Talk:Survivor: Blood vs. Water

Returnees vs. family rumor

Does it belong in the article, considering it is only speculation? Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit speculative, but we have used Reality Blurred before for information so I believe that is a reliable source. Yet on the other hand, I'm not sure that I would use their third article [1] on this season as the article says that it might not be the most reliable list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No where in the article says it might not be the most reliable list. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It does: "though it’s possible one or more of these are either alternates (or decoys?)" -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Though the sources are well known, the "family" twist is clearly speculation and should be removed until CBS unveils the cast later this year. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It is no longer speculative, see the recent change with the interview with Jeff. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are spoilers everywhere about who's on this season?

Can we use some of those spoilers to edit this? IF we put up a spoiler alert? 68.71.163.3 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comment in the previous section. In general, the spoiler has to be from a reliable source. For example, message board rumors are generally not reliable. There are no spoiler warnings on articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tribe names

Yellow tribe "Galang"- http://www.planetbuff.com/cbs-survivor-buff/survivor-season-27-blood-vs-water/survivor-27-blood-vs-water-mustard-yellow.html Red Tribe "Tadhana"- http://www.planetbuff.com/cbs-survivor-buff/survivor-season-27-blood-vs-water/survivor-27-blood-vs-water-crimson-red.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.47.172 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, the source seems reasonable. I'll make the necessary changes to the tribe colorbox templates. I will use the last colors used and let others debate the color choices. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As the name of the new tribes, "Galang" means respect, while "Tadhana" also means Fate in Tagalog. Curiously, I'm a native Tagalog speaker. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Galang colorbox looks orange to me. Can we please change it to yellow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.65.112 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the exact same color from the buff website though. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting History

Why is the voting history not in the article? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the premier is airing right now and the table is being built as the episode is ongoing. Please be patient. It takes time to build these things. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of notes

One, there are two footnote #1s on the same table (the episode chart) - that's kind of confusing. One is for Laura Boneham swapping with Rupert and the other is for the combined challenge. Does anyone else think this should be fixed?

Two, as for the voting history chart - are the votes for the initial boots confirmed or speculative? I don't remember ever seeing a final tally like typically happens during the exit confessional... Andymancan1 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the footnote numbering issue.

I provided a citation for the Tadhana votes not shown during the twist. Gervase's vote was never shown, so I added a {{cn}} tag. As for TC voting, none of that was shown either and a video clip hasn't been uploaded. I added a bunch of {{cn}} tags for that, too, since all we saw was Katie and Marissa's votes. Made the table really wide, but so be it. Why do I have this feeling that various anonymous editors will now remove the {{cn}} and reference? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to leave the unseen votes blank, but I know for sure that the anonymous IPs will re-fill that information back in. Does anybody else have an opinion on what we should do about the unseen votes? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This recap, written by someone who was on-site during the filming of the episode, states that Marissa voted for Brad, and her vote was also left unrevealed on the show, so that complicates things. I'd say for the Marissa boot, it was clearly a unanimous vote or else they'd reveal the other votes, as has been protocol for some time now. For Gervase's vote, which is unrevealed by all sources, I'd say leave the {{cn}} tag until evidence of his vote is revealed. - Katanin (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That source is correct. I rewatched the streaming episode on the CBS website and Marissa does reveal her vote after Laura starts to walk away from the tribe (12:40 in the video). It says Brad. The video also shows Katie's vote was Marissa. So the EW recap was wrong. I've removed John and Rachel's votes as they were not seen.

The votes against Marissa at TC are still not very reliably sourced. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I forgot about the show's habit of shuffling the votes in the container to make it more dramatic. I removed the {{cn}} for Marissa as you are right that they would have shown the other votes to make it more dramatic. I think we should leave the citation and {{cn}} for the first day votes in because the producers could not have shuffled the votes since they were going down the line. We really don't know Gervase's vote at this time and the citation I added clears up the vote against Laura B. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why assume he voted for Candice instead of Laura?108.162.157.141 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why I considered blanking his vote. The problem is that I know if the cell is left completely empty, somebody will try to fill it in without a citation. How about changing it to "–", like how sometimes the Neilsen ratings table look when data is not available, with a hidden inline comment to note to editors that they must provide a citation for his vote? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Since an editor has now blanked it, I have added an inline comment that a name should not be added without a citation from a reliable source. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Voting history for R.I. switches

I reverted the addition of Rupert to the Voting history table because in my opinion it was not appropriate as no vote occurred, he was not eligible to be voted against at the time at Tribal Council, and he wasn't removed from the game for medical reasons. This R.I. switch thing could potentially make the Voting history table a mess if a switched person is added in ever time. I think the table should only include actual TC votes or medical removal/quits. Similarly, the tribe header change to Switched Tribes should only be done when Jeff initiates a switch and the switch is forced.

