Talk:Survivor: Panama/Archive 1

Consider Changing "Voted Out" Color

In the voting history chart, eliminated contestants have a black bar for the period after they are eliminated, however the merge tribe color appears to be either black (Like Balboa), or Gold (Like Chuay Jai). The double black could get confusing. FireSpike 23:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Jtrost is selectively removing external links. On multiple occasions he has removed links to external sites and left survivor fever.com this behavior is unusual and suspicious. See Jan 21,2006, January 11th 2006, January 8th 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.28.168 (talk • contribs) January 21, 2006

Please consult WP:EL to see what external links fit this criteria. One example of a website that should not be linked to is: any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose. The reason I leave Survivor Fever up is because they provide unique information about the contestants that I have not seen at any other website. Additionally, Survivor Fever is being used as a source for information, which you removed. Please see WP:CITE for more information on why it is important to cite sources. It's generally acceptable to link to one "fansite" that seems to be ahead of the rest of the pack, and I think for Survivor that fansite is Survivor Fever. If you wish to disagree we can discuss it here. Jtrost 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the fansite survivor fever is not any higher than any other fan site. The contestant profiles are direct copies from the Official CBS contestant profile pages. The other material on the contestant pages are direct and complete copies of other pages across the web written by or about each contestant. It should also be noted the complete copy constitutes a copyright and DMCA violation as it exceeds what is considered fair use. The information which is "news and unique" is actually being aggregated from from other survivor forum websites, and Google or Yahoo News so survivor fever is not the source. A website with flagrant plagiarism should not be considered a valuable, unique or reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.28.168 (talk • contribs) January 21, 2006

As I stated above, please do not remove Survivor Fever as it is being used as a reference. I was not the one who referenced it; someone else did. Before you choose to revert my edits again I highly suggest you read up on WP:3RR. Jtrost 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear and restate the chain of events you've edited out other oubound links because they were inferior quality, and now when it's pointed out that the one site you choose to leave in was shown to nothing more than a scraper site, you're saying it belongs, because someone else other than you put it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.29.38 (talk • contribs)

Greetings! As the user who originally cited SurvivorFever.net, I hope you all won't mind if I attempt to defend the site's inclusion in the article. I personally feel that the external link should be included even if it were not used as a reference. Alexa lists the site as the most popular Survivor-related site.[1] Also, I have found the site's spoiler section [2] particularly interesting and useful, and easily the best compilation of Survivor spoilers on the internet. While the contestant pages are currently copies of the official CBS biographies, before the cast was officially released many of the pages were already filled with leaked information, most of which has proved to be accurate. As the season progresses, I expect the site to continue to compile information and analyze footage to reveal spoilers, as it has for past seasons. I believe that at least one fansite should be listed in the article as representative of the strong online Survivor community, and that this site is definitely the strongest candidate. --Maxamegalon2000 04:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The inconsistent and irregular policies that are being tolerated here are in fact quite amazing. Even more amazing is the zeal that some 'contributors' have for keeping the link to survivorfever when it has been shown conclusively to be guilty of blatantly copying others works. If we are going to accept and encourage links to websites with those values then why not link to True Dork Times Survivometer,Survivor Scoop Panama, and Survivor on Squidoo they seem to doing no worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.29.37 (talk • contribs) February 1, 2006

Please talk about this in the "Protected" topic below. Jtrost 03:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tribe Names

I have reverted the addition of the tribe names due to the fact that, you are a non-logged in user and I am unable to independantly verify that these names have even been floated as possilbities let alone are they actually verified. If you can provide some kind of info as to where you got this info from we can put it back. AdamJacobMuller 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tribe Colors

Just a reference for the tribe colors [3] I remember looking at Survivor Fever to get the tribe colors so i'm not quite sure how I screwed that one up. Now, i'm off to read about how to get this page setup as a semi-protected article. AdamJacobMuller 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

