This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Survivor: Blood vs. Water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is the voting history not in the article? 108.162.157.141 ( talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
^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. |
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 |
Galang | 9th Day 18 |
Current Inhabitant | 10 | |||
Galang 1 |
MarkMc1990 ( talk) 08:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 —tdl trombonator 08:07, 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)
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)
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)
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 but powerful 19:41, 3 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)
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 but powerful 06:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think looking back at this whole thing, everybody has some good points. I do think certain mistakes were made.
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)
I don't currently have time to read all of this section, but here are my thoughts/arguments on inclusion of info before airtime.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
See the section here: [2]
The changes I made that I'm asking for another opinion on:
Discuss away, Gloss • talk 07:36, 16 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)
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 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)
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)
You people have no respect. Shame on you all. 99.45.166.113 ( talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Survivor: Blood vs. Water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is the voting history not in the article? 108.162.157.141 ( talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
^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. |
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 |
Galang | 9th Day 18 |
Current Inhabitant | 10 | |||
Galang 1 |
MarkMc1990 ( talk) 08:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 —tdl trombonator 08:07, 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)
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)
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)
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 but powerful 19:41, 3 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)
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 but powerful 06:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think looking back at this whole thing, everybody has some good points. I do think certain mistakes were made.
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)
I don't currently have time to read all of this section, but here are my thoughts/arguments on inclusion of info before airtime.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
See the section here: [2]
The changes I made that I'm asking for another opinion on:
Discuss away, Gloss • talk 07:36, 16 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)
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 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)
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)
You people have no respect. Shame on you all. 99.45.166.113 ( talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
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)