then be added back into the article?  It could be changed to provide context about which spoilers were on the money and which weren't, since for a vast minority, but still significant amount of TAR/Survivor/whatever watchers, trying to figure out the results early is more fun than the show itself.  I think that spoilers are a reasonable topic of discussion in this article, but for the sake of keeping people from getting angry at us, we should hide the spoilers as best as possible. Mo0 [ talk ] 04:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As a secondary note, I'd like to point out that I don't think that things revealed about future episodes that are in the official next episode preview are spoilers. The online preview for the show specifically states the teams are travelling to London.  I don't think that that's a spoiler we need to censor. Mo0 [ talk ] 13:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the pt I was getting at.  I wasn't referring to any outside sources at all with that bit of info on next week's location.  It's all provided on the show on Tuesday: in the opening credits and in the weekly preview.--Madchester 01:52, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Religious values
I'm a bit fuzzy on the details of this one, but didn't the reason Brandon and Nikki avoided shaving their heads involve more of the fact that they're models, and their hair is part of their livelihood? I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, since it's rather late and it's been a year, but I don't remember that being mentioned at all. Mo0 [ talk ] 06:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I believe Jendeyoung was thinking of a task that required drinking alcohol.  Monkeyman 14:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the one where the models decided to block shots (hockey) instead of taking shots (Vodka) in St.Pete's, Russia. Brandon mentioned how they didn't want to to do anything against their faith: i.e., drinking. --Madchester 17:38, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Rob&Amber linked
No one else is linked because someone deleted it. Why is Rob and Amber linked the other people should get credit to. --Contrib 18:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted it way back when, because you're going to end up with 20 stubs for the other contestants. They just don't have enough information to warrant an individual article.  Rob and Amber are probably the best known reality show contestants/couple ever and they already had bio-articles before The Amazing race 7 even aired. --Madchester 20:27, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
With the way that locations are presented now, you don't really need to note that it was an intermediate location during the final leg. Also intermediate locations aren't exclusive to final legs. Look at Season 1 (1st leg) and 3 (many legs)...--Madchester 12:58, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

"Controversy"
The airplane thing on the last episode would not be called a controversy had it not happened to Rob and Amber. Similar situations have occured in the past (like Chip and Kim getting a lucky flight in Calgary in Season 5 finale), with little to no critcism.

And remember, in Argentina, both the Brothers (Brian + Greg) and Rob + Amber got on a flight that should have already been taxiing on the runway.

Here's a more reliable source than MSNBC's cut-and-paste article...

--Madchester 07:16, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

 * Folks over on the Amber article said controversy info was appropriate here, so there appears to be dueling consensuses. The controversy is indeed noteworthy and that is a valid citation....  zen master    T  01:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The MSNBC article is speculative at best; if you read around several Amazing Race messageboards, you'll see that it's panned for missing out a lot of crucial points. And it was written before the radio interview with Uchenna and Joyce, so they're only offering their own ideas on what happened, without any additional evidence for their claims. --Madchester 01:28, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Zen-master is making unilateral edits claiming that there was a controversy with the final results. There was nothing particularly controversial about the whole incident, if you listen to Uchenna and Joyce's radio interview. I would personally take their word versus what Rob/Amber had to say about the incident, considering that A) Rob is well-known for his lying on gameshows and B) Rob and Amber were inside the aircraft and had no inkling what was happening in the airport gate.

A much more controversial incident (but overlooked at the time) was how Colin and Christie almost managed to get on Chip and Kim's flight in Dallas, during the finale of Season 5. Chip and Kim were the only ones on the flight at the time (the earliest one too), and the flight was full, so they would have been the first ones to arrive in Dallas. However, Christie claimed that she was able to get an entire baseball team (30+people) to give up their tickets, thus freeing up space on that flight for them to get on it. However, United was unwilling to give each of those 30 players a $100 surcharge credit, so C+C couldn't get on the plane.

Also Colin and Christie ordered a limo in Dallas using a fake credit card number. It's clever, but it's breaking the law, which is something that teams aren't suppose to do on the race. Remember how Uchenna and Joyce paid up their cabbie before running for the finish mat. They were obliged to pay the fine, b/c of the rules of the game...