...please work out your differences here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The most prominent anon argues that the list of links at Survivor: Guatemala should be equally valid at this article; I agree with him in spirit. I recommend that the External Links lists for each Survivor season be examined to determine if the sites listed continue to deal with the season at each page. I know I keep tooting SurvivorFever.net's horn, but their first page contains links to individual pages for each season, and updates them when appropriate. Perhaps we could look at the Alexa rankings for the listed pages as well, and eliminate some of the wishfully thinking webmasters and site fans; maybe we can come up with a ranking where a line can be drawn. All things considered, I still recommend semi-protection, and quickly, as the information currently in this article is about to become outdated to the point of uselessness. --Maxamegalon2000 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur... sites like TDT and SurvivorSucks, for example (only mentioned because I go to them, but also others like them), almost certainly should remain included. They're relevant and host useful information on the current season. SonicAD 16:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Wikipedia is not a web directory. We only need include those fan sites that contain particularly unique content. Most of these fan sites are rehashes of the same information. Read WP:EL for guidelines. -- MisterHand 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

it's also extraordinarly important to include some of these sites because they are primary reference sources. Survivor Fever was the first site to post cast pictures that conclusively showed us what the names of the tribes was and matched the colors to those tribes. Survivor Sucks message board routinely posts things weeks or months in advance before they occur on the show, it's important that we refernece these sites as the source of some information. That said, personal blogs, survivor sites that have exitsted for 2 months (both Sucks and Survivor Fever have been around since the second and third season season of the show, respectively) and thus are considered more noteable than other sites, they are also considerably less likely to dissapear or post unverified information, they have a considerable reputation to uphold and thus should be considered a much more reputable sources of information than soneone MySpace site that was created two weeks ago. AdamJacobMuller 17:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If a site is used as a source, it should be cited as such. However, I would say that a post on a message board should not be considered a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. My main point is that I don't want to see a huge list of fan sites and blogs here, the content of 99% of which is debates about which female contestants are hotter. -- MisterHand 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree about sources, and they should meet the WP:V criteria. However, how would you classify ChillOne's spoilers? They're always accurate, and he posts them on Survivor Sucks, a fan message board. Personally, Survivor Sucks is the only fansite I visit for television shows because it's such a great resource for information. However, I would hesitate on adding it as an external link because it's the antithesis of Wikipedia (speculation is all over, people are nasty and abide by no one's rules, and there's a lot of useless messages). For all I care we can have no fansites. The only reason I kept adding Survivor Fever is because it was clear that people wanted fansites, and as far as I could tell it was the best fansite out there. Jtrost 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that part of this is that in linking to or using information from sucks you have to also look at the discussion that surrounds that. Back when Chill One posted his first big scoop on Amazon there was *major* discussion on sucks about the validity and as time went on the Sucks people came to the conclusion that this was indeed verifiable, even, possibly, to the standards of Wikipedia. While, I don't think that we should post links to individual spoiler threads (except here on the discussion page in furtherance of backing up edits) I don't think that it's out of line to post things from boards like sucks so long as you are careful and only do so after sucks has had time to disseminate and pick apart the information. While sucks has had some very out-there spoilers posted, as a whole the community is very good about discrediting things that are false. The record of the sucks community as a whole in spoiling is probably (if you spent the time to do an analysis of it) VERY good. Perhaps a change to the box on the top of the page informing users that the information is of a speculative nature? AdamJacobMuller 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

color me stupid, it already says speculative AdamJacobMuller 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that box will be removed tomorrow when the new season starts. Anyway, we need to focus on what external links we SHOULD add. And whatever we decide should be implemented throughout all the season's articles. I could see an argument being made to adding Sucks as an external link, but I think we should add something like "(contains graphic and speculative information)" after the link. Jtrost 20:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

