Talk:Survivor: Redemption Island/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rob vs Russell?

Does anybody have any reliable information about whether or not this season is going to be a Boston Rob vs Russell Hantz season? These rumours are all over the internet, so much so that it's hard to say it's not true. In addition, the logo (featuring a tall and short person) does not do much to stop the rumours? Has CBS said anything about this officially? TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

99% sure based on dropped hints, spoilers, etc. that it will be but we have nothing we can use as a source in WP. Expect news mid Jan (when the cast is usually revealed). (and the logo is clearly a man vs woman, but that could be there to deflect the question) --MASEM (t) 13:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sortable table

After seeing the whole ABC order process I figured that putting it all into a sortable table would make things more easy. Just because other season's tables are diffrent does not mean new ideas cant come forward and things do change. I see no problem with the sortable table here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the markup some. Trying to force the width of the columns is not going to work out well in the long term and past attempts at this have lead to long, slow edit wars while everybody tries to tweak the table so it looks just right on their own browser settings (like the annoying {{nowrap}} thing that goes on, too). I really recommend letting it just flow naturally. Nobody is ever going to get it to look perfect on everybody's web browser. As for the sortable table, I'm kind of indifferent about it. One thing that we will need to be aware of is to use the proper {{sort}} for the Finish column as the game progresses. One would hope that when the first castaway is voted out that everybody will catch on with the correct markup. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over a table? Oh well okay I just let things flow then, I really dont care about which table is used I just wanted to try something diffrent for a change. I admit that there are some articles here on wikipedia that dont look the best on my browser (IE 8) but I go along with it because as you said there is no perfection to be had. The good thing about a sortable table is that readers can view what they want more easier. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I was trying to say: I was trying to head off a potential edit war as I have seen in previous seasons. I did not mean to infer that you were edit warring or that there is a current edit war. Sorry about that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries you didnt, just wanted to try it is all - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tribe Colors

Hey, according to the videos on CBS, Zapatera is purple and Ometepe is orange. It was revealed in the Survivor: Redemption Island - Meet the Cast video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.63.193 (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That fails under WP:V though, is there a reliable source that backs it up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The video is a pretty reliable source, so somebody propose some colors to use and the template can be updated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Color suggestion:

Tribes
Ometepe (#FF9933)	Zapatera (#9900FF)

diRk dARyL ♫ 07:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Joining in on the discussion. My suggestions –

Ometepe:

#F59B00

Zapatera:

#7D378C

Wu·goU (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The colours need to be added. I would do this myself, but I don't know how. If anyone needs a clear image of the buffs, you can see them on planetbuff. TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As soon as there is a consensus on what the colors should be, I (or anybody) can add the colors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, the second purple is the closest, but both oranges are too dark. They need more yellow in them.TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How about these:

Zapatera:

#7D378C (same as before)

Ometepe:

#FFBF00 (more golden)

--Meaghan [talk] ≈ 18:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. If you ask me, they're pretty spot on.TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The orange is a bit too golden, it is golden but not that golden, the purple is spot on though. http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/topic/25721/Survivor-BUFFs?page=72

Seeing that colour on the actual contestants table, it does look a little too golden. I've found a happy medium (#FAA003):

Contestant	Original Tribe
Andrea Boehlke 21, Random Lake, WI	Ometepe
Mike Chiesl 31, Del Mar, CA	Zapatera

--Meaghan [talk] ≈ 18:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that orange is spot on. So we go with a happy medium orange as per Meaghan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.133.101 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the colour on the template. Cheers, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 21:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Individual Color

I was on youtube the other day and when I was watching season 21's reunion, Jeff showed the preview for this season. They showed orange and purple flags and a girl in a green shirt. Any chance if the individual color is green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.116.240 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Murlonia is green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.185.121 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by individual colours?TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe they mean the merge. As for Murlonia, where was that tribe name confirmed? Whitestorm17 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/survivor_redemption_island/2010_Sep_24_call_sheets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.185.121 (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Russell and Rob's Tribes

Jeff Probst's Cast assessment clearly shows russell in a zapatera buff. --68.38.176.239 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Before or after any possible tribal switch? --MASEM (t) 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Day 1 because it shows russell wearing the zapatera buff while gathering supplies to build a shelter.--68.38.176.239 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's stealing the supplies from the other (or his own, can't push much past Russel) camp sometime after a merge/switch.