I'm bringing this up now so we can discuss how the table should work for future switches if there are any. In other words, set the precedent now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a tricky scenario: it is someone leaving the main game, which has, historically, always been denoted on the table. However, that could easily clutter up the table if there are many more switches to come, as opposed to medevacs/quits, where there is only a fixed amount due to no player re-entering as a result. I think we should leave the Rupert column that User:Periferigenilerimini added (with fixed coding, of course) in there for now, as it represents a player leaving the main game, and if it gets too cluttered in the future we can try to work something else out. - Katanin (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a tricky situation. However, when Redemption Island was previously used in Survivor Redemption Island and Survivor South Pacific, and when the Outcasts twist was used in Survivor Pearl Islands, people who were voted out (either of the game or to Redemption Island) are listed once when that happened, and if they return to the game they are listed again when they are voted out for good. In that sense a precedent has been set: Laura B was voted out of her tribe on Day 1 like Candice was, so she could appear in the top row of the table. Without that, the table states only that Rupert switched to RI --- it should state that Laura switched from RI to Galang. That being said, I agree that if we have one column every time players switch, the table will get far too long. I suggest this: Column 1 states the original tribe a player was in. Column 2 states the tribe a player was in at the time of merge. Column 3 lists any switches that a player does from and to RI. Column 4 lists when they were voted out, and Column 5 lists the day they were eliminated. Based on what we have seen so far I expect there to be not that many switches to and from RI - at the very least it appears no couples are strategically switching onto and off RI to ensure they have the best chance of both not being eliminated. Hence under my suggested model, I wouldn't expect Column 3 to get very cluttered. If it did, then column 3 could give the number of switches a player did, and the details of all the switches could go in a separate table. Anonymous 17:13, 17 October 2013 (AWST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.139.253 (talk)

Galang color

I should notice that Galang's color isn't really darker in the show, and I suggesting Mikado Yellow   than the irregular  , but the color is much lighter to Manono in One World.

The suggestion:

Galang tribe color
Cornish-maize
Mikado Yellow

ApprenticeFan ^work 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Voting history order

As per precedent on the Survivor: Redemption Island and Survivor: South Pacific pages, the voting history order does not reflect RI results unless a player returns to the game. For example, Keith in SP was voted out two Tribal Councils before Jim, but Jim was eliminated before Keith. However, since neither ended up returning to the game, Keith is listed below Jim. Please do not change it unless a new consensus is reached. - Katanin (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Castaway shuffle

Some seasons have castaways switch tribes before merge, others don't. Now it's no longer Favorites vs. Family members but now A tribe of mostly men vs. a tribe of mostly women. Reminds you of Amazon 2002-03? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.112.137 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge color

Based on the press pics from the next episode which show the buff, I think it would be okay to start discussing the color for the merge.
My suggestions:
  Spanish Violet
  Dark Slate Blue

Spanish Violet
Tadhana	Kasama
Galang

Dark Slate Blue
Tadhana	Kasama
Galang

MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In the press pics, the merged buff that Monica wearing in the pic is Spanish Violet. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Swapped Tribe for tribe-less John Cody and Laura Morett

They existed in the game during the swapped tribe period but did not have a tribe. I am wondering, should we replaced their grey squares in the Swapped Tribe column with a no-tribe comment? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(Also, just to note, we do not have any precedence of this because Survivor: Redemption Island and Survivor: South Pacific did not have tribe swaps Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

I think the grey squares are fine. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It just seems weird to me that Kat has a swapped tribe, and then there are two grey squares below. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should add a None plus a note indicating that altough they were part of the game at the momemt of the swap, they were on RI, like the notes in Palau for Wanda and Jonathan, or like Survivor Israel's Invisible Island contestants. Two grey squares does not look good to me. - Gonzalochileno (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be something like this; and it reflects that they were playing at the moment.

Extended content

Contestant Original Tribe Switched Tribe Merged Tribe Voted Out Redemption Island Finish Total Votes Laura Boneham Returned to game Tadhana 1st Day 1 Switched1 Day 1 5 Rupert Boneham 49, Indianapolis, IN Pearl Islands, All-Stars & Heroes vs. Villains Galang Switched1 Day 1 Lost Duel 1 Day 4 20th Day 4 0 Colton Cumbie 22, Monroeville, AL One World Galang Quit Day 7 19th Day 7 0 Rachel Foulger 33, Orem, UT Tyson's girlfriend Tadhana 4th Day 6 Lost Duel 2 Day 7 18th Day 7 5 Marissa Peterson 21, Chapel Hill, NC Gervase's niece Tadhana 3rd Day 3 Lost Duel 3 Day 9 17th Day 9 10 Candice Cody 30, Washington D.C. Cook Islands & Heroes vs. Villains Galang 2nd Day 1 Lost Duel 4 Day 11 16th Day 11 5 Brad Culpepper 44, Tampa, FL Monica's husband Tadhana 6th Day 10 Lost Duel 5 Day 14 15th Day 14 42 Kat Edorsson 23, Orlando, FL One World Galang Galang 8th Day 16 Lost Duel 6 Day 17 14th Day 17 5 John Cody 30, Washington, D.C. Candice's husband Tadhana None4 5th Day 8 Current Inhabitant 8 Laura Morett 43, Salem, OR Samoa Galang None4 7th Day 13 Current Inhabitant 10 Laura Boneham 44, Indianapolis, IN Rupert's wife Galang1 Galang 9th Day 18 Current Inhabitant 10 Tyson Apostol 34, Lindon, UT Tocantins & Heroes vs. Villains Galang Tadhana Caleb Bankston 26, Crossville, AL Colton's fiancé Tadhana Tadhana Aras Baskauskas 31, Santa Monica, CA Panama Galang Tadhana Vytas Baskauskas 33, Santa Monica, CA Aras's brother Tadhana Galang 2 Katie Collins 25, New York, NY Tina's daughter Tadhana Galang 2 Monica Culpepper 42, Tampa, FL One World Galang Galang Ciera Eastin 24, Salem, OR Laura M.'s daughter Tadhana Tadhana 53 Hayden Moss 27, Mesa, AZ Kat's boyfriend Tadhana Tadhana Gervase Peterson 43, Willingboro, NJ Borneo Galang Tadhana 1 Tina Wesson 52, Knoxville, TN The Australian Outback & All-Stars Galang Galang The Total Votes is the number of votes a castaway received during Tribal Councils where the castaway was eligible to be voted out of the game. It does not include the votes received during the final Tribal Council. ^1 Laura B. returned to the game after Rupert elected to take her place on Redemption Island. As a result, Laura B. replaced Rupert on Galang. ^2 Three additional votes were cast against Brad during a tie-breaker vote. ^3 One additional vote was cast against Ciera during a tie-breaker vote. ^4 John and Laura M. were not part of the tribal switch, as they were in Redemption Island at the moment.

