Talk:Survivor: Samoa/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Survivor: Samoa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Location
Not encyclopedic, but it's heavily, heavily rumored that this season will take place in Samoa. Tourists have had their hotel reservations canceled to make room for the Survivor crew. Just throwing it out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.122.127 (talk • contribs)
[1] - The CBS store has a page for Survivor Samoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasta luego (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Logo
Logo should be placed on the page. --Cooly123 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Eventually it will be. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- A large-sized official logo has been revealed!
- http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/b08256c8295cd804100d2ba51a9460fa7ad7196.jpg
- Can we post place this instead of the thumbnail-sized logo currently on the page?
- 220.231.2.74 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- What's the copyright? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- We can't use high resolution non-free images. The logo is still recognizable at the low resolution currently used. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the logos on the Survivor: Exile Island, Fiji, China and Fans vs. Favorites pages were official and pretty high-res. --220.231.2.74 (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Tribe Colours
The tribe colours have been confirmed as light blue, dark blue, yellow, and orange by the CBS site, someone should add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.32.18 (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Looks like we're going to start with four tribes. It's not a reliable source, but this is a start (given the above user is new). One question I have is whether or not there is going to be a Survivor 20 or not as next year is a 10th anniversary and boy have we come a long way!! –BuickCenturyDriver 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I added the tribe colours like you asked me to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.32.18 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unless you have a reliable source for the tribe colors (the provided link is a not a reliable source), then the colors should not be added. There was mention of the colors on the CBS website, but no link provided. CBS would be a reliable source, but the forum link above is not. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I did put thesource there, someone mean must've deleted it (121.209.32.18 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
- Hmmm... that would be me because I didn't notice that you did that. My mistake. I've restored it, though rewrote some of what you were saying to cut back on the speculation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought and looking a little further, just because four shirt colors are available for sale, that doesn't mean that all four colors are in use, so which of the three or four are in use is speculative. For example the Tocantins shirt is available in four colors and only three tribes were used. So for now, I removed the tribe colors until everybody here can discuss the issue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
There are four colors. One may be used for merge. That leaves three. 18 castaways divided by three buff colors = 6 even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.26.130 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, maybe not. That is all speculative. It could also be two tribes of nine, one merge color, and one extra color available like Tocantins. Therefore, until a reliable source can be provided that all four or three (and then which three) colors are actually in use, I don't think anything should be added to the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
All four of the Tocantins colours were used, The merge was green, one tribe was black and blue, and the other was red and yellow. So we know that all four colours are going to be used in Samoa. If there's an extra one (like in Tocantins) then we can add it later, but I think it's important that we keep up to date. (121.209.32.18 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
- The Tocantins tribe colors were black, red, and green. The blue was a secondary color for a single tribe. There is no yellow shirt available for purchase. So if you are presenting the theory that the shirt colors available for purchase determine the tribe colors, you come up one color short (yellow) or one color extra (blue) depending upon how you look at it. Therefore, you can't deduce the colors of the tribes for Samoa from the colors of the shirts available. You can't determine what colors are primary colors, second colors, or even colors in use at all. So I still believe that until you have a reliable source that states that certain colors are the primary tribe colors, the speculative colors from the CSB store should not be added to the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
But does it really matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.207.10 (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I just saw this:
http://www.planetbuff.com/images/PURPLEIMAGE.bmp.jpg
http://www.planetbuff.com/images/YELLOWIMAGE.bmp.jpg
The pictures are now discussed in Survivor Sucks (see http://survivorsucks.com/reply/4762651/t/Survivor-BUFFs.html#reply-4762651). Although the Buffs are not yet on sale on CBS.com, they look authentic to me and the source (an official Buff selling website) seems reliable. If the Buff colors are solid enough I can actually find a Hex Code for the two tribe colors.
My first try:
- Purple:
#823C96
- Yellow:
#FFE105
You think this will work?