The point is, until we have either a confirmed day 1 cast picture that shows Rob/Russel's tribe, or someone from the show is published saying the tribe assignments, or the first episode airs, we can't add the tribe information as its original research. We know what the new 16 players are through the announcements, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I understand that its only a speculation.--68.38.176.239 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Probst's Cast Assessment is released by CBS, as it shows Russell with a Zapatera buff that's not original research it's a slip up by producers 82.17.239.90 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a reliable source, but again, can you put exactly which day of filming they showed Russell with that buff? Was it labelled "Day 1"? --MASEM (t) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Although what I'm about to say doesn't exactly prove anything, It might help to know that when the cast assessment was filmed, Jeff mentioned it was Day 1. Also, the cast assessments usually show contestants on either the first, second, or third day, so its likely that's Russell's original tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.155.172 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While I am 99.9% sure that what is shown in the video is all within the first few days, that doesn't satisfy our requirement for verifability and introduces original research. I'd rather wait for the premiere where it will be absolutely settled than to make the assumption that has a sliver of a chance of a being wrong. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Russell is on Zapetera and Rob is on Omepete clearly showed in this video at 2:20-2:27. O_O http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S6e72x7hlw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.129.76 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the concrete evidence we needed, clearly showing the alliance at the start of the game. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Another TVGuide Sneak Peak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAcRhfg87k

It shows the tribal council, the medic people, Rob with Omepete, Russell with Zapetera, a black widow, and the highest IQ. -Survivorfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.129.76 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Redemption Island status"

We did similar column back at the "Contestants" section at the Survivor Philippines: Palau article to show the first finish and finish after RI. (This was also done at the Israeli Survivor articles.) Should such a column be added to this Constestants section of this article or should you wait until next week. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it. We will have to see how Redemption Island plays, but I think it is a good starting point.

On a related note, since the Redemption Island columns on The Game table appear to be fashioned after the same article, I would like to comment that I also think is a good idea, but with a few changes. First, I am not sure I agree with the current location of the columns at the far right. We will again have to see how RI plays out, but if the RI challenges are shown before TC, I think the columns to be shifted to the middle of the table in a rough order of when they are shown in an episode. For example, if they show an IC, then RI, and then TC, then that should be the order of the columns.

I also think the choice of colors should be tweaked compared to Survivor Philippines: Palau. Since RI is not a tribe, per se, and appears to have no buff, the cells should not be colored. The colors on the tables have always been set to the tribe colors. I think the RI castaways should have their background colors unset since they lack a tribe color. Similarly, the episodes where the RI cells are not applicable should be darkgray and unlabeled like the Voting History is/will be. I think the only time it should be labeled with "None" is when something odd happens (somebody quits or is medically removed) and nobody arrives at RI. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the RI thing compared to Survivor Philippines: Palau. In that season, the castaway was given a differently colored buff (this one was gray while the tribal buffs are green, orange, and blue), hence the coloring. But since we don't know the full mechanics of RI here (just the basic idea), we have to wait until next week. But I'm not sure about including the RI events in the Voting History, since there's really no RI voting going on for sure. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 17:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that Survivor Philippines: Palau received a gray buff, so the gray on that article does make sense now. It is too early to tell in this season. If a buff does appears, it should probably have the color set in the usual tribe color template. I think you misunderstood me about RI and Voting History. I didn't mean to say include anything about RI in the Voting History. What I was trying to show was that the darkgray for being "Not applicable" in the RI columns has a precedence in the darkgray of the Voting History table. I think anywhere in any of the three tables where the cell is "Not applicable" should be darkgray and unlabeled. "None" has a specific meaning like a skipped challenge. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Referring back to the said Survivor Philippines article, during that season's run, we used "Current Inhabitant" for the one staying at RI and the one eliminated as "nth Challenge Face-off Loser." So I went ahead removed the footnote on the contestants section here and did the "Current Inhabitant" thing because this was how we did it in the said article. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 22:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, referring to the same article, we used "Current inhabitant" for the new arrival to RI instead of "Challenger" because in a sense, the current inhabitant and the new arrival "live" in RI together until the challenge. We never used the latter, but I'll let you decided which one you'll use (BTW, my edit which stated this reason had been, in other words, "reverted"). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me so far. I'd like to see how RI plays out in the next episode to see what else needs to be tweaked, but using the Survivor Philippines article as a template is a good start. So far, we have not seen any buff color for RI, so that solves that problem for now. I think leaving the cells uncolored in The Game is the best option. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been inconsistencies in the foreign titles that use the RI concept and there also arguments in this section as well. Which of the following should we use:

• "nth Duel Loser" - someone put this in the article earlier; currently in use
• "nth 'Face-off challenge' loser" - used in the said Survivor Philippines article
• "nth Eliminated" - used in Swededn
• "nth 'Island Dead'" - used in the Israeli seasons

- 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I say "Duel" as that was what was used to describe the RI challenge in the episode. I also moved the RI columns to middle of The Game table per my comment above. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I am the only one who edits here and noticed this, they keep their buffs at RI, I remember Fran being told to burn hers. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember, but really they are not part of a tribe. They got voted off their tribe. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jeff accidentally leaked that the RI people in episode 6, which I believe is pre-merge. That being considered in retrospect assigning colors might be unnecessarily confusing as the RI resident may be put on the opposite tribe. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Once someone returns next week, how should we mention in the "Redemption Island status" column that they've returned? Here are some possibilities:

• Redeemed
• Redemption Island Winner

It's also quite possible that Redemption Island continues after the merge, with someone returning, say in the final five or six. In that case, we could do something like:

• nth Redeemed Player
• nth Redemption Island Winner.

65.95.131.24 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Following the Survivor Philippines: Palau style would be fine with me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been confirmed in this preview that RI will restart after the merge. In Survivor Philippines, RI stopped at the merge. So do you think we should go with "nth Redemption Island Winner" or just use "Redemption Island Winner" for both returnees? 65.95.131.24 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm tempted to say "1st Redemption Island Winner" for either Matt or Sarita. Let's see how it plays out in the season. The solution may become more obvious once things are played out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we use "nth Returnee"? Since "Redemption Island" is the name of the season, using "Redemption Island Winner" may confuse some readers into believing we're saying that Matt/Sarita wins the entire season. We could do something like this for returnees:

No spoilers here, just using example dates and contestants.

Contestant	Original tribe	Redemption Island status
Matt Elrod Returned to game	Ometepe	1st Returnee Day 20
Sarita White Returned to game	Zapatera	2nd Returnee Day 37

65.95.131.24 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers

I just looked on the page to see last night's ratings, and there are spoilers on the page! Why does this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.170.64 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you haven't watched the episode yet. :) Seriously, Wikipedia contains spoilers, and articles do not contain disclaimers. Let the reader beware. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That said, information about episodes that have not aired yet is only included to the extent that it is verifiable. The episode title and airdate can be verified via any number of TV listing services; content of the episode, other than the glimpses shown in previews and commercials, cannot be verified, and should not be in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Several anonymous and new editors also like to attempt to spoil future episodes, but that is usually reverted fairly quickly. The majority of these "spoilers" also turn out to be false. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Preventing future clashes of WP:RS and WP:NOTCENSORED

Many of you remember from last season CBS basically told us the tribal swap was occurring and then identified what tribe each person was sorted into based on their official previews and we thus put that information up on the article. (and also you may remember back during Survivor: Panama in the preview for the final four episode they literally showed a clip from the final four TC where Aras was wearing the immunity necklace).

Basically, I just want to confirm what we operated on last season was proper (as knowing CBS something similar could easily happen again). We do view CBS's official previews as Reliable Sources, right? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Though you will want to provide citations to the previews as such information may be questioned. Additionally, you will probably want to err on the side of caution with using the previews as sometimes the previews can be deceptive. Something needs to be blindingly obvious for use from the previews (like say the merged tribe's buff color which, in theory, should be clearly seen). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem!