I agree with this setup above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I also like it. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, i will add it to the article then. Gonzalochileno (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A similar scenario had happened in Survivor Philippines: Palau, where Justine Ferrer didn't have any tribe affiliations during the Switched Tribe phase but returned to the game. There was a note indicating almost the same format as John and Laura Morett. Zjzr (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Laura Boneham's original tribe

May I propose doing this:

Contestant	Original Tribe	Switched Tribe	Merged Tribe	Voted Out	Redemption Island	Finish	Total Votes
Laura Boneham 44, Indianapolis, IN Rupert's wife	Tadhana	Galang		9th Day 18	Current Inhabitant		10
	Galang1

MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that it ignores the detail that she was voted out on day 1 and that Rupert switched with her. With your proposed changes, it looks like everything happened on day 18. You have to read the footnote to figure that out and that is not a good thing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if this was only as a substitute for her second entry, the sortability of the table means that clicking any of the sortable headings will duplicate the entry into two nearly-identical entries: one that says her original tribe was Tadhana, and the other Galang. Unless we make another column for "Day 1 Tribes," there's no good way to notate her early tribe swap aside from the footnote. - Katanin (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot Laura's real original tribe was already shown in the first row. Never mind! MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources of votes

One of the mysteries I was thinking this season is that the full voting results (who voted for who) wasn't revealed in this season's Tribal Council. I see that on the First Impressions vote John and Gervase's votes weren't revealed, but how do we exactly know who voted for who during the 1st Merge Tribal Council? What is the source of the votes? Zjzr (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Episode 9, first Tribal Council results

The chart currently incorrectly lists Laura M. as voting for Katie at the first tribal council of episode 9. Her vote was not shown but it is easy to conclude because of how unnecessary votes are not revealed. If Laura M. had voted for Katie Jeff would've read it aloud as per usual. The game chart currently lists Vytas as being voted out 8-1-1 with the 1s going to Katie and Tyson, this is correct and I will update the voting history chart to reflect this.216.70.29.154 (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is a loose source for this in Vytas' Twitter, but because we have no official source for other votes I think we could consider at first (as we did cite Marissa's own words as proof of her voting against Brad during the First Impressions vote.) Zjzr (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the error, but it does seem Laura did vote against Vytas, according to her Twitter. Confusing sources as two were saying differently, but it is Laura so I guess this is the more official (do we still need a note for that though as it is default that it was 8-1-1). Zjzr (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have edited out the source on Laura's vote for Vytas in episode 9. It is unnecessary due to reasons I have already stated above. 216.70.29.154 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And I have restored it. Since the vote was not shown in the episode or any other source, Laura M.'s tweet provides the verifiability necessary to make a clear indication of her vote. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

With this logic shouldn't we not have a voting chart this season? There has been one episode where the votes were revealed afterwards. This one vote doesn't need a source, and if it does, the other ones that haven't been revealed should need sources too.216.70.29.154 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Episode 10

CBS photos have revealed that

1) Aras loses duel and become 1st juror. 2) Monica wins immunity. 3) Ciera voted for Laura. 4) Laura gets voted out.

Because the article uses wiki code, which I do not know how to, can somebody that knows please add it to the article. The photos can be viewed here 108.162.157.141 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Or we can just wait a day and do updates as usual without having to add all of the necessary references that will eventually get thrown out tomorrow. There is no imperative to add things in before an episode airs just because CBS made a mistake. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Episode 11

CBS has released press photos telling us that

1) Vytas loses duel and goes to RI.

2) Monica wins Immunity.

3) Caleb gets voted out and Tyson plays the HII.

The photos can be viewed here. Since I was proven right last week, people like Gogo DoDo shouldn't doubt me again. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't doubt you. Please re-read what I said. I said that there is no imperative to add things the day before (or the day of, in this case) the airing of the episode that would require extensive citations that would shortly be removed after the episode airs. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not appropriate to add to Wikipedia any facts about an episode before it has aired, regardless of how strong your evidence is. People don't want to visit the page and stumble on spoilers they don't want to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.139.253 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Episode 12

Looking ahead to next week, this teaser from CBS reveals the third member of the jury and it can be worked out who wins immunity. It also reveals the "shocking twist" alluded to in an earlier Probst interview. I'm out of practice with updating Survivor articles (although I was active here many years ago) and am unsure of what the current procedure is for these situations. Do we currently include information from unaired episodes if it is given in promotional material? Cheers —tdltrombonator 08:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Any information about an episode added before it airs counts as spoilers so no it should not be added.--TheDevin13 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Spoilers allows spoilers.142.150.48.179 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.142.150.48.179 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to edit the article with information from a preview. Previews are not a valid source, they are intentionally vague and often misleading. 96.49.238.114 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition, WP:SPOIL refers to details regarding the ends of media, such as the ending of a book or, for example, the end of a season of Survivor after the season has concluded. Also, while logic may dictate otherwise, there is honestly no proof stating that the third person on the jury bench is actually on the Jury. For all we know, they may have actually won the duel and been permitted to attend in the stead of whomever lost. As farcical as that may be, there's as much evidence proving that's the case as opposed to the player losing the Duel. - Katanin (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has to lose to duel. Since Laura and Tina is not there (hence not the third juror), it follows that Caleb is there because is he is the third juror. So your scenario cannot be the case.108.162.157.141 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Who's to say the loser didn't break down and quit? And how do we know the result of the vote isn't 2-2-2, followed by 1-1-1 with only the two non-tied and non-immune voters winning immunity? Also, as stated by 96.49.238.114, promos "are intentionally vague and often misleading" and therefore, no matter which logical connections may be made, cannot be taken with anything more than a grain of salt until the episode airs next Wednesday. - Katanin (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This promo is clear cut that it goes to rocks. If it doesn't, it won't be misleading, it would be an outright lie. Even if the loser really broke down, why Caleb joins the jury and the other winner? Also, none of them need to join the jury, they will have 1 less jury overall. Castaways try to find balance at a frustrating immunity challenge and a ruthless game of tug of war leads to an incredibly rare tribal council. A tug of war is by definition between two sides, so it must be a 2-way tie.108.162.157.141 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Anything released by CBS is a primary source (since it is the official website.) hence it is reliable.108.162.157.141 (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