Had C+C been able to pull off PlaneGate and raced to the in1st place with the limo ordered with that fake credit card, it would have been a much more controversial situation than Season 7's finale. Because of the show's recent popularity and Romber's B-level celebrity recognition, the case received more attention than it should have deserved.

--Madchester 01:24, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

 * MSNBC is a perfectly acceptable citation source. FYI: I didn't actually watch the show, I am merely stating that a controversy possibly exists. Are you going to add your statement that Rob is "well-known for his lying on gameshows" to his article perchance?  What do all your tangential points above have to do with the final episode, at the very least, it was edited poorly.  If a significant number of fans noted the airplane issue then it is noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article, in my opinion.   I should however note that I did enjoy citing the MSNBC article because of the irony that the article uses "conspiracy theory" to discredit either fans or discredit other media that encouraged this controversy (or some such).  zen master    T  04:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I really don't trust that MSNBC article. The enertainment reporter is even more clueless about the show than the fans asking the questions.  Every other sentence he writes "we're not sure...", which does not do much for the article's credibility.
 * If you're going to add controversies to this article, then it'll just open a can of worms with similar "controversies" in past season finales. There's always teams who get lucky breaks and teams that don't; and when people see a result they don't like, they call it out as being unfair or suspicious.
 * The same thing happened in Season 6, when an American Airlines agent outright lied to the fan favorites, Kris and Jon. And people were complaining how there weren't enough equalizers in the last leg, to let trailing teams to catch up.
 * The article as it is right now is perfectly fine. There's no need to beat a dead horse.  If it were truly an issue, than any of the ten so regular contributors could have brought it up immediately after it happened.  The whole incident was simply blown out of proportions.--Madchester 05:28, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

 * This article is specific to season 7 so that point of yours is clearly invalid. I am against beating dead horses but that analogy doesn't mean we shouldn't report the fact that the horse is indeed dead. zen master    T  09:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cased Closed. Read this article.. it actually has multiple references to other accredited media outlets.. not like the MSNBC article pulling info out of its ass: Reality TV World

I understand you're working on conspiracy articles throughout Wikipedia, but there's really no sense in furthering this PlaneGate issue any further. Especially when it's being brought up by someone who didn't even watch that particular episode, and perhaps the previous 12 episodes leading up to that incident. You admit that you didn't see the incident at all, yet you feel that you have the authority to write an article on it, from some secondary source?

Like if you want to further your conspiracy notions go ahead, but I would recommend that you actually watch the episode in question and this past season (and perhaps past seasons) before jumping to the speculation bandwagon. Because it seems like a lot of people who are yelling "conspiracy!" are the ones who are newer to the show, and haven't seen similar incidents in the past.

It's especially unfair to single out the incident from the finale, when a similar incident occured in the middle of the season. In Argentina, a plane scheduled to depart at 9:30 AM was held up so that 2 teams could get on the plane late; one only got tickets 2 minutes before the plan was to depart, the second 5 minutes after the plane should have departed. In all honesty, the gate should have been closed at least 5 minutes prior to the 9:30 departure. Yet no one is up in arms over that incident. --Madchester 15:22, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Rob/Amber's commission
I don't think commission is the appropriate word... it should be changed back to "appearance fee".

All teams receive a "commission"/compensation that is equivalent to what they would have earned in salary while they were away on the race.

But on top of that, it's believed that Rob and Amber also earned an appearance fee of 500K, simply for partcipating in the race. That's two different sums of money altogether.--Madchester 23:20, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Cameraman + rollover
It's obvious that they never aired actual footage of the boys flipping the car over. It was substituted with some other footage (you can see the drivers are wearing different clothing than the brothers) Also, the cameraman was dangling outside of the vehicle, which is why he got injured during the rollover. Now if he's dangling outside of the vehicle, how does he film the brothers flipping the Land Rover?

I can't remember if they refilmed it with actors or if the used some stock footage from elsewhere to mimic the accident. Unless it's referenced, there's no point adding what is otherwise speculation. --Madchester 18:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

nobody knows the surnames of the contestants?