Does anyone know who and which part someone says "We Hate Our Tribe" in a recent episode?!?!?! 76.229.126.247 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was either Stephanie or Krista talking about Zapatera when heading to Redemption Island Gonzalochileno (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie says it to Krista as they're walking out of camp to RI. 124.186.170.228 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Matt

Matt was voted out the first time with 4 votes. He was then voted out the second time with six votes. The first time his name is listed, it says that he recieved 10 votes and the second one says he recide 6 votes in his second chance. Should the first one only say 4. I think one could argue that when Matt returns his tally can grow, but when he is sent to Redemption the first time, he can't accumulate any more votes. Also, the only other people who have returned to the game before this were the two from the Pearl Islands who both recieved 5 votes first time around and then five votes in their second chance. They are listed as five for their first elimination and then 10 for their seond. I believe this is more accurate than the current procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.162.136 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten about Pearl Islands. 6 and 10 seem reasonable to me. I think leaving the footnotes in would be a good idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Murlonio buff

The Murlonio buff isn't pure black. Its actually a dark purple/gray color. You can tell by looking at the image here. I used a color picking tool, and came up with this:

#181619

65.95.131.24 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That goes against what the source says though. It looks black to me - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

'Winner' of Redemption Island

I don't think 'winner' is the correct terminology. Shouldn't it be Champion of Redemption Island or something like that? 124.186.170.228 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Champion" is the right word either. For awhile, it was listed as "1st Returnee". Rather dull, but I kind of liked it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Survivor would be ideal but in the context becomes confusing. Redeemed could work. --79.168.6.93 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "Survivor" might be too close to the "Sole Survivor" title given to the winner. "Redeemed", perhaps. I think I still like "Returnee". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Quotes?

Since each episode is named after a quote of a contestant (similar to the amazing race) could we list this into the article someway?--Cooly123 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in past seasons and the consensus has been not to include it. The source of the title quotes is purely trivia and has not relevance to the game. I continue to oppose such addition to the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how trivia is irrelevant. The article isn't strictly about the game but about the particular season of the show. If so many people are opposed to this addition, maybe a whole new page that lists the quotes for all seasons is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.162.136 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Knowing who made the quotation doesn't matter as it isn't mentioned in game and doesn't particularly help the reader understand the game either. However, if a new consensus should be reached to include the source, then it could be added. We shall see if anybody else chimes in with their opinion. But I still hold that the source of the episode quotes is entirely trivia verging on fancruft. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting History

I oppose for getting rid of all the remarks under "Voting History" section and replace it with a CBS' video citation, due to the fact that CBS doesn't allow people outside the states to view the video. I'd rather get a list of remarks instead, since the 'English' version of wikipedia doesn't mean a localization for English spoken nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.206.73 (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is a bit confusing and I am not sure exactly what you are suggesting. The citation links to the CBS TC Voting clips are there to provide verifiability to the votes because with this season's Redemption Island, the votes are not seen on the broadcast episodes and therefore may be reasonably questioned. The use of the video citations is in no way meant to replace any information. The table's information remains exactly the same as previous seasons, the citations just address the verifiability issue. As for the accessibility of the clips from non-United States IP addresses, per the verifiability policy: principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. A "list of remarks" would not be the same as that does not allow verifiability. However, the video clips could be replaced with a different reliable source that is accessible to a wider audience. If you can find a better source for the voting, you can change the citations. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

What I mean is that for the episode number 8, I think it is worth making a remark for a usage of hidden immunity idol by Ralph. It is different from other episode such that he used it on Mike where there is no vote against him (no crossing out name in the table). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.206.73 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have a footnote saying that Mike played Ralph's HII. Because no votes were cast against Mike, playing the HII left the vote unaffected. In Ep2, Kristina played her idol, cancelling two votes against her, therefore it affected the vote,and is worth mentioning it in a footnote. Mentioning that Mike played Ralph's idol in the episode summary is enough.65.95.131.24 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think it is kind of obnoxious to have it for every single vote. The citation tags add a lot of width to the columns and it will add up in the long run. I think it might be more efficient if we just put a note at the bottom saying the information comes from the Tribal Council Voting videos on the CBS website. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

With the votes not being seen like they have in past seasons, I think the citations are necessary. In the grand scheme of things, the amount of space taken up by the characters of the citation links are fairly small compared to the rest of the table width. Removing the inline citations is not going make the width shrink dramatically. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, like MarkMc1990 said, the citations make do make the width of the columns pretty wide. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, however if you're really worried about the width, you could put all the citations in the row that just says "Vote" (its right underneath the "Name // n/n votes" row).65.95.131.24 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

^ Preview of what I'm thinking we could do so the columns aren't so wide:

	Original tribes								Merged tribe
Episode #:	1	2	3		4	5	6	7	8	9
Voted out:	Francesca 4/9 votes	Matt 4/6 votes3	Tie	Russell 5/6 votes	Kristina 4/7 votes	Krista 6/8 votes	Stephanie 5/7 votes	Sarita 4/6 votes	Matt 6/12 votes	Mike 6/11 votes	David 6/10 votes
Voter	Vote