96.49.238.114, Katanin, TheDevin13, you are all dead-wrong here. The standard practice is and has been for a long time that anything CBS spoils on their own in any form of preview complies with WP:RS and is suitable to be edited onto the page. From the preview, we definitively know a handful of things: 1) that Gervaise was immune, 2) that there was a tie and then another tie, 3) that Caleb is in the juror box, 4) that Tyson and Katie draw rocks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify, it shows that Tyson and Katie definitely draw rocks (note that it does not mean that they are the only 2 that draw rocks.). What we know for sure that at least these 2 will be drawing rocks. At most 1 more person can draw rocks.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Even though it seems like an official preview, I really suggest we remove it as the practice here seems to wait for the episode to be aired for such information about vote out/RI elimination/who won challenges before it could be published (see the last episodes in which some details were spoiled). Zjzr (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of examples where CBS preview data has been used to update the page before the episode aired. We did this for the tribe swap, Survivor: Philippines saw content updated before the season started based on previews (Talk:Survivor: Philippines). Also see Talk:Survivor:_One_World#Tribal_swap, Talk:Survivor:_Redemption_Island#Preventing_future_clashes_of_WP:RS_and_WP:NOTCENSORED. There is absolutely no policy base reasoning for not updating based on the previews. All arguments against doing so reek off WP:SPOILERS. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

However, those information usually don't reveal spoilers about who was voted out/who won challenges/who won duels, which were usually considered as ending spoilers (that is, gives away the resolution of a particular story/show episode). Also, we don't even know for sure that those results were official as they are (like are we sure that 3rd Jury Member is the 3rd Jury Member, as in the preview it is not indicated as Jury member in the preview - that said, it could be implied, but there might be crazy twists going on that made that person not the 3rd Jury Member.). Usually Tribe Swaps don't reveal the outcome of who stays who doesn't, which are the bread and butter of Survivor. If it is against the rules though that we impose to stop information like these from being published, well maybe we could add a spoiler warning as the official release of the episode is not yet revealed to the public. In a personal note, I know many Survivor fans who probably avoids previews like that. Some go to Wikipedia to check current information, and they might feel blindsided by these spoilers. I would like to wish for courtesy's sake that we don't reveal those information, but if it is fair game to post those, at least a spoiler warning would help. 180.194.241.178 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, spoiler tags are not used.142.150.48.205 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the video is no longer available. I don't particularly have a problem with including the spoiled information, though it would be nice to have a properly citation, but with the video no longer available, that isn't going to happen. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers are not only for the conclusion of the series. Spoilers are clearly defined as any information that will inform a viewer of events prior to the broadcast of the episode. Spoilers should not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.80.187 (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:SPOILERS, spoilers are allowed. Removing them is vandalism. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