Brian Smith and Greg Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.81.228 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited for reair?
I'm watching GSN's airing of the last ep right now and the teams just went from cutting onions, to doing the golf task, to the airport, to the sugar factory. That doesn't jive with the list in this article. Was this a 2 hour episode recut into one hour with half the stuff cut out or what? 74.102.224.43 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tar-7-roadblock.jpg
The image Image:Tar-7-roadblock.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 Media copyright questions. --05:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Singing Schoolchildren?
According to some viewers over at Television without Pity, there was an extra task in Jamaica that involved running through a school, listening to schoolchildren singing "You're so cold/hot" in reference to their clue location. Apparantly, according to an Australian viewer, he is not confused as he can see it on his VHS taped recording of the episode. Apparantly, this extension of broadcast was seen everywhere except for the US and Canada. Link to post: (Continues to page 118). Thoughts? Is this true? Should it be included in the itenerary/trivia?Shadow2 (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was included with the episode on Disney+. Xoruz (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Mistake
In the table says that rob and amber won but they didnot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.174.245 (talk) 21:28, 30 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 01:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Amazing Race 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718203840/http://www.bbm.ca/en/nat02282005.pdf to http://www.bbm.ca/en/nat02282005.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050403195128/http://www.rhinolion.co.za:80/rhino.html to http://www.rhinolion.co.za/rhino.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Amazing Race 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028181224/http://www.game-reserve.com/botswana_makgadikgadi.html to http://www.game-reserve.com/botswana_makgadikgadi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Amazing Race 7


text:
Talk:GNAT Modified General Public License

New name: License of GNU Ada
I am not quite happy with the new name. All Ada programmers know the Licence under the name of "Modified GPL" and the shortcut "MGPL". This is because - just like the Linux kernel - GNAT has a build in Licence check via the pragma License command.

So while your naming is prehaps politicly correct - it's what the user will type into the search box.

Also, not all of Ada is MGPL - i.E. packages derived from ISO 8652 are "unrestriced".

 * I'm totally agree, this license always has been refered to as Modified GPL (MGPL) or GNAT Modified GPL (GMGPL)  . This new name for the article, License of GNU Ada, is not appropiate. I propose to make this one a redirection to the old article name Modified GNU General Public License. We could even delete it, because Wikipedia isn't a search engine, although I'm more inclined to make it a redirect page (redirections are cheap, do not introduce much overhead to the servers). --suruena 10:00, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

 * There are zillions of other versions of the GPL modified by exceptions -- why shouldn't one of them be called the "Modified GPL"? What about "Ada Modified GPL"?  For now, changing it to something at least unambiguous if not super-common.

 * Maybe simply "GNAT Modified GPL" --suruena 12:38, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

GPL not GGPL
Since it is the GNU General Public License MGPL would expand to GNU Modified General Public License.

--Krischik 17:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No, GMGPL has always expanded to GNAT Modified General Public License. —optikos (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name again
There's no article for the license of GNU Guile. GNU Guile, like GNAT and Ada, uses a version of the GPL with modifications which weaken its copyleft characteristics. There may also be other projects with similar licenses. So instead of starting a new article for the license of Guile, I propose generalising this article to discuss the category of GPLs which are used for Guile, GNAT, Ada, and possibly one or two more that I'm not aware of right now. I don't have a specific name in mind for the article, "Modified GPLs" is one option, although that would encompass the Affero General Public License (but, hey, maybe that would be a good idea). Comments much appreciated. Gronky 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting them all into one article might not be a bad idea. There's little to say about each one individually and many aren't even particularly important. Just my 2c. --kingboyk 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Motivation
What was the motivation for this license? --Abdull (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If Ada and Guile need a relaxation of GPL's copyleft that LGPL cannot provide, then why doesn't C++ need a substantially-similar relaxation of copyleft that LGPL cannot provide? —optikos (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The compilation of generic units in the Ada standard library produces derivative works of the standard library which are then to be linked into executables that perhaps have a license that is incompatible with the GPL. Just as with the LGPL for the C standard library, FSF does not seek to limit the usage of any of the GCC compilers to only producing libraries or executables that are GPL-compatibly licensed.  But this party-line explanation is not complete.  Two questions are begged (and we do beg for answers to them, because it seems that at least one of them should be logically/legally problematic)
 * Why was the LGPL not sufficient for GCC Ada?
 * Why is the LGPL sufficient for instantiating templates from the GCC C++ standard library to link with an executable whose license is incompatible with the GPL?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Stoddard