65.95.131.24 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The references should be easily traced back to the vote they pertain to. If it's necessary to conserve column space, then set up a separate row for references. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the voting history be arranged on how the castaways finished/exited finally on the game (eg. Mike is 6th, Matt is 7th, and Grant is 8th) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushes7 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Info on the new setup of Redemption Island

There is missing information on the new setup regarding Redemption Island, the duels seem to have ended as there are now three players in the island, it seems that all players have been informed of the new rules, as there was no comments, but not the public. Any info ? --79.168.6.93 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think the duels would have to have ended just because there are 3 players. The game already has individual challenges with more than 2 players. LarryJeff (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably just best to wait a week to do anything and see what happens in the next episode—whether to show two people eliminated in a single duel, two back-to-back duels, or something even wackier. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I added in the next episode title since it is now available. I purposefully left the Challenger column unfilled since we don't know how the Duel will play out. However, I imagine that somebody will come along and add in Mike and David in some combination or another. I think the column should be left empty until next week when we learn how the Duel or Duels will be done. I'm tempted to add an inline comment to leave the cell empty, but I have this funny feeling it will be ignored. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting to see lots of anticipation about the Survivor. We're all eager to see if future vote-outs will be sent to Redemption Island without any further one-on-one challenges. The best thing to do is Stay Tuned. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that you added in an inline comment and had it removed. I added it back in per the comment. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Finish order

I probably should have posted this first instead of reverting again, but I didn't, so here I am posting...

My opinion on the Finish order is that it should be the order in how they finish (i.e., total days in the game and with the potential to be Sole Survivor), not how they got voted out at TC. In this case, David would be listed after Sarita since his finish order is 12th (happens to match List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants‎). The reason I have this opinion is that "Finish" is well, the castaway's finish order. David is out of the game, he's not coming back, he has no chance of coming back, therefore he finished 12th. For the three castaways on RI, they are not truly finished in the game therefore they can finish in any position 11th or better. Say for example, Matt loses the next RI Duel, did he finish 11th ahead of David or did he really finish 12th ahead of Sarita? It makes no sense that he finished 12th ahead of Sarita because he had more days in game for the win than David. An example of precedence is Survivor: Pearl Islands and Burton. He got voted out 4th, came back, but made it to the 5th jury member. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got reverted again without further discussion here or even an edit summary. Since I am verging on WP:3RR, I will defer from changing it again. I still think listing David in the middle of the current RI inhabitants is wrong. Input from other editors would be appreciated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on the order, but not with your Pearl Islands example. It's a different situation. What happened in Pearl Islands is more like Matt coming back to the game from Redemption Island--he gets listed 2x, just like Lil and Burton on Pearl Islands. David's case is different--he never came back into a tribe. But, like I said, I agree with you on the order. All contestants losing at RI should be listed in the order they lost on RI, not by the order they were voted out. LarryJeff (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Pearl Island things. I was just looking for an example from the U.S. series.

On a related note, there have also been several edits to move the "1st Jury Member" into the RI status column instead of the Finish column. I think that the jury membership should be listed in the Finish column because it is related to the castaways' finish order. Jury membership is not a consolation prize of RI. The RI status column should only be used for things related directly to RI: Losers, Winners, and Current Inhabitants. Is the current four lines for David hard to read? Yes, but moving the "1st Jury Member" to the RI status is the wrong fix. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jury Membership IS a consolation prize, therefore it should be listed under Redemption Island status. The player was not eliminated from the game until losing the Redemption Island Challenge, and was sent to jury after his/her defeat. On top of that, it is too congested to have the different dates of when the castaway was voted out AND eliminated from the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.68.176 (talk • contribs)

No, jury membership is not strictly consolation prize of RI as if it was, then all of the previous RI losers would be on the jury. While the new RI losers will go to the jury, losing at RI does not equal jury. It also seems likely that RI will end before the jury is completely filled. As I stated before, I agree that the Finish cell is cluttered, but moving the jury membership to the RI status is not the solution. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's say Matt returns to the game for a second time. Would we list him three times (between Francesca/Russell, between Sarita/David, and in whatever place he ultimately finishes in)? --65.95.131.24 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