With CBS still having the preview unavailable on their website (even though I saw being aired on Sunday), I have added in a properly cited third-party reference that covers most of the information without using the embedded deleted/private YouTube video of the preview. This should suffice until Wednesday when all of this will be permanently settled and somebody can remove the reference. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the spoiled information is available and/or whether Wikipedia policy allows it, can we make a consensus not to add information about an upcoming episode before it airs? I was browsing just now and hadn't seen this teaser promo that's been alluded to, and it just seems out of place for stuff to already be posted about tomorrow's duel loser/etc. I propose that we just collectively agree to hold our horses until the episode airs; I think more people will appreciate the lack of spoilers than the inclusion of them. Simple_butpowerful 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the policy was put into place in 2007, last I checked it was 2013 going into 2014 six years have passed and I feel consensus can change.For the exception to the policy I propose when writing up information for just tv shows spoilers should not be used as they are most often misleading WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also support making an essay or guideline about previews regarding tv shows (WP:PREVIEWS) that outlines what kind of preview is acceptable and what kind is not or if it is acceptable at all (WP:OR "I see the video showing x while you see the video showing y or z." so im right and you are wrong) - 19:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I firmly OPPOSE any of these notions. As noted above, we have been using preview data on the page for a long time. For example, every tribal swap in recent times has been fully posted before the episode airs. We cannot create a consensus to circumvent Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTCENSORED takes precedence over any consensus people try to generate. Posting preview data is not WP:OR because CBS is a reliable source. If one goes to a Survivor spoiler forum and extracts data from there, that would be a problem; that is NOT what we are doing here. If the CBS sources show Gervaise wearing an immunity necklace or that there is rocking-picking following two ties, no original research is needed to update that on to the page. If you don't like spoilers, don't read Wikipedia TV show articles. What you two are proposing is just wrong. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all the things in the videos can clearly be seen, what is wrong are people who try to make heads or tails of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But there are tons of things that are 100% unambiguous. Probst saying they are picking rocks is unambiguous, noting that there were two ties in unambiguous, Gervaise wearing immunity is unambiguous, Caleb being in the juror bench is unambiguous. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If your really like teasers and spoilers then this one will blow you away. enjoy. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I also endorse a new essay on what is and isn't acceptable. Once someone cries out original research it's a potential race to make sure the info doesn't get deleted. The previews contradict the old Wikipedia is not a crystal ball mantra. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've created a redirect for WP:PREVIEWS as the WP:SPOILERS essay addresses the issue at hand. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You three are wasting your time. An essay is a viewpoint, not a policy; it has no force. An essay or a local consensus saying one should ignore Wikipedia policy is illegal, as you cannot have a local consensus to ignore policy or a wider consensus (i.e., WP:SPOILERS). Also, can someone please clearly specify what is the actual WP:OR on the page; if you are going to accuse OR, you need to point out what it is. What you guys here are doing is trying to censor one reliable source because you don't like spoilers. You cannot censor Wikipedia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Thegreyanomaly. WP:CONLIMITED states that consensus cannot overwrite established Wikipedia policies.108.162.157.141 (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it can, policies are put into place via WP:VILLAGEPUMP, if this proposed essay or policy gets community-wide support then it would be in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to interject, I believe the point Thegreyanomaly and 108.162.157.141 is that there can not be a local consensus for just this article that overrides a community-wide consensus. However, if you were to create a new community-wide consensus through the Village Pump, well, that that wouldn't be a local consensus anymore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Also can someone actually specify what is exactly OR here. User:Knowledgekid87 accused the preview edits of being OR, but then never specified what exactly is OR. All the edits made from the preview were pretty unambiguous. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My issue with this case was the fact that the spoiler's information was entered into the lists and tables of the article, making it seem as if those parts of the episode had actually aired - it was confusing. For future cases, maybe a mention of spoiler info somewhere else on the article would be more appropriate, if it must be included? Hopefully this sort of very particular spoiler will be a very rare occurrence. Simple_butpowerful 06:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is a rare occurrence, too. I'm really surprised CBS released such a spoiling promo. I can see what you are saying about the table location being confusing, but I'm not sure that anywhere else fits. The only other place is the episode summary, but I can't write a summary on just a promo clip. I'm glad this week's episode has now aired. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd probably venture to say that IAR can be invoked by consensus, too. IAR clearly stated that the rules can be bent if it helps improve an article to the best it can be read and within guidelines. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NintendoFan, for pointing out IAR by name; it had been implicitly on my mind previously, hence my feeling a little perturbed at all the policy-referencing. Simple_butpowerful 20:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think looking back at this whole thing, everybody has some good points. I do think certain mistakes were made.

1. Certain speculated details should have been left out. This is on the WP:OR side of things: The 3—3/2–2 vote counts in The Game table and the preloading of the Voting History table was pure speculation. You could not definitively prove that the vote was not 2–2–2 from the promo alone. Caleb's status of losing the duel and the day should have been left out. We only positively knew he was in the jury box, not the day or how he got there. Gervase having Immunity was fine, but we didn't really know how he got it either. Somebody could have pulled an Erik for all we know.
2. The preview information should have been cited from the first edit, not hang around until I added it in a few days later. True, the reference would have resulted in a {{deadlink}} after CBS pulled the video, but it still should have been there from the first edit. With the promo being an unusual situation and not the end-of-the-episode teaser, I think it really needed the extra citation.

Now that the episode has aired, I think we should refocus on what could be done for the future. If a group wants to pursue an addendum to WP:SPOILER that handles previews, then they should do that at the Village Pump. Starting the discussion here regarding that is not the proper place.

I think we can discuss locally how potential spoiler information is handled and where to include it. I would like to point out that spoiler information applies to other situations more than just this promo. For example, the east coast/west coast time lag or the week long time lag last season with Australia airing episodes a week later. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gogo for expanding on the thought, while I agree that preview videos can be used there are some things you can and can not call just by looking at them. Mentioning it along with WP:SPOILERS I think would be helpful and approve if this went to village pump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Listed at village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#Proposed amendment to WP:SPOILERS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• A thing to remember that goes being the SPOILER issue: CBS has, in the past, used non-aired footage for previews to throw viewers off track (Cirie in her first season seemed to be at the F3 immunity challenge, but she had been eliminated before). This immediately throws suspect to any preview video for Survivor, whether it is or isn't a SPOILER. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't currently have time to read all of this section, but here are my thoughts/arguments on inclusion of info before airtime.

1. Spoilers are not to be included before release. wp:spoilers says as much although it is poorly worded.
2. Drawing conclusions based on small pieces of info without an RS containing those conclusions is OR and (kind of) wp:SYNTHESIS.
3. No reader would want to find spoiler info on this page. Savvy people know to watch out for spoilers on the internet once an episode of any show is first released; so we shouldn't betray that expectation.