hrm, if we are going to remove that box we should replace it with one that says an "in progress" show, the article will potentially still contain spec until the end of the season, or is that not a good idea AdamJacobMuller 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well once the show airs this article is expected to have all verifiable, acurate information, so no such banner at the top is needed. Jtrost 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I find adding links to trivial fan sites or the favoritism being shown for a website with copyright violations more appalling. I would like to second Jtrosts suggestion for no links to external fan sites. I think that's the only way we can get the page unlocked for the season that starts in a few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegraywolf (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is already unprotected, I'm pretty sure Jtrost never said we should ban all fansites, and you didn't sign you comment and I can never remember the syntax for unsigned, so i'm just going to stand here and mumble under my breath while looking confused. AdamJacobMuller 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start back at the default margin, otherwise this discussion could get quite annoying :p Like I said above, the only fansite I visit is Sucks, which I have not been advocating for because of a lot of its content. I am not partial to any other fansite. For all I care we don't have any fansites. But when we get a dozen or so fansites under the external links it becomes silly. There's no point to have that many fansites since all of them practically offer the same information. We need to decide on one or two to use, and stick with those for ALL Survivor articles. I don't care which ones as long as the content is good, updated regularly, and the site is overall user-friendly. Jtrost 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, and recommend that we approve SurvivorFever if only for its summarizations of spoilers and information and its links page. --Maxamegalon2000 21:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's going get pretty intense at some point if we let one or two in, and spammers keep trying to edit them out. Locking the page down would be an obvious solution but doesn't work on an unfolding event.--Thegraywolf 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar situation in the Episodes of Lost article. Anonymous users kept speculating on which character would have flashbacks in the next episode. We were reverting it no less than 10 times a day, so we made it a template. Most anonymous users don't know how to use templates, and since then vandalism to it has been very low. If this continues to be a problem we could create a template for external links. Now that I think of it, that would actually be a very good idea because we want to have the same links across a number of articles. If we have a template we only have to change one page instead of 12+ pages each time we need to modify a link. Jtrost 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Omg! The Guatemala external links have now been edited! This is a conspiracy. Of course Fever is listed and Sucks, the most vile and hateful board on the internet. I'm sure the younger fans will enjoy that...especially their parents. I guess Wikipedia has no morals or standards. Why even bother having a discussion. Contradiction is the word of the day.

Jtrost, there is one fatal flaw in your reasoning to keep Survivor Fever as the one and only fansite. Survivor Fever is NOT a fansite. Maybe you should read Wikipedia's definition of a fansite..."the chance to talk to other fans". Survivor Fever has no fan interaction whatsoever. No forums, no shoutbox, no blog and no fan mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.3.198 (talk • contribs) February 3, 2006

What fansite would you like to see listed and why? Jtrost 03:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

SurvivorSkills.com. It is an actual fansite. If you go there guess what you will see......fans! It has been around since Survivor Thailand, so it isn't a one hit wonder.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.3.198 (talk • contribs) February 4, 2006

Although you've been referenced to it a number of times, I still don't believe you've read WP:EL. Nowhere does it state that a site must have fan interaction to be considered for an external link. So let me ask you this: What encyclopedic information does Survivor Skills have over Survivor Fever? Jtrost 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read it so you can stop referencing it. Jtrost, perhaps you should read your own statements listed here, you said. "There's no point to have that many fansites since all of them practically offer the same information. We need to decide on one or two to use, and stick with those for ALL Survivor articles. I don't care which ones as long as the content is good, updated regularly, and the site is overall user-friendly" The debate here was about adding a couple of survivor fansites to the external links. I was stating that Fever is not a fansite and shouldn't even be considered in the discussion. Yes, of course leave Fever in the external links because it a major source. But the addition of one fansite should be represented by Survivor Skills. BTW, it does have encyclopedic information in their Tribal Council and Challenge Tracker charts. It even offers a Loser Lodge, a quick guide tracking by episode who was voted off and their final words. It has everything a fan could want and they are always adding more. I don't believe you've even gone to the site to check it out yourself. And remember, Survivor Skills was listed in Wiki's Survivor Guatemala page all last season and why it was removed recently is ridculous. It should be added to Panama and all relevant seasons. Keep in mind what Katefan0 said in the 1st post of this discussion "The most prominent anon argues that the list of links at Survivor: Guatemala should be equally valid at this article; I agree with him in spirit. I recommend that the External Links lists for each Survivor season be examined to determine if the sites listed continue to deal with the season at each page."

^^^Actually, that was me. Let's not give my words the authority of an admin. :) Also, the phrase "the chance to talk to other fans" most certainly does not appear at WP:EL. I did a search. --Maxamegalon2000 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes it was Max. I never said the phrase "the chance to talk to other fans" appears in WP:EL. I said it is the definition of a Fansite as stated in Wikipedia. Survivor Fever does not fit the criteria. I'm not saying Survivor Fever doesn't belong but a real fan site does as well. So stop removing the link to Survivor Skills.