By the same logic that we list him 2x now then, yes, if he comes back from RI again he would have to be listed a 3rd time. LarryJeff (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If the table is being arranged by finish order and how long people were elligible to win the game, should Matt's first listing be in between Sarita and David? I think that makes more sense, as otherwise Matt's first listing is the only one being listed by when he was voted off whilst all the others are all in order of how they finished on redemption island. -- 027huds (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No. That is the same thing as previously discussed. Matt's first listing special case, hence the italics of his name. Matt's true listing is his listing currently after David. If you really want to strictly go with finish order/days eligible then Matt's first listing after Francesca would not be listed, but then people would wonder what happened to Matt on the second vote. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jury Member listing location

I brought this up in the middle of the discussion above, but I think it might have gotten lost in the discussion. Since I got reverted again, I thought I would break out this related topic so that a consensus can be reached for the cell to used for the "1st Jury Member" and subsequent listings. I propose that the "1st Jury Member" belongs in the Finish column as that is part of the finish. It does not belong in the Redemption Island Status column as the jury membership is not strictly part of RI. It is not a consolation prize for losing on RI as if it was, then everybody would be a jury member. In previous seasons, the jury status has been in the Finish column. I agree that the Finish column will get rather cluttered looking, but I contend that moving the jury membership to the RI status column is not the proper solution. I think a discussion should be opened to potential solutions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

One option could be to use a "Jury Status" column. The problem with that is that it would make the table extremely wide if there's ever a season with multiple tribal swaps, such as Survivor: Gabon:

Contestant	Original Tribe	Merged Tribe	Finish	Jury Status	Redemption Island Status	Total Votes
David Murphy 31, West Hollywood, CA	Zapatera	Murlonio	10th Voted Out Day 24	1st Jury Member Day 25	7th Duel Loser Day 25	8

65.95.131.24 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a fair idea. I'm a little concerned about making the table wider, but even with an extra column, the table will still narrower than the others. I'm making some assumptions here, but if RI ends before the entire jury is seated and somebody gets voted out straight into the jury, then you can't put the "Nth Jury Member" into the RI status column. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the issue? I suppose we can give it a shot to see how it goes. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a spoiler, but I believe people have read from leaked call sheets that after the true final 5 have a TC and the tribe pop. goes to four, the RI winner comes back in. I have also heard people figured out from call sheets that there will be a 7 person jury and a final 3. Currently there are 8 people in the game, three on RI and one on the jury, which adds to 12. This means two non-finalists get cut from the jury. My thought is the two people to get voted out at TC5 (the true final 4 + RI winner) and TC4 are straight booted (i.e. no RI stay) and are not part of the jury. (or maybe there are two quitters, who knows) This is probably not satisfactory for WP:RS.

I think for now we should just leave it the way it is with jury number under RI elim. and see how it goes. We can always fix the table after the fact, and there is no guarantee that RI will return next season (my understanding is they film the two seasons back-to-back over summer). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Redesigned Contestants table

Now that the season is over, I thought I would take another shot at redesigning the Contestants table, so here is what I propose. We split the Finish column into Voted Out and Finish. The jury status moves to the Finish column. R.I. is just the winners and losers. I collapsed the table just to cut back on the length of the talk page. I am not proposing that the table be collapsed in the article.