Bottom line: let's not make an effort to include info that no one wants yet.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 00:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you have misread WP:SPOILER. What it really says is that there is no spoiler warnings in articles (classic example being The Mousetrap). It does not say spoilers are not to be included before release of an episode. If properly sourced, then WP:SPOILER does not prevent the inclusion of information. The properly sourced is the key. CBS is a reliable source, though as you and others have pointed out, editors must be careful on interpreting what is seen. Only indisputable information should be included or you run afoul of WP:SYNTH (see my earlier comment regarding that). As for protecting readers, that is exactly what WP:SPOILER handles and it effectively says that there is no protection afforded on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. Last time I read wp:spoiler, it passingly mentioned something about "once a work is released" can spoilers be allowed. I think this is what it looked like: section link to old version. Somewhere else in all the policies I'm pretty sure it's stated that after a work is released cites aren't needed, so maybe that's what I'm remembering, too. Again, my endpoint is that we shouldn't include anything spoiler-y until after air.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 22:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Past season precedent

User:108.162.157.141 appears to have a problem with the way this is laid out currently, could someone please link to the past season precedent regarding the issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Votes counted in case of ties

It is not appropriate to include in the "total votes received" column votes that are received during a re-vote following a tie. In the first (and in most tribal councils, only) vote, all people who do not have an official immunity (tribal/individual immunity or hidden immunity idol) can receive votes; in the second vote (if held) only those people who tied for the most votes in the first vote can receive votes. Receiving a vote in the first round of voting means somebody thinks you should go home next ahead of anyone else (or in the case where votes are split 2-3 ways for strategy reasons, deserves to go home next); in the second round of voting, people often have to change their votes (e.g. Survivor Palau) because the person they voted for first did not tie for the most votes, often due to playing a hidden immunity idol. The first and second rounds of voting are different scenarios and votes received for both cannot be counted together.

In the past, the total votes received column showed how many votes each player received during the first/only round of voting; if they received any votes in a second round of voting, this information is listed as a note below the table. There is always a link to such notes inside the total votes received the box for players who received "second round" votes. In my opinion there is no justification for merging "first round" and "second round" votes, so I will be reverting the table to how it should remain. I ask all other users to retain the original style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.139.253 (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Total Votes

Since this is sure to be a controversial change, I am bringing this up for discussion: I propose that we remove the Total Votes column from the Contestants table. The primary reason is that total votes now means nothing in the game as it is no longer being used a tiebreaker in the game. The statistic has now become a trivia matter with no bearing on the game. Secondary reasons for the removal would be to make the table smaller and easier to read without the multitude of footnotes (a common complaint from past seasons) and removal of the contention over what votes to count and when.

I am currently only proposing the removal of the column from this season and moving forward. We can also discuss removing the column from past seasons where appropriate (essentially back to Marquesas). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - so long as they do not bring back the previous-vote-tiebreaker, knowing how many votes total received is only relevant for a contestant who played a "perfect game" (unanimous jury AND no received votes in that season) (e.g., John Cochran). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Support for the reasons listed above. In cases such as the "past vote tiebreaker" and the "perfect game" denotation, those statistics can be mentioned when necessary but don't need the column as proof, the voting table suffices. - Katanin (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I also support this proposal, per the discussion at Talk:Survivor (U.S. TV series). Gloss • talk 17:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Along with this, we should remove the "Votes" column from the "The game" table - I don't see how it's important enough given it'll say the vote was "4-3-1" but won't tell us who the 3 or 1 votes were for. If anyone is looking for information on how the vote went down, that's all in the "voting history" table. Gloss • talk

Filming location

Is it really filmed in the Philippines or in China? This season's theme is very Chinese. If the Philippines is a standing in for China, shouldn't that be explained in the article? 112.207.164.173 (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was really filmed in the Philippines. I'm not sure where you are seeing a Chinese theme in the season, especially with the tribe names being of Tagalog origin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the Chinese theme idea came from different elements from the season, notably the Tribal Immunity Idol, the Immunity Necklace (which seems like the Chinese-inspired metal IMO), the Redemption Island set (which similarly looks like a temple and is at least East Asian influenced than being South Eeat Asian influcned) and the Tribal Council set (and especially the voting "urn"). Note also the memory challenge which had a "lantern" picture on it, much associated with China than the Philippines. Other than that, the title itself doesn't denote a country theme, and the show doesn't even say where they exactly are. Zjzr (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Survivor discussion needing input

Being that a lot of people have this page watchlisted and are keeping an eye on it, I'm looking for some input on a discussion I started over at Talk:Survivor (U.S. TV series)#Cleaning up Survivor seasons articles about the format of these season articles. If you could stop by and give it a look, please do. Thanks everyone, Gloss • talk 04:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Table changes

Not too big a fan of the big new table overhaul and was wondering where the consensus was to change it for this season (couldn't find it in the main discussion). The main issues I have are with the removal of the "The Game" table and segmentation of the voting history; I know the voting history for seasons like this one and Caramoan are long and fly off the page but the way the columns expand due to putting them on separate lines looks awkward. Also, the challenges table is a good idea but it shouldn't result in removal of the "The Game" table, it was a nice, easy-on-the-eyes quick digest of important game mechanical information. I've put back "The Game" and reattached the pre- and post-merge voting histories until we can figure it out. I've left the challenges table for now, but it could be an issue in a season like Survivor: South Pacific, where, over the course of the season, there was a Reward Challenge, Immunity Challenges, and RI Duels. - Katanin (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: My bad, didn't realize that the changes were explicitly made under WP:BOLD, that's fine. I decided to leave the tables pre- and post-merge but removed the "width=100%" code because that's what was causing the visual oddity. Now we can figure out what to do with the "The Game" table, as I believe it should be kept. I'm cool right now with all the tables (the game, challenges, summaries, voting) but I can see how it could get obnoxious to wade through. Any thoughts/comments? - Katanin (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Katanin: The problem I had with "the game" table was that all of its information was information you could find in the other tables throughout the article. The only information in there that was not in any other sections was the challenge winners. So that's why I had the idea to go ahead and make the entire section about the challenges. (The episode title and air date are covered in the episode table. The voting information, including who was voted out and what the vote was, is all included in the contestants table and the voting history table.) So while it's a nice table for us fans to look at and we've gotten to used to seeing it over the years, I just felt like it was nothing but repeated information that took up space on the page. And that space can be used to tell a bit of a different story... the challenges. The way the articles were (are?), you can find out when a castaway was voted out in four different sections on the page.