219.144.200.226 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The source for these images is not reliable. Forum posts are generally not reliable sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. I guess we shall wait and see until CBS airs a promo. But I still quite believe that these colors might be the real ones.
- One of the reasons is this: http://www.planetbuff.com/Survivor-Somoa-Buffs/c34/index.html?osCsid=3869db2ec1ca87adb77fa02c6aa310d2
- Please open this link and judge for yourself. Above is a true, legitimate Buff-selling website, with much higher credibility and reliability than a mere forum discussion (and it is where the above pictures are from). One of the posters in the forum of which the link is posted above has already successfully ordered a Survivor: Samoa Buff from them. If those are not the official Buffs, the seller would certainly be sued for copyright violations from CBS by now. Plus, pictures of Buffs are certainly much, much more reliable than pictures of T-shirts.
- However, as of the points where I do think are suspicious, they spelled "Samoa" wrong in the page's title, and for the first time so far, there have been 3 "BUFF" logos on each side of a Survivor Buff.
- In conclusion, I do think that the additions of colors should wait, but I am quite sure that purple and yellow will be the colors.
- 123.116.203.97 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Still not a reliable source. Anybody can sell a buff, but is it official? No. Only CBS has official buffs. As for not being sued by CBS, well, that's CBS' problem not an indication that the buffs are real, not fake. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- CBSstore.com updated the Buffs! It is proven that purple and yellow are the tribe colors! http://cbs.seenon.com/index.php?v=cbs-survivor-survivorsamoa 219.142.13.166 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I found out that the colors used in the article is not exactly what this topic has suggested. Since the colors several posts above were the most representative of the actual colors on the Buff then why not use them? --220.231.2.74 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Number of Contestants
On the Season Preview that was played on Tocantins' Reunion Show, Jeff's voiceover announced that there would be 18 castaways, but when the CBS Survivor Main Page changed its format to Samoa's, twenty contestant slots were seen. Anyone have an explanation for this? 59.44.39.30 (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- According to the newly-released promo, a contestant says the words "There's twenty of us". What Jeff said during the preview on the Tocantins reunion was "18 strangers". Perhaps two of the Samoa contestants were already known by the others before they were marooned? Could it be two former castaways pulling a Stephenie/Bobby Jon this season?
- 219.142.13.166 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Premerge) Tribe Names
http://resources.survivorphoenix.com/graphics/albums/S19E01/S19_Tribe_Names.jpg
An image consisting of two vidcaps of tribe flags during the new Samoa promo airing on CBS. A bit grainy but we can still make out the names from the picture:
- Galu (?)
- Foa Foa (?)
Just as a speculation, and this probably won't make the article anytime soon.
219.142.13.166 (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Cities where contestants are from
Rather than list most of the contestants as coming from Los Angeles, wouldn't it be better to put where they originally come from? It makes more sense to do that. Plus, in the "meet the cast" videos, it lists "Los Angeles via .... (the cities I listed)" as their hometowns.
What for? Where they lived at the time of filming has always been used to signify where the contestants are from. Samoa should be no different.
Hasta luego (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The game table: "Sent" column renaming
Instead of naming the column "Sent", which I think it a little vague ("Sent" where?), how about changing it to "Observer"? Jeff has used the word "observe" twice now. Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Episode 3 Recap
What does the following sentence, right at the end of the Episode 3 Recap, mean?
"Mick and Russell tried to convince Jaison to vote off Ashley using the threat of an all girl alliance that would vote out the Foa Foa mes voted out 6-1"
Possibly the word "mes" should be "men" and a new sentence showing the voting results (i.e. Ben was voted out 6-1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.192.218 (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was vandalism from an IP that was reverted a few hours later. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Why there is a green line in the elimantion table?