For reference, the entire phrase at Fansite is "Fansites often offer specialized information on the subject (e.g., episode listings, biographies), pictures taken from various sources, media downloads, links to other, similar fansites, and the chance to talk to other fans" (emphasis added). I don't believe that the article implies that a site must contain all of these elements to fit the definition of a fansite. Also, demands such as "So stop removing the link to Survivor Skills" probably won't be as effective as you would hope. --Maxamegalon2000 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

True Max, but Survivor Skills fits the definition better than Survivor Fever. So, let's flip the coin a little bit and before removing the link then how about stating reasons why Survivor Skills shouldn't be listed.

Well, for better or for worse, I've always been a fan of the Alexa rankings. Survivor Skills has a ranking of 489,137; SurvivorFever has a ranking of 74,126. If we look at a comparison of the page views for each site ([4]), you can see that SurvivorFever is significantly more popular. While it may not be official Wikipedia policy, I'm very much inclined to believe that SurvivorFever is a more appropriate site to list. --Maxamegalon2000 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexa ranking are commonly used to determine how notable a website is, and after seeing those numbers I am much more inclined to include Survivor Fever. I could also support adding Survivor Sucks simply because of the vast amount of information that arises from there. If anyone else wants to add fansites that have not been discussed already, please do so, and then we can organize a straw poll and vote on what sites to have. Jtrost 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IT'S ON!

IT's ON!!!! AdamJacobMuller 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Best opening 10 minutes in Survivor history. Deckiller 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

probably not better than the first season, but I won't include the first season in any "best of" lists because it's unfair, you just can't compare with the first season. But it's definitely better than any season in LONG while AdamJacobMuller 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a stupid move, voting Tina out....even though it's a four-person tribe, she could help them for AT LEAST another three days Deckiller 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone solve Jeff's clue to where the immunity idol he gave Misty? I think I did. I rewatched everything he said prior to giving the "clue." Jeff told Misty to think about what put her there in the first place. So, I watched the rock, scissors, paper game. Misty lost because she showed scissors and her opponent (I can't remember who it was) showed a rock. Is the clue a rock?

I noticed in the written clue given to Bruce that the word "why" was in quotes. My guess is there's some Y shaped formation on the island. MK2 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact a "Y" carved into a tree next to the water barrel Jeff Probst pointed to. Now, Jeff said that no one could drink the water until it had been boiled, so most people wouldn't look in the barrel until they'd gotten fire. A picture of the Y can be seen here: http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/02/06/potential-clue-to-survivors-hidden-immunity-idol/

Question regarding the format of this page

The formatting on this page is wildly different from what appears to be a rather standard format in all the other Survivor pages. Would anyone mind if I went through and made it look like the other pages? Mo0[talk] 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Jtrost 13:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

if your talking about the listing of RC/IC/Exiled/Air Date in the box in the center, i think that it would be far more worthwile to modifiy all of the other boxes on the other pages to include this information AdamJacobMuller 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think he's refering to the the contestant section. It's very different than the other pages. Jtrost 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure he didn't "fix" the table, I think it's quite superior to the table on the other seasons and I do want to convert the other seasons to use this. I already added the air dates to Guatemala. AdamJacobMuller 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, anyone running on a smaller resolution, like 1024x768? how does this look, I have a widescreen powerbook so it looks good here, i'm concerned with the 3 tribes winning IC/RC it's too wide AdamJacobMuller 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

realized I could just set my monitor to 1024x768, the wider table looks OK at the smaller resolutions AdamJacobMuller 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a 20" cinema display (I highly recomend it BTW), and a 12" Powerbook w/ 1024 resolution. When I maximized the window on the PB's screen it looked fine. The tribe names appear one on a line, so there's three lines. However, there's not much excess room. Jtrost 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To Adam: I was not going to fix your table. I like your table. I was just looking at the contestant section, which looks kind of tacky compared to the nice organized list we usually have. The one thing I worry about is overlap between your table and the contestant table I want to use, since it generally reflects all tribal shifts. Mo0[talk] 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, the last two columns in your table are duplicated in mine. I'm not going to go and remove it from there without asking you if that's okay. Your table is cool, but we don't need the same info in two places. >_> Mo0[talk] 08:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

it probably makes a lot more sense to merge the two tables they both follow the same general structure and would merge well AdamJacobMuller 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... now that I think about it, it might be a better idea to just chop off the last two columns on your table. Think about it, all the other pages have a quick summary up above, followed by a more detailed synopsis below. Mo0[talk] 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the upcoming show tag