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was Delete. 6 deletes, 3 keeps. dbenbenn | talk 04:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Stoddard
Appears to be either a) a vanity page or b) innappropriate content (based on the 'non-famous person' controversial criterion). The content of the page is ...
 * Samuel Stoddard (Sam) is the webmaster of RinkWorks.
 * Template:bio-stub

...has expanded significantly (as noted by one of the voters below). Courtland 18:34, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Thanks for your votes. Courtland 06:56, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

 * Delete Courtland 07:05, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I'll stand by my call for deletion; now it reads like it has been written by a fan Ceyockey 18:36, 2005 Feb 13 (according to history Uncle G 06:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC))
 * ... which is quite amusing, really, considering that I'd never even heard of the bloke until this came up for VFD. ☺ Uncle G 06:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure it's not a vanity page. I have read Sam's writing a lot, and talked to him in e-mail, and he doesn't seem the type to make a vanity page. Still, I vote delete. This page is almost devoid of information. Make it redirect to RinkWorks instead. 193.167.132.66 09:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. No useful info. Egil 09:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, And delete. Inter 13:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * One cannot simultaneously "redirect" and "delete", people. It's one or the other.  (One can "delete and then create a redirect", of course, or as per Egil "delete, or failing that redirect")  Please clarify your votes. Article does not establish notability (not even to the extent of David J. Parker), however a quick Google Web search indicates that there is plenty of potential (Dialectizer, "ultra-condensed books", the stupidity and barratry of of Bank of America, Samuel Stoddard the 18th century theologian, and so forth). Keep. Uncle G 16:07, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * (Note: I am the same person as 193.167.132.66 above.) OK, I stand corrected, I meant "delete and then redirect". This article has way too little content to warrant a separate article. The RinkWorks main article already mentions its webmaster is Samuel Stoddard, so what's the point in a separate article that only says that and nothing else? As for the RinkWorks features, they should be included in the RinkWorks main page or in articles of their own. As for Samuel Stoddard the 18th century theologian, well it's nice that there was such a person, but until someone actually writes something about him, there's no point in keeping a dummy article. Therefore, I say that either write something here (about either "our" Stoddard or the 18th century guy), or delete this article. 81.17.198.7 17:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with UncleG. There is plenty of potential here. Obviously it has to expand beyond the current one line status. Megan1967 22:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though Uncle G has found a Samuel Stoddard or two who might be notable, they are not this Samuel Stoddard.  This Samuel Stoddard's only claim to notability is that he is the webmaster of an Alexa rank 28,330 website.  I am the webmaster of a Top 2000 website, according to Alexa, and believe me I am not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article.  Neither is Samuel Stoddard, which doesn't mean he isn't a great guy, like all webmasters.  --BM 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I consider Samuel Stoddard's website RinkWorks quite notable. Many other websites mention or link to its humour features. However, having a separate article only to mention that Samuel Stoddard is the webmaster - especially when it's already mentioned in the RinkWorks article - is needless. Articles with next-to-none content shouldn't be kept just because someone might write something there in the future. When they actually write something, they can recreate the article. 85.76.152.179 09:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the website is notable (a point not yet validated), that does not mean that the webmaster of the site is automatically notable.  No evidence has yet been presented that he meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies.  To Uncle G's point, if some future editor has something encyclopedic to say about one of the other Samuel Stoddards, he/she can create the article more easily from a redlink.  Rossami (talk) 23:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: no useful content. No need to disambiguate articles which don't yet exist. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a need to disambiguate, even without the now expanded article. If deleted and re-created as a redirect, we'd still have a choice of whether to redirect to Solomon Stoddard, who appears to have been known as "Samuel", or to RinkWorks. Uncle G 10:48, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * I see the article has been expanded, which is a Good Thing, but still all the material is about Stoddard's website RinkWorks, not Stoddard himself. I have heard from Stoddard himself that there is more to his life than just RinkWorks! 85.76.152.179 18:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then, as someone who clearly knows him, you should be expanding this article instead of decrying it and asking other people to write about what you know for you, because otherwise (and despite the fact that there's a strong argument for Samuel Stoddard to be a redirect to Solomon Stoddard) it's likely that this article is going to end up being a redirect to RinkWorks, giving pretty much exactly that impression. Uncle G 06:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * (Note: I am the same person as 85.76.152.179. I am on a different computer.) First of all, I am only an active participant on RinkWorks. I am not Stoddard's personal friend. We have never met, but we've talked via e-mail. Thus I don't know very much about his personal life, other than the fact that he's married. Second of all, I never said I had anything against merging the article with RinkWorks. Go ahead if you want. 193.167.132.66 08:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep: an author of notable things is notable by association. We have plenty of precedents here, even with sillier things, like Sonja Elen Kisa, the author of Toki Pona language with "10-20 proficient speakers". Mikkalai 04:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Shenzhen Tong