Why there is a green line in the elimantion table? There won't be elimantion next episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.103.158 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because an editor decided to pre-load the table in a different way than what has been done with previous episodes. I changed it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
DVR Ratings removed
I removed an incomplete DVR Ratings table that an IP added because I felt that such information was unnecessary detail. Wikipedia is not meant for excessive statistics and I thought that adding in detailed DVR ratings did not bring anything particularly substantial to the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Voting History Footnote
The footnote (#2) to the Voting History table needs cleaning up. The note states "Because of medical reasons, said Contestant was evacuated. Because of the Contestant being removed from the game as a result of this, there was no Tribal Council held." This is not true for either episode. Both did have Tribal Councils, in episode 2 there was tribal council and a vote to eliminate Betsy. For episode 6 there was a tribal council at which both tribes attended but no vote as a result of the earlier departure of Russell.69.41.192.218 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the footnotes back to the standard footnote usage from previous seasons that I think reads better and it no so convoluted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Should we add photos for Survivor Samoa?
The thing just looks too boring. Should we add some hq pics? I think it'll lighten up everything on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityShowsRCool (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Nov 5th
This is the merge episode.--Cooly123 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
Merge Tribe Color
According to the promo, the merge color is blue. However, I think we should wait until the official Buff design image is available for access on CBSstore (which is likely next week) to add the Merge Tribe color in order to avoid any unnecessary inaccuracies, unless it's absolutely too late.
72.10.114.120 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed.... and whoever did the "Not Merged" thing fucked up the table... no other season did that. Totally unnecessary.
- Exactly. I think the Survivor Task Force should go into highly-alarmed state this week. There has been many editors attempting to add the merge tribe's column onto the tables and I have been reverting those edits with notes to them on their own talk pages. Who knows why they just won't listen. (Or read.)
- Source, please?
- 192.83.228.65 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind... I saw it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSSd04tqiRo. Thanks! 192.83.228.65 (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- By tomorrow morning the official Buff design picture shall probably be on CBS Store. That is the color we will use for Aiga. Consensus anyone? 72.10.113.173 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- ETA: CBS already put on the Aiga Buff. Here's the color -
- Aiga
- Changing it now!
- 72.10.113.173 (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doesnt anyone find that the official buff colour on CBS store is way darker than the real buff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.40.154 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Tie vote in table
Consensus in past seasons has been to list only the initial vote and then put a foot note explaining a change in votes. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was? I don't remember that. Actually, I don't even remember when the last time there was a tie. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I looked it up. There were two times that I could find where there was a tie and then not a tie. One in Survivor: Palau and one in Survivor: Borneo. All of the other ties fell back to either the rock or the previous vote count. On those two seasons, you are correct that the initial vote was listed and then a footnote was done explaining the revote. I find that a bit confusing and wondering if consensus should change and it should show both votes. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should stick with just the initial vote. I feel it is a more accurate representation of the tribal council vote, where as the tie-breaker vote was just that -- a tie-breaker. I am ok with both being shown, but I definitely feel like the initial vote needs to be shown. My only problem with listing both votes is it could actually confuse anyone glancing at the table into thinking they are votes from two different tribal councils. Also, in the contestants table, it should list both Laura and Natalie as having 5 votes cast against each of them, and the footnote should explain the 3 additional tie-breaker votes for Natalie, not the other way around. MarkMc1990 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think both should be shown if you are looking for accuracy. You can't have one not listed and call it accurate. I can't decide on what to do with Total Vote count. It's just just messy. There are three options:
- Include all of the votes received in both votes since technically they received those votes. (Natalie would have 8.)
- Include just the initial vote per your reasoning. (Natalie would have 5.)
- Include just the tie-breaker vote because those votes were really the ones that sent a castaway home. (Natalie would have 3.)
