Talk:List of U.S. Survivor seasons

Delete?

I am considering proposing the deletion of this article. The two text paragraphs are copied almost directly from Survivor (US TV series), and the table I find unnecessary. The information about viewership, dates and locations are also on the main series article (and unsourced, particularly viewership), and tribe information can be located at each season's article. Thoughts and comments, anyone? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll try prodding it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent example of a list; it brings together information of the same type from multiple articles for easy viewing. Taking the lead from the articles upon which it is derived is a regular list practice. I really don't see any issues with this list, and suspect that it will survive AfD with at least a strong keep consensus. You may want to review WP:LISTS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sets a terrible precedent. Why not List of The Simpsons seasons or List of Star Trek seasons? And while it may follow WP:LIST, it is still cruft and I fail to see why this can't be included at the main Survivor article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a list for the Simpsons seasons or the Star Trek seasons? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that kind of stuff can easily be stated at the List of ____ episodes, or even the main series article if necessary. Why have two pages when you can just as easily have one? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, twice) I have no problem with a merge. The information's there already (at main article) so it won't require much effort to redirect. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they exist, sure. But we don't have a List of Survivor episodes. Why lose information just because of naming conventions? Regarding a merge, I don't think that would work out very well; it would only result in the information being marginalized or trimmed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table isn't very large, I think it would fit in the main Survivor article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the text is already there. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few things there, but there's no easy-to-read table containing all of the information contained here. I guess if you merged the tables in the right way and redirected directly to the table, there wouldn't be much of an issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I recall once someone tried to put a table akin to this onto the main page, but it was removed because it was unnecessary and cluttered the page. I oppose the inclusion of a table, but I guess we could put a couple of sentences in under the list of seasons heading, although I am inclined not to. See diff [1] -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is probably what led to the creation of this list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't justify the need for the list. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where else would you split excess information off to? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only information in this article that is not in Survivor (US TV series) is the tribe names and colors. These truly belong in the articles about each season, not in the main article. If some form of judgment dictates that they must be in the main article, then perhaps a sentence in the section Survivor (US TV series)#U.S. Survivor seasons will be sufficient. However, as each tidbit of information here is primarily just the location of the season, how many people participated and who won, and no tribal information, I think this will make this section overtly large. This information is best kept to the individual season pages, where it already is, so we do not need to worry about deleting information. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as it stands, there's no way to look at that information all at once except here. To review data of each season, I would have to copy it down from each page and essentially recreate the table that already exists here. Lists such as these make that kind of work unnecessary. The page is redundant, true, but the coalescing of information from other articles is what lists are all about, and this does its job wonderfully. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is pointless and i agree with the dark lord trombonator. Since i am the one who initially deleted the info in his example, i will back up my view then. All of this info can be found in the various survivor articles. Most of this information is already in the main article, except for tribe names, which i believe are too trivial too include in the main articles (since there are quite a few) and can be found very often in individual articles. You could not merge it really as this would cause clutter and the information is already in the main article. I say delete. And Celarnor, the point of each individual season page is to provide more data on the individual season than on the main page, therefore making sense that such information stay in those pages Survivorfan101 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It some info that we can keep and other that we can trash. MySurvivorPartay (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about ten days now, anyone got anything else to say? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]