The Shenzhen Tong is a reusable contactless stored value smartcard used for electronic payments in public transportation and some other areas in Shenzhen city, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China. It was developed by Shenzhen Modern Computer, the provider of automatic fare collection systems to Shenzhen Metro, with cooperation from Octopus Cards Limited, the operator of Hong Kong's Octopus cards system. It was first adopted by minibuses in Shenzhen, until the new system was introduced by Shenzhen Metro. The English name was originally TransCard.

Starting from January 18, 2006, Shenzhen Tong was gradually accepted by public buses to replace the old IC card system by Shenzhen Bus. All routes operated by Shenzhen Bus Group, Shenzhen Eastern Bus, Shenzhen Western Bus and most other private buses operators accept Shenzhen Tong cards.

Shenzhen Tong card can be purchased for RMB20 (Sale Version Card) deposit. A combined Shenzhen Tong and Hong Kong Octopus card is available, called the Hu Tong Xing, with RMB & HKD in different purses. Infineon Technologies announced it has won a contract to be the sole supplier of contactless microprocessor chips for Shenzhen Tong cards. Issuance unit volume of these cards is expected to exceed three million by the end of 2008. In January 2018, the Shenzhen Tong+ WeChat mini program was launched, allowing users to pay fares with QR codes.

Types of cards

 * Rent Version Card
 * Sale Version Card
 * Special Preferential Card
 * Bank Co-Branded Card
 * Memorial Card
 * Corporation Bardian Card
 * Mini Card
 * Mobile phone Shenzhen Tong (CMCC, China Telecom, China Unicom)
 * Hu Tong Xing (互通行, hù tōng xíng, literal meaning Interoperable Pass Card; Shenzhen Tong - Octopus Card 2 in 1 Co-Branded Card with RMB & HKD in different purses)
 * China T-union card

title: Shenzhen Tong


text:
Glassphalt

Glassphalt or glasphalt (a portmanteau of glass and asphalt) is a variety of asphalt that uses crushed glass. It has been used as an alternative to conventional bituminous asphalt pavement since the early 1970s. Glassphalt must be properly mixed and placed if it is to meet roadway pavement standards, requiring some modifications to generally accepted asphalt procedures.

Generally, there is about 10–20% glass by weight in glassphalt.

title: Glassphalt


text:
Maysville Road veto

The Maysville Road veto occurred on May 27, 1830, when United States President Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill that would allow the federal government to purchase stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, which had been organized to construct a road linking Lexington, Kentucky, to Maysville on the Ohio River (Maysville being located approximately 66 miles/106 km northeast of Lexington), the entirety of which would be in the state of Kentucky. Its advocates regarded it as a part of the national Cumberland Road system. Congress passed a bill in 1830 providing federal funds to complete the project. Jackson vetoed the bill on the grounds that federal funding of intrastate projects of this nature was unconstitutional. He declared that such bills violated the principle that the federal government should not be involved in local economic affairs. Jackson also pointed out that funding for these kinds of projects interfered with paying off the national debt.

Proponents of internal improvements, such as the development of roads and bridges, argued that the federal government had an obligation to harmonize the nation's diverse, and often conflicting, sectional interests into an "American System." Jackson's decision was heavily influenced by his Secretary of State Martin Van Buren. Some authors have described the motives behind the veto decision as personal, rather than strictly political. The veto has been attributed to a personal grudge against Henry Clay, a political enemy and resident of Kentucky, as well as to preserve the trade monopoly of New York's Erie Canal, in Van Buren's case.