- Comments from other interested parties would be helpful. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think both should be shown if you are looking for accuracy. You can't have one not listed and call it accurate. I can't decide on what to do with Total Vote count. It's just just messy. There are three options:
- I'm ok with options 1 or 2. But if we go with 1, then we have to go back to the Australian Outback page and list Colby has having 10 and Jeff has having 12, as well as other tied persons in other seasons.MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with MarkMc1990 on this one, but I'm leaning more towards option 2 and showing only the initial vote. If we show both, we have to do the same in the articles for previous seasons. The situation that was presented in the latest episode was also seen in Survivor Philippines: Palau, and we editors there decided to use Borneo and Australian Outback as precedents. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm ok with options 1 or 2. But if we go with 1, then we have to go back to the Australian Outback page and list Colby has having 10 and Jeff has having 12, as well as other tied persons in other seasons.MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Option 2, as it is done in Palau's article Survivorfan101 (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Significance?
What is the significance of adding this sentence? "As with the previous seasons of Survivor, Russ Landau composed the theme song" its filler and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.188.16 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Russel H. Or Russel
I think that after the episode that Russel S. was eliminated, I think that instead of calling Russel H. "Russel H." on each epsidoe summary, after the elimination,we can just call Russel H. "Russel". Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.251.170 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. Consistancy is key. For all we know, Russell S. could have come back in some surprise twist, and in that case "Russell" could refer to either.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I know who wins Survivor Samoa
I saw a spoiler when I searched up "survivor samoa spoilers"
They said Shambo was 6th (True) They said Jaison was 5th, Brett was 4th, and Natalie won with Russell H. receiving no votes and Mick getting a few votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.153.11 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which is BS, because they don't even reveal the votes until the LIVE reunion. And plus, this is DEFINITELY NOT the place for spoilers.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki had who wins posted before the live reunion show started can we say leaked?
You got some of the spoilers wrong anyways. We found out that most of it is correct, but Mick didn't recieve any votes and Russell Hantz did get votes.
65.214.69.226 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
blindsided
James (on China) was blindsided, having no idea his name would come up entering TC (and leaving with the two HII in his possession).
Shambo, however, clearly had an idea she was on the chopping block. She may have be surprised that ultimately picked her over Mick, but she wasn't blindsided by the result.
Basically, "blindsided" is a very strong word, and either it has to be very apparent or suggested by Jeff that the player going out suffered from one. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Right, Shambo definitely wasn't blindsided; to prove she knew her danger, she said herself on the tribal council voting video that "it's either [Mick] or [her]".Simplebutpowerful 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
All this detail...
Reading the article...is the minutiae of every episode of a television programme the stuff of encyclopedic content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.8.2 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Why does Russell not have his own page?
- [Note: this discussion is now moot, as Russell Hantz has since been deemed notable enough to have his own page. allixpeeke (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)]
He was arguably one of the most memorable Survivors of all time. He needs his own page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.170.130 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. 222.154.243.247 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- He is not notable beyond his appearance in Survivor (There was a page for him but it was deleted based on this fact.) --MASEM (t) 14:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- And on top of that, you may think he is one of the most memorable Survivors of all time, but some people may disagree, and therefore unless it is FACT (not opinion like this one is) it cannot be on this site.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- He is not notable beyond his appearance in Survivor (There was a page for him but it was deleted based on this fact.) --MASEM (t) 14:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, since there is no longer a page for Russell Hantz, can someone go through all the pages on wikipedia and delete the links to this noexistant page? All they do know is lead to the list of Survivor contestants. Someone should these links.
65.214.69.226 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- To 65.214.69.226,
- Russell Hantz has now been deemed notable. An article for this man has been created. All links to Russell Hantz now take readers to an actual article about Hantz. Thus, I recommend against deleting said links. allixpeeke (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Realistic Vandals?
The 21st and 22nd castaways, who were not shown because they were eliminated in a tribal pick 'em, also not shown, were named Jenifer Green, a 21 year old college student from Denton, Texas as well as Todd Darnell, a 23 year old Advertising Executive from College Station, Texas. Many people believe the two knew each other and were ultimately targetted and not chosen for a tribe to ensure a pre-game alliance wouldn't be done. There were reports that Natalie White and Jenifer Green were the last two females, and Natalie White took the last Foa-Foa spot while Brett Clouser and Todd Darnell were the last males, Brett taking the final Galu spot.