But yes as you said, the changes were made under WP:BOLD, the discussion wasn't getting too far with its minimal replies so I began implementing some of the changes with hopes that some discussion would begin along the way. Such as this, so thank you for commenting.

As for the voting tables, I'm probably biased on the look of the tables due to my (unofficial) OCD where if the table doesn't reach the end of the page it makes the page feel empty. I hate dead white space when it can be avoided. But I don't plan on separating by pre and post merge in other seasons unless needed, I only did it here because it was so off-the-page that it looked incredibly sloppy.

But your main point seems to be what to do with "the game" table and personally I don't feel it's necessary, like I said, due to the fact that it repeats information found elsewhere in the article. I agree that it was nice and easy-on-the-eyes but I worry that if we ever want to get serious on cleaning these season articles up, something's got to go. Gloss • talk 17:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gloss: That's valid, but I guess I don't find the challenges table particularly necessary either, and don't quite understand why it can't be placed in the summary box. References to the unique content of the challenges can only be found in the episode summaries, so why not keep them together? The way I see it, the season summary and "The Game" table are quick references to cursory season information, and the episode summaries and voting history represent the more in-depth information: individual voting histories of all the players, and details about each individual episode and the events depicted therein. I understand your aversion to the "The Game" table, but it provides the essential information in one fell swoop instead of having to parse through various sections. - Katanin (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Katanin: A point brought up in the main discussion was that the challenges are the most factual information we can provide from the episodes. And the challenges do play a rather large role as it serves as a turning point in each episode. I'll admit I'm not in love with the challenges table. It was the best solution I was able to come up with. My concern would be that if we place the challenges into the episode summaries, the episodes table will be painfully long and overloaded.

I do agree that "the game" table is much easier to read, although something about it just feels wrong. Particularly, the title of the section "the game" - it isn't very descriptive. Perhaps moving the table underneath the season summary section prose would be a better location. And moving the season summary underneath the contestants section.

Sorry if I'm confusing you, my thoughts are coming out at a million miles-per-second. I'll make an edit to the article and ask you to check it out explaining what I'm getting at. (We can get to a solution for the challenges/episode table next.) Gloss • talk 19:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the challenges table and returned the information (a bit more cleaned up and detailed) to the bottom of each episode description. How does this all look to you? Gloss • talk 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Change to the Season Summary section

See the section here: [2]

The changes I made that I'm asking for another opinion on:

• I removed the original air date column because it's information found in the episode table. The main focus of the table is the challenge winners and eliminations.. so the date of the episode doesn't seem particularly important to that specific table.
• I removed the "Finish" column because it's an exact copy of the column in the contestants table. As I said, the main focus is challenge winners and eliminations.. information on where the contestant finished and the day they were eliminated on can be found in their row of the "contestants" table.
• I moved the entire table to a floating position on the right side of the section. It's like having images or an infobox there. It's really meant to be an easy visual for getting a quick summary of the season. With the contestants, we've always placed their images to the right of the main information to show what some of them looked like, right? With the season summary, it's similarly putting it to the right of the main information, showing the main points without having to read all of the prose.

Discuss away, Gloss • talk 07:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the summary and results table doesn't work. It's way too crapped on my wide browser, it's going to be worse for others. The point of the season summary where it has been at the top of the article - which should be after any production/filming notes - is to give an overview of the rest of the page for someone who wants to understand the gist of the season without having to interpret the complex tables we have. If we did not have the lengthy prose on each episode, a longer episode-by-episode breakdown would be appropriate at this point for the table, but that's not the style we've picked. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You lost me. The summary and results table haven't been split? They're right next to each other. And about the summary being at the top of the page, it just doesn't make sense to talk about all of these contestants when we hadn't even yet given the reader a list of their names. So for someone unfamiliar to the show, how are they to know who "Brad" is or "John" or "Tyson" without us giving more information about them FIRST (the contestants table). Gloss • talk 16:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: As stated in my earlier revert, "[t]hat makes it way too busy-looking and visually stressful." If they want to know who Brad, John, or Tyson are, it's not that hard to scroll up and take a look at the contestants' table. I understand you're trying to make these tables accessible to non- or casual fans, but we also no way of knowing if those issues are actually hindering their experience on these pages. Visually it's too cluttered, and also leaves all that blank space at the bottom of the right column (with the textual summary). The summary is a quick digest as to what happened during the game in its simplest terms, and the rest of the page is designed to provide more detailed clarification and information. If someone wants to know who "Brad" or "John" is, the result is a quick scroll away. Ultimately, I vote we return the summary section to its previous, non-columned form. If you don't want to read all of the prose, you don't have to, you can just move to another part of the page that has the information you desire to read. - Katanin (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing two different points that were brought up. Masem asked about the summary section being at the top of the article where it used to be, which is why I was saying the contestants table should come before the season summary. My question here was whether or not the season summary table (formerly called "the game") works as a side-piece to the season summary or not. If it works like an image would, sitting off to the side of the prose it represents. We've seen non-fans comment on these articles before saying we list too much fan-site looking information, some of these tables look like they belong on the Survivor wikia. My goal was to make the lengthy tables less flashy and put more of the focus on the prose. Gloss • talk 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Except it doesn't look like just an image; it's much larger than the prose, and has a lot of text, therefore it's visually confusing. If "focus" is what you're aiming for, then cluttering the space is going to take it away from all parts. It's an eyesore and super cluttered. I don't understand why putting the summary above the table was insufficient; it provided the basic details of the season, followed by a more in-depth and specific view of the game's basic mechanical elements for those interested in something like which episode someone was eliminated and who won immunity, without having to sift through the individual episode summaries. I still don't understand how jamming the two side-by-side is going to put more focus on the prose; if anything, it's going to make the section too busy and cause people to take the easy option and look at the organized table and disregard the short text completely. - Katanin (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If they choose to do so, that's their decision, not one we make for them regardless of how the page looks. I do understand that you don't like it. If anyone else object's too, I'll revert the edit. Gloss • talk 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I also object. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To come back, the point of the summary is to understand the season without knowing who the contestants are. If this means we have to introduce some key players at this point (including likely the final 2 or 3 on season), we do so. Consider the season summary like the summary of a serial television's show season - not to go into specifics but to highlight what made the season interesting from a story-telling standpoint. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why you always seem to try to fix something that isn't broken? The articles were completely fine and 100% readable the way they were before and didn't need to be updated. ~ Totaldramaman (talk · contribs) 03:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Challenge winner(s)"