Debate in Congress
Supporters of the bill insisted on the project's national significance. This particular project was intended to be a part of a much larger interstate system extending from Zanesville, Ohio, to Florence, Alabama. If the highway as a whole was of national significance, they argued, surely the individual sections must be as well. They looked to the Supreme Court decision handed down six years before in Gibbons v. Ogden, in which the court confirmed the power to regulate commerce among the states including those portions of the journey which lay within one state or another. Additionally, the road connected the interior of Kentucky to the Ohio River, and therefore served as the main artery for the transportation of goods. Kentucky Representative Robert Letcher made this argument regarding the road's connection to the rest of the nation:

"The road designed to be improved is intended to intersect at the great national road in the State of Ohio. It connects itself also on each side with the Ohio River. These two connections most certainly and justly entitle it to the appellation of a national work."

Moreover, the federal government had provided funding for other intrastate projects when they benefited the rest of the nation. As Representative Coleman stated:

"But gentlemen say, every inch of the Maysville road is in the State of Kentucky. How can it be national? I answer, every inch of the Delaware Canal, sixteen miles in length, is in the State of New Jersey; and every inch of the Louisville Canal is in one county; nay, I believe in one city. How can they be national? Yet, Congress have subscribed for stock in both of them."

These arguments were all intended to illustrate the road's overwhelming national significance. Opponents responded that this line of argument would establish that every road was a national road; there would be no limit to federal power.

Jackson's veto
Jackson believed that federal money should only be spent when carrying out Congress' enumerated powers. President Thomas Jefferson employed a broad view of the spending power when he carried out the Louisiana Purchase and the construction of the Cumberland Road. In contrast, President James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution”, viewed this type of spending as unconstitutional, as evidenced by his veto of the Bonus Bill of 1817. Jackson sided with Madison's view and felt that Jefferson's broad view of the spending power was not enough to justify passage of the bill before him. One of Jackson's main arguments against the bill was the project's provincial nature. It was understood that Congress could only fund projects which benefited the nation as a whole, but the Maysville project was a "purely local matter:"

"It has no connection with any established system of improvements; is exclusively within the limits of a State, starting at a point on the Ohio River and running out 60 miles to an interior town, and even as far as the State is interested conferring partial instead of general advantages."

Jackson was quick to clarify that this did not imply that he would approve of projects which were of "national" character. Even though there is not a constitutional argument to be made against this type of action, it would be unwise to do so at the time, given the public debt. Until the debt was paid off, there would be no surplus to spend on these projects.

Generally, Jackson supported internal improvements. During his first term, he sanctioned federal expenditures for transportation projects at a rate nearly double that of the expenditures under President John Quincy Adams. It was seen as good policy to spend federal money on national improvements, as long as two conditions were met. First, they should be done pursuant to a general system of improvement, not by ad hoc legislation. Second, the Constitution should be amended to make clear the limits on federal power.

Some scholars argue that Jackson's veto can be seen as largely driven by personal, rather than political motives, particularly given Jackson's approval of internal improvement bills with as much a local nature as the Maysville Road. Jackson's veto may have been one of the many manifestations of the rivalry between Jackson and Henry Clay, who was one of the major proponents of the Maysville Road as part of his American System.

Because the Maysville Road Project was of a local nature, the veto did not encounter resounding opposition in Congress. In fact, the veto would please voters in New York and Pennsylvania who were responsible for financing their own projects, and saw no reason to help fund similar projects in other states. It also appealed to Southern states' rights supporters who had no need for canals or new roads. For Jackson, this decision underscored his belief that the construction of roads and canals lay more within the realm of the states rather than the federal government. This belief in limiting the federal government's scope of action was to be one of the tenets of Jacksonian democracy.

In 1846 President James K. Polk, an admirer and follower of Jackson, vetoed the Rivers and Harbors Bill on similar grounds. Henry Clay and his Whig Party, in contrast to Jackson, supported both the 1830 and 1846 bills because they believed the national government had a responsibility to promote trade commerce and economic modernization.