Can we have a source for this? IMHO, it's BS until there is one. Sounds like somebody made it up based on rumors and decided they were right. --76.120.179.184 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- They are becoming more creative, I'll give them that. I removed that particular edit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Russell Hantz
See Talk: Russell Hantz. Thanks Plastikspork (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting history
I noticed the format of the Voting history table in the article was changed by someone to show two separate tables—one would be pre-merge, one post-merge. It was soon changed back.
The new version of the table can be found at an old revision of the page here. The current table can be found here. I thought the new layout proposed was easier to read, as the previous table was one long object that stretched the page out. The only way to read the end-of-game votes would be to go down and move the left–right scroll bar!
In my opinion, this could be quite cumbersome. I prefer the new layout. Is there a consensus to change the article's Voting history table to the new layout? —Untitledmind72 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable idea. I always thought these tables were a bit wide, especially when viewed on a smaller laptop screen (or on an iPhone). Plastikspork (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I like the new format. It definitely improves readability and makes the page look better. Should we incorporate the new format into all the other season pages, or should we just use it for seasons with 20 contestants? -- Meäghân talk 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- All would be fine with me, but perhaps we should alert other editors in case they wish to comment? Plastikspork (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should get the Survivor Task Force on it (he he, that sounds so official). I think the lowest amount of castaways was 16, no? We should see what the new layout would look like, but we definitely need to add it to the 20-castaway seasons. Just finished Tocantins, a 16-castaway season, and it looks fine. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would definitely support adding it to all the seasons. I'll post a note regarding the new format at the Survivor Task Force talk page. -- Meäghân talk 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- As much as I hate the new format, but since I have no power to change it, I'd like to suggest sorting all names in the order of finish, rather than the alphabetic order if haven't been voted off before merge/switch. --BigOz22 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - P.S, where is the Survivor Task Force?
- Which part to you want to sort? And I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Survivor Task Force. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- As much as I hate the new format, but since I have no power to change it, I'd like to suggest sorting all names in the order of finish, rather than the alphabetic order if haven't been voted off before merge/switch. --BigOz22 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - P.S, where is the Survivor Task Force?
- I would definitely support adding it to all the seasons. I'll post a note regarding the new format at the Survivor Task Force talk page. -- Meäghân talk 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- How should we display tribal switches, such as this in Gabon? It seems quite confusing, so there must be another way. Thoughts? —Untitledmind72 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should only have two tables on each page - pre-merge and post-merge. If we have too many tables it's just going to get too confusing. Another suggestion - instead of separating pre-merge and post-merge, maybe we could do one table for the pre-jury boots and one table for both the jury members and the final 2/3? In some seasons the jury starts before the merge. -- Meäghân talk 21:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would that get too confusing? There would be multiple tribe colors in the post-merge (or jury/final) table because some jury members in those seasons would not have the merge color—I'm not sure, but I don't think too many seasons have pre-merge juries. We could do that, or we could keep this format and for pre-merge jury members, just put a superscript and note it at the bottom of the table. Also, for tribal switches, how could we format those into the same pre-merge table? —Untitledmind72 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Meaghan: two tables, one pre-merge and one post-merge. The current Gabon split of three is really ugly and kind of hard to read. Splitting once is fine, but when you over-split, you just make a bigger mess than what you had before. The multiple splits also make decisions on where to split more difficult, for example All-Stars or Cook Islands. The merge is a nice clean, always there, unambiguous spot to split the tables. It also marks a turning point in the game, so I think it's a good spot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, two tables. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Meaghan: two tables, one pre-merge and one post-merge. The current Gabon split of three is really ugly and kind of hard to read. Splitting once is fine, but when you over-split, you just make a bigger mess than what you had before. The multiple splits also make decisions on where to split more difficult, for example All-Stars or Cook Islands. The merge is a nice clean, always there, unambiguous spot to split the tables. It also marks a turning point in the game, so I think it's a good spot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would that get too confusing? There would be multiple tribe colors in the post-merge (or jury/final) table because some jury members in those seasons would not have the merge color—I'm not sure, but I don't think too many seasons have pre-merge juries. We could do that, or we could keep this format and for pre-merge jury members, just put a superscript and note it at the bottom of the table. Also, for tribal switches, how could we format those into the same pre-merge table? —Untitledmind72 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should only have two tables on each page - pre-merge and post-merge. If we have too many tables it's just going to get too confusing. Another suggestion - instead of separating pre-merge and post-merge, maybe we could do one table for the pre-jury boots and one table for both the jury members and the final 2/3? In some seasons the jury starts before the merge. -- Meäghân talk 21:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I like the new format. It definitely improves readability and makes the page look better. Should we incorporate the new format into all the other season pages, or should we just use it for seasons with 20 contestants? -- Meäghân talk 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely detest this new format! I don't like that if I want to see how a particular post-merge castaway voted throughout the game, then I have to look at the first table and find their name in alphabetical order, then scroll down and re-find them in the second table in the new order of finish and continue from there. That's a lot less convenient and more confusing than having to scroll slightly to the right to see the end votes. The old version of the table was organized just fine. If size is that big of an issue, then perhaps using a smaller text size would be a more reasonable solution. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the table at the normal font size (100%)
| Original Tribes | Merged Tribe | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Episode #: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Reunion | ||||||
| Eliminated: | Marisa 7/10 votes |
Mike No vote |
Betsy 7/8 votes |
Ben 6/7 votes |
Yasmin 8/10 votes |
Ashley 5/6 votes |
Russell S. No vote7 |
Liz 4/5 votes |
Erik 10/12 votes |
Kelly 4/4 votes5 |
Tie8 | Laura 5/8 votes8 |
John 7/9 votes |
Dave 7/8 votes |
Monica 5/7 votes |
Shambo 5/6 votes |
Jaison 4/5 votes |
Brett 3/4 votes |
Mick 0/9 votes |
Russell H. 2/9 votes |
Natalie 7/9 votes |
| Voter | Vote | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Natalie | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | None9 | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Jaison | Brett | Jury Vote | |||||
| Russell H. | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | Laura | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Jaison | Brett | ||||||
| Mick | Ashley | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | Laura | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Jaison | Brett | ||||||
| Brett | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Natalie | John | Dave | Russell H. | Shambo | Jaison | Mick | Natalie | ||||||||||
| Jaison | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | Laura | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Mick | Natalie | ||||||
| Shambo | Monica | Jaison | Laura | Laura | Dave | Dave | Monica | Mick | Russell H. | ||||||||||||
| Monica | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Natalie | John | Dave | Russell H. | Natalie | |||||||||||||
| Dave | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Natalie | John | Shambo | Natalie | ||||||||||||||
| John | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Laura | Mick | Russell H. | |||||||||||||||
| Laura | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | None9 | Natalie | ||||||||||||||||
| Kelly | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | ||||||||||||||||||
| Erik | Yasmin | Jaison | Natalie | ||||||||||||||||||
| Liz | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Jaison | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell S. | Yasmin | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Ashley | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Liz | |||||||||||||||||
| Yasmin | Monica | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Ben | Marisa | Betsy | Ashley | ||||||||||||||||||
| Betsy | Ashley | Ben | |||||||||||||||||||
| Mike | Marisa | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Marisa | Ashley | ||||||||||||||||||||
And here it is at 90%
| Original Tribes | Merged Tribe | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Episode #: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Reunion | ||||||
| Eliminated: | Marisa 7/10 votes |
Mike No vote |
Betsy 7/8 votes |
Ben 6/7 votes |
Yasmin 8/10 votes |
Ashley 5/6 votes |
Russell S. No vote7 |
Liz 4/5 votes |
Erik 10/12 votes |
Kelly 4/4 votes5 |
Tie8 | Laura 5/8 votes8 |
John 7/9 votes |
Dave 7/8 votes |
Monica 5/7 votes |
Shambo 5/6 votes |
Jaison 4/5 votes |
Brett 3/4 votes |
Mick 0/9 votes |
Russell H. 2/9 votes |
Natalie 7/9 votes |
| Voter | Vote | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Natalie | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | None9 | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Jaison | Brett | Jury Vote | |||||