Contestants table

Contestant Original Tribe Merged Tribe Voted Out Redemption Island Finish Total Votes Francesca Hogi 36, Washington, D.C. Ometepe 1st Day 3 1st Duel Loser Day 6 18th Day 6 4 Matt Elrod Returned to game Ometepe 2nd Day 5 1st Returnee Day 19 41 Russell Hantz 38, Dayton, TX Samoa & Heroes vs. Villains Zapatera 3rd Day 8 2nd Duel Loser Day 10 17th Day 10 32 Kristina Kell 46, Malibu, CA Ometepe 4th Day 11 3rd Duel Loser Day 12 16th Day 12 73 Krista Klumpp 25, Columbia, SC Zapatera 5th Day 13 4th Duel Loser Day 14 15th Day 14 6 Stephanie Valencia 26, Long Beach, CA Zapatera 6th Day 16 5th Duel Loser Day 17 14th Day 17 82 Sarita White 36, Santa Monica, CA Zapatera 7th Day 18 6th Duel Loser Day 19 13th Day 19 6 David Murphy 31, West Hollywood, CA Zapatera Murlonio 10th Day 24 7th Duel Loser Day 25 1st Jury Member Day 25 8 Julie Wolfe 50, Oceanside, CA Zapatera 11th Day 27 8th Duel Loser Day 28 2nd Jury Member Day 28 6 Steve Wright 51, Huntington Beach, CA Zapatera 13th Day 30 9th Duel Loser Day 31 3rd Jury Member Day 31 9 Ralph Kiser 45, Lebanon, VA Zapatera 12th Day 30 10th Duel Loser Day 33 4th Jury Member Day 33 92 Andrea Boehlke Returned to game Ometepe 14th Day 32 2nd Returnee Day 36 54 Grant Mattos 29, West Hollywood, CA Ometepe 15th Day 35 11th Duel Loser Day 36 5th Jury Member Day 36 10 Matt Elrod 22, Nashville, TN Ometepe 8th Day 21 11th Duel Loser Day 36 6th Jury Member Day 36 101 Mike Chiesl 31, Del Mar, CA Zapatera 9th Day 22 11th Duel Loser Day 36 7th Jury Member Day 36 6 Andrea Boehlke 21, Random Lake, WI Ometepe 16th Day 37 8th Jury Member Day 37 94 Ashley Underwood 25, Benton, ME Ometepe 17th Day 38 9th Jury Member Day 38 3 Natalie Tenerelli 19, Acton, CA Ometepe 2nd Runner-Up 1 Phillip Sheppard 52, Santa Monica, CA Ometepe Runner-Up 17 Rob Mariano 35, Pensacola, FL Marquesas, All-Stars, & Heroes vs. Villains Ometepe Sole Survivor 65

With some work, we can even make the table sortable, which I think actually would help understand the table a bit more. The coding is a mess and a few things need to be tweaked, but it does work:

Sortable Contestants table

Contestant Original Tribe Merged Tribe Voted Out Redemption Island Finish Total Votes Francesca Hogi 36, Washington, D.C. Ometepe 1st Day 3 1st Duel Loser Day 6 18th Day 6 4 Matt Elrod Returned to game Ometepe 2nd Day 5 1st Returnee Day 19 41 Russell Hantz 38, Dayton, TX Samoa & Heroes vs. Villains Zapatera 3rd Day 8 2nd Duel Loser Day 10 17th Day 10 32 Kristina Kell 46, Malibu, CA Ometepe 4th Day 11 3rd Duel Loser Day 12 16th Day 12 73 Krista Klumpp 25, Columbia, SC Zapatera 5th Day 13 4th Duel Loser Day 14 15th Day 14 6 Stephanie Valencia 26, Long Beach, CA Zapatera 6th Day 16 5th Duel Loser Day 17 14th Day 17 82 Sarita White 36, Santa Monica, CA Zapatera 7th Day 18 6th Duel Loser Day 19 13th Day 19 6 David Murphy 31, West Hollywood, CA Zapatera Murlonio 10th Day 24 7th Duel Loser Day 25 1st Jury Member Day 25 8 Julie Wolfe 50, Oceanside, CA Zapatera Murlonio 11th Day 27 8th Duel Loser Day 28 2nd Jury Member Day 28 6 Steve Wright 51, Huntington Beach, CA Zapatera Murlonio 13th Day 30 9th Duel Loser Day 31 3rd Jury Member Day 31 9 Ralph Kiser 45, Lebanon, VA Zapatera Murlonio 12th Day 30 10th Duel Loser Day 33 4th Jury Member Day 33 92 Andrea Boehlke Returned to game Ometepe Murlonio 14th Day 32 2nd Returnee Day 36 54 Grant Mattos 29, West Hollywood, CA Ometepe Murlonio 15th Day 35 11th Duel Loser Day 36 5th Jury Member Day 36 10 Matt Elrod 22, Nashville, TN Ometepe Murlonio 8th Day 21 11th Duel Loser Day 36 6th Jury Member Day 36 101 Mike Chiesl 31, Del Mar, CA Zapatera Murlonio 9th Day 22 11th Duel Loser Day 36 7th Jury Member Day 36 6 Andrea Boehlke 21, Random Lake, WI Ometepe Murlonio 16th Day 37 8th Jury Member Day 37 94 Ashley Underwood 25, Benton, ME Ometepe Murlonio 17th Day 38 9th Jury Member Day 38 3 Natalie Tenerelli 19, Acton, CA Ometepe Murlonio 2nd Runner-Up 1 Phillip Sheppard 52, Santa Monica, CA Ometepe Murlonio Runner-Up 17 Rob Mariano 35, Pensacola, FL Marquesas, All-Stars, & Heroes vs. Villains Ometepe Murlonio Sole Survivor 65