Does anyone else think that the change that User:Gloss implemented into the season summary sections of the 27 28 pages, making "Challenges" to "Challenge winner(s)" is a little redundant? Also, a few of the older seasons have references for the "Episode title" and "Original air date." Is that really needed? ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you believe it's redundant. The name of the column should reflect the information we're going to find in that column. "Challenge" suggests we're going to inform the reader of what the challenge was in that particular episode. What we're actually listing is the winner of the challenge, which is why "challenge winner(s)" is much more specific. About the references, no they aren't needed. Once they've been aired, a reference is no longer needed. Gloss • talk 20:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would think that a name would describe the challenge. The first thing you'd think when you read, as an example, "Malakal" under "Reward," your first instinct is that Malakal won reward, or Malakal won immunity. It's just unnecessary IMO. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's totally normal for a difference of opinions on here, I'll put a request in at WP:3O. Gloss • talk 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I have never watched any episode of Survivor (and never wish to). The tables are entitled 'Challenge winners and eliminations by episode': given that there is a column headed 'Eliminated', it seems logical to have a column headed 'Challenge winners'. A name in a column headed merely 'Challenge' would not necessarily indicate anything to the reader other than the fact that the person named took part in a challenge. Kevin McE (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Total Votes

I apologize for creating a second section in three days, but over the past few days I've been working on adding the Total Votes section, that was removed from the contestants table, to the voting history table. Currently, I've only finished adding them to this season's and Caramoan's tables, which can be seen here, in my sandbox. I was wondering what anyone thought about this. I'd be fine with doing it for all the seasons if the general consensus is that it's liked (although I might refrain from doing it for seasons 1-3, 5, 8, and 14 since I haven't watched them yet, haha). I thought of doing it this way from this Big Brother voting history tables (the most recent one could be seen here. Thoughts? ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, don't apologize! There's always room for improvement. While appealing to the eyes, I don't think it's entirely necessary. We removed the total votes because as User:Gogo Dodo has suggested in this thread, the total number of votes a contestants receives has no relevance to anything in the game like it used to. It isn't used for tie breakers anymore. It's hard to keep track of what the total number should be because of all the cases we have with votes not counting due to idols and the like. When we had it in the contestants table, we'd have a long list of footnotes under the table to explain why each number is what it is. So re-introducing the total votes would re-introduce all of those messy/lengthy footnotes as well. Gloss • talk 23:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Caleb's death

It was decided that B.B.'s death should not be noted on the page for Survivor: Borneo if it wasn't noted on the show (which it wasn't), and his death is not mentioned on that page. Since B.B.'s death isn't on the Borneo page, I removed the reference to Caleb's on this page. 98.228.242.74 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

While certainly shocking and sad, I continue to agree the passing of castaways should not be mentioned in the article. The previous discussion regarding B.B. is archived at here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, or at least the consistency surrounding it. Individual Wikipedia pages for movies typically do not note the deaths of their actors unless the actor died during production (such as Brandon Lee in The Crow) and/or their death directly impacted the release and marketing of the film (such as Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight). However, I do think that it is appropriate to notate the deaths of these contestants to some capacity. What the Amazing Race crowd on here has decided upon is to simply note deceased contestants with a cross on that show's contestants page, and make no other mention of it for the same reasons. If this example were to be followed, then Jenn, B.B., and Caleb would receive that cross next to their name on this page: List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants I personally think that that would be appropriate.71.162.113.80 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both above - unless the death was directly related during the show's filming, the death of a contestant is not worthy to include in the show articles and can be marked with a note on the List page. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't the railroad Alabama Warrior Railway has its article mention his death?TheGGoose (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a mention there would be appropriate as "Notable accident", like Southern Pacific Transportation Company#Notable accidents, but not necessarily because he was a Survivor contestant. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with marking List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants either for the same reasons that it should not be marked here: eventually every castaway would be marked so marking is not appropriate and marking lists like that is not common practice on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You people have no respect. Shame on you all. 99.45.166.113 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a celebrity guide. It is a shame we lost Caleb, but it's not our purpose to track the non-notable facets of his life after his appearance on Survivor. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Survivor jury vote table discussion

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#Jury vote tables to list the vote totals in the same order as the names in the finalist row immediately above the vote totals. All interested editors are invited to join that discussion. Since the Survivor task force appears to be inactive, I'm notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force and the talk pages for each Survivor season in order to reach interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Survivor: Borneo which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)