Template talk:The Amazing Race

Color scheme

I like the previous version (yellow/red/white) better. It is representative of the route marker colors and of the show itself. While the shades of gray "looks professional", it seems rather dull and blah, and doesn't do justice to TAR. Tinlinkin 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I also like the way the old scheme organized the international versions of the show, making it possible to add future seasons without much trouble. Plus it was easier to access those miscellaneous pages like the Trivia page. Can I vote to revert it Sorry when I posted this my browser had something weird with it. Now it looks good HansTAR

What do you mean easier to access? I can still get to it. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Official sites

Why are the official sites necessary in this template? I know Template:ARseasons ([1]) had them, but why now? Navigational templates for Wikipedia should only link to Wikipedia content, nothing else. Tinlinkin 08:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I added them because I've seen them in other show navboxes (like the ones for Desperate Housewives, The OC, and Ugly Betty) and think that they're useful to have. I wrote a few weeks ago on the Amazing Race talk page that I was thinking of adding them, and no one ever responded, so I thought it would be okay. Is there a policy about navboxes that states that external links shouldn't be included? If there isn't, I think it should be acceptable to include them. CrazyLegsKC 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Navigational templates, the first sentence gives me the impression that nav templates are intended for navigation within Wikipedia and nowhere else: "A navigational template is often a small list for use in several related articles, without the usual disadvantages of duplication; in particular, editing is done in a central place, the template page."—the list being composed of links within Wikipedia. There is nothing in that page that says external links are not allowed, however. So here is my second reason why I'm uncomfortable with the many external links: most of those links are unrelated for some articles. If I view the TAR 3 article, it would be reasonable to want the link for the TAR 3 official site; it is probably not reasonable to show the official website link for TAR 9 in that article. A similar situation applies if you choose to link to official countries: if you're viewing the TAR Brazil article, why would you need to have an external link for TAR Asia? The example templates you presented probably have a stronger case for EL inclusion as the one EL cited points to a common parent website, and the subarticles can claim that website as their source (although I think "External links" sections are better than ELs in a navbox--the subarticles' sources would be clearer to point out). So I have to disagree here. Tinlinkin 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai Rush

I think Shanghai Rush should not be included, because if we consider the related shows there should be Expedition Impossible, Peking Express, and some other shows that are like TAR. But they have nothing to do with the real TAR. That's my opinion. Gonzalochileno (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This I wholeheartedly agree with, this is a template for The Amazing Race. NOT Shanghai Rush which is not related to the Amazing Race at all. --Kartoffel ⁰⁷ 05:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It sort of is. And you should really pay attention to time stamps. Gonzalochileno raised this issue nearly a year ago.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know this was a year ago, I was just wondering why it is in the template when it can be linked to the China Rush article itself. This is a navigation box for The Amazing Race after all. --Kartoffel ⁰⁷ 07:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Because discussion of the Shanghai Rush is still somewhat relevant to discussion of the China Rush and the series as a whole.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn! Shanghai Rush was the precursor of TAR: China Rush. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Italicizing

I don't think the other franchises should be italicized, because it is harder to read when they are italicized. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "Intoronto1125" Qantasplanes (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they are TV show titles rather than random nation names. It's The Amazing Race Asia, Australia, etc. And I've never seen anyone ever complain that italicization makes it harder to read. Just deal with the fact that as they are television titles that they must be italicized.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we change back to old template?

See Template talk:Survivor#Why the change?. I really personally that the old template looks nicer. The Survivor template is much good on the reverted one. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this new version is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with AF - I like the older version better. Gloss • talk 04:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter which looks better. It's which works better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither works better than the other.. Gloss • talk 12:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

So why make a change back to the other version if that's the case?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither one "works" better than the other, which does bring it back to its appearance. ApprenticeFan and myself both feel the earlier version was better looking. Gloss • talk 13:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Latin America 6

Hello there! I saw on the Spanish wiki that there's Latin America 6, can you guys confirm that? *sorry for writing here, I'm just confirming, 'cause it's still not listed in the template and still doesn't have English version, thank you*  tatasport  my talk  15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't aired yet and there aren't any reliable sources for it so there's no article or listing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Cast and crew.

Please note that there is a longstanding consensus not to include cast and crew in TV and film navboxes. Here's a few old discussions on this: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think, given the age of these, more review of those TFDs in light of newer template formatting we have is called for. I've strted discussion at at WT:Navigation Templates. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an essay talkpage. You probably want to have it at WT:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Make sure you notify the Film and TV Wikiprojects too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note, the subject has come up more recently than this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 11#Film crew navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

About fixing the template

I can see that the original U.S. version seasons section has the italicized number 34 next to the number 33. The none of the numbers in the seasons section should be italic, and I already removed the italics, but Sportsfan 1234 reverted my edits as they are disruptive. I continued to remove the italics and wrote the notes in the edit summary box, but they kept being reverted by Sportsfan 1234 every time I try to do so. Why don't you protect this template and leave it to the registered users? Only they can fix the italics. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Italics indicates a future event/show etc. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)