U.S. Route 68
While Henry Clay and the Whig Party lost the argument, the two positions represented by the Maysville Road veto continued to face each other into the future. A route that closely approximated the surveyed right-of-way for the Maysville and Lexington Turnpike received substantial federal aid in the 20th century and would be designated as part of U.S. Route 68. This aid and designation represented a reversal of the principles set forth by Jackson in his 1830 veto.

title: Maysville Road veto


text:
Tommy Yune

Tommy Yune is a South Korean-born American comic book author who became known for his manga-style work on Speed Racer, which was followed by a comic industry revival of classic anime shows such as Battle of the Planets and Robotech. His video game credits include FX Fighter, Robotech: Battlecry, and the award-winning The Journeyman Project series.

Yune first began in comics with the 1992 cult anthropomorphic series Buster the Amazing Bear and joined Jim Lee at Wildstorm Productions after a number of years as a video game designer. After writing and illustrating Speed Racer in 1999, he followed up with two more manga-style miniseries, Racer X and Danger Girl: Kamikaze. His original Speed Racer run was also re-released in 2000 as the graphic novel titled Born to Race.

Yune's first work in feature animation was creating the computer-generated opening sequence of Kevin Altieri's Gen¹³. In 2001, he left Wildstorm to become creative director at Harmony Gold USA for the relaunch of Robotech. He joined Steve Yun, the "webmaster" of the official Robotech webpage who also happens to be his brother. He is one of the writers behind the story of Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles and its canceled sequel Robotech: The Shadow Rising.

In 2011, he was promoted to President of Animation at Harmony Gold USA. Two years later, he helped write and produce Robotech: Love Live Alive while Gregory Snegoff directed. In 2014, he was involved in the failed Kickstarter TV pilot project Robotech: Academy.

Tommy's was very close to his father, the late John S. Yun, and often sought his approval for his work. His father was specially credited in The Journeyman Project: Pegasus Prime and Robotech: Love Live Alive''.

AnimeExpo 2007 pie incident
On July 2, 2007, at the Anime Expo in Long Beach, California, the late Adam Schiller (who went by the username "Khyron Prime" on Robotech.com's forums), hit Yune in the face with a plate full of cream pie. Schiller's intended attacker was Harmony Gold employee and Robotech.com "webmaster" Steve Yun, with Yune as his secondary target. After being pied, Yune picked up the plate and returned the favor to Schiller before they both posed for a picture, which was ironically taken by Steve Yun.

Filmography

 * Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles (2006) - Director
 * Robotech: Love Live Alive (2013) - Writer
 * Robotech: Remastered Extended Edition (2003) - Opening and episode titles
 * Gen¹³ (2000) - Opening title animation

Published video game works

 * Robotech: Invasion (2004) - Producer
 * Robotech: Battlecry (2002) - Producer, Character design
 * The Journeyman Project 3: Legacy of Time (1998) - Creative Director, Conceptual design
 * The Journeyman Project: Pegasus Prime (1997) - Conceptual design, Special effects
 * FX Fighter (1995) - Character design
 * The Journeyman Project (1992) - Conceptual design

Awards

 * Book of the Month - August 1999 Wizard Magazine (Speed Racer)
 * Award of excellence: technical & creative excellence - 1997 NewMedia Invision Awards (Journeyman Project 3)
 * Gold medal: best overall design, animation - 1997 NewMedia Invision Awards (Journeyman Project 3)
 * Silver medal: best animation, graphics - 1996 NewMedia Invision Awards (Journeyman Project: Pegasus Prime)
 * Finalist: best action/arcade software program - 1996 Codies Awards (FX Fighter)
 * Gold medal: best animation, graphics - 1993 NewMedia Invision Awards (The Journeyman Project)
 * Bronze medal: best production design - 1993 NewMedia Invision Awards (The Journeyman Project)
 * Award of Excellence - 1991 Society for News Design (Orange County Register)
 * 1st place: best graphics - 1990 California Newspaper Publishers Association (UCLA Daily Bruin)
 * 2nd place: best graphics - 1989 California Newspaper Publishers Association (UCLA Daily Bruin)

title: Tommy Yune