Opinions on the new table? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I like this new format. The only thing I would change is I would add the overall finishes of the jurors in the "Finish" column. For example, I think it should be something like 1st Jury Member // 12th // Day 25 instead of just 1st Jury Member // Day 25.65.95.131.24 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that this new formatting in either version is an improvement over what is currently in the article. I also like the idea of making the table sortable. I do disagree with 65.95.131.24 in that I don't believe that we need to put a true place for the jury members and it would crowd the table up a little more.--Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I support this. This will be especially useful given that Redemption Island will return in 23. On a side note, I do hope they make it that returners get automatic immunity for a TC or two, so they don't get voted out immediately.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we have the beginning of a consensus favoring the sortable version. One thing I didn't fix was the sorting order of the Returnees in the R.I. column. Should they be sorted with the losers by their days or kept separate like they are now? I think I favor sorting with the losers by days. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting them in by the days sounds is what I would think makes more sense. Also a thought, is it possible to make it so that when we sort by the Voted Out column with the 1st person voted out at the top can we have the final three at the bottom, and therefore on the top when you sort the other direction? Just a thought. If needed I'm sure I could do it after it gets put on the page :) --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the sortable table so that the returnees are sorted by the day they returned. I think I fixed the Voted Out column as you suggested. I also set the R.I. and Finish columns the same way for the grayed out cells. Is that what you were asking for? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Thanks :)--Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who participated in the redesign. The new table is now in place. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

- Hi, I have to put my two cents in, as a reader, I want at the least the 'Voted Out' Column to have 1st VOTED OUT, so if we could just add tthat back to originality, and leave it that would be wonderful! Kiwi_Jaden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding in "Voted Out" to the cells is redundant as it is already labeled in the column header. It is unnecessary clutter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Individual Challenge Record

I was wondering how the number of challenges was calculated in this statement. Also, if this is going to stay included shouldn't it be source since it wasn't announced on the show.

Although this was unanounced, Rob also broke the individual challenge record held by Colby Donaldson and Terry Deitz, who both won seven challenges, while Rob won 10 challenges.

By my count in a single season these are the challenge counts for the 3 of them. (According to the tables here on Wikipedia)

• Rob:

Redemption Island: 4 Immunity, 0 Reward

Heroes vs. Villains: 1 Immunity pre-merge, 0 Reward

All-Stars: 4 Immunity, 1 Solo reward, 1 team reward post merge

Marquesas: 0 for both

• Terry:

Panama: 5 Immunity, 2 Solo rewards, 2 team reward post merge

• Colby:

Heroes vs. Villains: 0 Immunity, 1 team reward post merge

All-Stars: 0 for both

Australian Outback: 5 Immunity, 2 Solo rewards, 1 team reward post merge

Here are the counts for over the contestants in any Survivor competition:

• Rob: 8 Immunity, 1 Immunity pre-merge, 1 Solo reward, 1 team reward post merge

11 total (10 without the team reward post merge)

• Terry: 5 Immunity, 2 Solo rewards, 2 team reward post merge

9 total (7 without the team rewards post merge)

• Colby: 5 Immunity, 2 Solo rewards, 1 team reward post merge

8 total (7 without the team reward post merge)

Links to the season pages for ease of use:

Survivor: Panama, Survivor: The Australian Outback, Survivor: All-Stars, Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, Survivor: Redemption Island, and Survivor: Marquesas

Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty trivia like and original research, so I removed it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Combining the two Matt sections and two Andrea sections in contestant table

Could we combine the their things in the contestant table? Like this one: http://survivor.wikia.com/wiki/Survivor:_Redemption_Island It looks much better, because it looks like there were 11 contestants on Ometepe and only 9 on Zapetara. It's only a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.16.83 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The current format was hashed out during the season (see discussion a few sections above) and the following season. The double listing is to show where the two were originally voted out and when they were voted out again. Without it, it doesn't show the entire history of the game. Yes, Redemption Island made a mess of the table, but this was the consensus for the table format. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)