| Russell H. | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | Laura | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Jaison | Brett | ||||||
| Mick | Ashley | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | Laura | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Jaison | Brett | ||||||
| Brett | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Natalie | John | Dave | Russell H. | Shambo | Jaison | Mick | Natalie | ||||||||||
| Jaison | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Liz | Erik | Kelly | Laura | Laura | John | Dave | Monica | Shambo | Mick | Natalie | ||||||
| Shambo | Monica | Jaison | Laura | Laura | Dave | Dave | Monica | Mick | Russell H. | ||||||||||||
| Monica | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Natalie | John | Dave | Russell H. | Natalie | |||||||||||||
| Dave | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Natalie | John | Shambo | Natalie | ||||||||||||||
| John | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | Laura | Mick | Russell H. | |||||||||||||||
| Laura | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | None9 | Natalie | ||||||||||||||||
| Kelly | Yasmin | Erik | Natalie | ||||||||||||||||||
| Erik | Yasmin | Jaison | Natalie | ||||||||||||||||||
| Liz | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Ashley | Jaison | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell S. | Yasmin | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Ashley | Marisa | Betsy | Ben | Liz | |||||||||||||||||
| Yasmin | Monica | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Ben | Marisa | Betsy | Ashley | ||||||||||||||||||
| Betsy | Ashley | Ben | |||||||||||||||||||
| Mike | Marisa | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Marisa | Ashley | ||||||||||||||||||||
A significant difference if you ask me. Cuts down on the width of 3 columns of the original sized table. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the older format, but am willing to live with the new one. However, they would be much easier to follow if all names were in finishing order in both charts. It's confusing to not have order consistency between the two charts, and even more confusing to have some people in finishing order and the rest alphabetically within the same chart. Jedzz (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Using the same ordering in both sounds like a good idea. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I know its a bit late to add, but i'd just like to say, I really really dont like the new format. I think the suggestion by MarkMc1990 to reduce the size of the tables is a far better idea than splitting them into two. The current format makes it seem that there were two seperate games taking place. The change in both tables to finishing order is an improvement, but I dont think there was really any need to change the original tables, other than in size :)(Kyleofark (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
Love the newly reverted-to-old-format-with-smaller-font-size VH table! Its setup of pre-day 39 votes fits perfectly in the viewing screen, and the Jury votes are wisely placed underneath, and it works.Simplebutpowerful 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Uncited summarization of shows
Where is al this content coming form regarding the summarization of individual shows, where is it cited to? Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would suppose that per the Television WikiProject guidelines, it comes from watching the show. The only problem, that I can see, would be if the summaries are (a) too long, (b) copyright violation or plagiarism, or (c) based on excessive interpretation or POV. We should certainly discuss this if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- My concern isn't stylistic issues, it's the "interpretation" as it could negatively affect living persons. There was very obvious stuff in the article that Off2riorob and myself removed. But there's a lot of less obvious stuff that could be take negatively as well; as it is all unverified there is no way of knowing it is true. I understand that unsourced plot summaries are acceptable for TV shows and films. But they're storylines that don't involve real people. Reality TV is a different thing. What is said in these articles can affect real people so in my view it ought to be sourced (everything, not just the obvious attack stuff) to reliable secondary material. In these cases the strict sourcing requirements of WP:BLP ought to take precedence over wikiproject style guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is tragic what reality television does to people. Since this is a wider issue, why not start a thread in a larger forum and publicize it here? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tragic? We can easily deal with the content from this article here, one persons interpretation is another mans misunderstanding, any disputed controversial content as regards a living person if challenged should be verified and cited to stronger citations or removed. Looking at the content in the provided citation which is of very low quality, the racism accusation is not so simple and disputed, http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/exclusive-ben-browning-talks-about-survivor-samoa-experience-9655.php Ben called Yasmin, Ghetto trash, this actually is not a racist comment at all, although the show wants people to view so they assert all sorts of rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- And which is why we should focus the summaries on the results and strategies as opposed to what players think of other save in rare cases when they are vocalized (re: Crystal to Randy in Gabon) and have an impact on the show. We're working from primary sources here, so we cannot interpret feelings. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well said, full support for that position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The question is how to deal with this on a large-scale basis? This one for instance is a potential nightmare because it is about minors, eg "Taylor is still refusing to work after promising to start working harder in the last episode". You don't call children slackers on an encyclopaedia (sorry for going off-topic). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right, which is why I brought up the suggestion of moving this discussion to a broader forum. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done- here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Right, which is why I brought up the suggestion of moving this discussion to a broader forum. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The question is how to deal with this on a large-scale basis? This one for instance is a potential nightmare because it is about minors, eg "Taylor is still refusing to work after promising to start working harder in the last episode". You don't call children slackers on an encyclopaedia (sorry for going off-topic). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well said, full support for that position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- And which is why we should focus the summaries on the results and strategies as opposed to what players think of other save in rare cases when they are vocalized (re: Crystal to Randy in Gabon) and have an impact on the show. We're working from primary sources here, so we cannot interpret feelings. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tragic? We can easily deal with the content from this article here, one persons interpretation is another mans misunderstanding, any disputed controversial content as regards a living person if challenged should be verified and cited to stronger citations or removed. Looking at the content in the provided citation which is of very low quality, the racism accusation is not so simple and disputed, http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/exclusive-ben-browning-talks-about-survivor-samoa-experience-9655.php Ben called Yasmin, Ghetto trash, this actually is not a racist comment at all, although the show wants people to view so they assert all sorts of rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is tragic what reality television does to people. Since this is a wider issue, why not start a thread in a larger forum and publicize it here? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- My concern isn't stylistic issues, it's the "interpretation" as it could negatively affect living persons. There was very obvious stuff in the article that Off2riorob and myself removed. But there's a lot of less obvious stuff that could be take negatively as well; as it is all unverified there is no way of knowing it is true. I understand that unsourced plot summaries are acceptable for TV shows and films. But they're storylines that don't involve real people. Reality TV is a different thing. What is said in these articles can affect real people so in my view it ought to be sourced (everything, not just the obvious attack stuff) to reliable secondary material. In these cases the strict sourcing requirements of WP:BLP ought to take precedence over wikiproject style guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I find all that policy discussion a bit much, I prefer to deal with any BLP issues here and allow others to tweak policy, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand where your trying to go with this, but you picked a bad example from Kid Nation above. If Taylor was heard on the previous episode promising to work harder, and then refused to work, I don't see how there's any problem making the statement which you quoted as part of the summary. It accurately states what happened, especially in the context of the other kids wanting to punish her for not working. (Yes, I actually did click the link and read that page.) As far as calling children slackers, that's not at all what that writer did. The sentence as written seems to be neutral and just relates what happened on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryJeff (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A cameraman died during the show?
I heard of this rumor. Is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterxj108 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Video unavailable
The link on source four regarding the banned challenge only says that the video is unavailable. Can you find another source that cites the same information? I also brought this up on the Heroes versus Villians talk page. I would like to know where you are finding out why the challenge is banned, even though I believe that it is.
65.214.69.226 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Observer column necessary?
I notice that you have an observer column with the challenge wins and vote outs. I wondering if this column is even necessary to have. I mean, you include it in the episode's summary so I'm not certain that you need it with the other information especially since it doesn't happen in other episodes like those post merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.69.226 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)