Can I now remove the upcoming show tag? After all, it is on and there's no more need for that tag. - 上村七美 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an upcoming show tag, it's an in-progress show tag. Basically, because the show is still airing, lots of the information really is subject to change, so that tag does make sense to be there, I think. Mo0[talk] 08:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tina's elimination

Was she really seen as a threat in challenges? I gathered it was mostly about her constant alone time rather than her being a challenge threat -- especially at this stage in the game, where strength in challenges, especially in a tribe such as theirs full of less athletic people, is NEEDED. I can see it as a logical boot reason later on, but right now I don't see how that factored into the decision at all. Mo0[talk] 08:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main reason she was voted out because of a comment she made during tribal council, in which she implied that the other team members were lazy and weren't pulling their weight. --Revolución (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep all elimination notes limited to what is said at tribal council, because when each person goes to vote they state the exact reason they are voting a person out. Jtrost 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that, but I'd rather leave it to just what was stated in the episode, since occasionally people say things in confessional that they don't say during Tribal Council. The main issue is that we can't speculate on other reasons besides the ones presented to us, because there's no way to verify if they're true or not. Anything actually stated in the episode is verifiable; just watch the tape. Mo0[talk] 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say include anything that's canon, if the bootee on the early show the next morning or on survivor live or something indicates that there was another reason that didn't make the show for some reason that might be something that should be included even if like "however the next morning on the early show Lex said that he told kathy not to give him the immunity neclace" (and wtf was up with the editing on that one, assuming you believe lex and kathy). you know, I fell asleep tonight and missed the entire episode (hence no edits during) TGFT AdamJacobMuller 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Name

Why was this page moved to include "Exile Island"? Each season is named after where it is located (i.e. Africa, Thailand, etc...). Usually, "themes" are not included in the article name. For example, Vanuatu does not include "Isles of Fire", and Guatemala doesn't include "The Maya Empire". I'd like to move the page back, however, I'd like others to chip in on this. Jtrost 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this until now, thanks to inattentiveness on my part. I've moved the page back, like you said, the precedent has been to ignore all subtitles and just use the actual LOCATION. The only thing that could get in the way is that it appears that during production they may have not intended to mention Panama at all, because I've never heard Jeff say "Survivor: Panama". That could also just be an attempt to make people forget this is the third time this location has been used, though. Mo0[talk] 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved it because at least two other Survivors have been located in Panama, Survivor: Pearl Islands, and Survivor: All-Stars. --Revolución (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The name of THIS season is "Panama". See the title of the official website here. Jtrost 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is Panama: Exile Island, with emphasis on Exile Island. --Revolución (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, It's Survivor: Panama - Exile Island, hence Exile Island is a subtitle, like "Islands of Fire" was to Vanuatu and "The Mayan Empire" was to Guatemala, the norm here on Wikipeida is to use the main title of the season. In This case, that's "Panama" Hence, the title of the article should be "Survivor: Panama", if you have any further doubts, look at the title of the cbs page that JTrost posted. AdamJacobMuller 06:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Location

I'm not quite clear on if you actually think that Survivor 12 isn't actually in the Pearl Islands in Panama. In any event, the fact that they are back in the same location has been well documented.

• Filmed in the Pearl Islands off the coast of Panama [5]
• Survivor: Panama — Exile Island heads for the third time to the Pearl Islands off Panama in Central America [6]
• Although it was titled Survivor: Pearl Islands, CBS' seventh Survivor edition, broadcast in Fall 2003, was filmed on the same islands, as was the subsequent spring's Survivor: All-Stars eighth edition of the long-running reality series. [7]
• Survivor to Return To The Pearl Islands, Panama for Twelfth Edition [8]
• For the third time in 12 seasons, Survivor is back in Panama's Pearl Islands [9]
• We are back in the same area that the Pearl Islands and the All-Star seasons were filmed [10]
• "Survivor" is back in Panama and the Pearl Islands. [11]

Should be sufficent AdamJacobMuller 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the same location, just different islands. If I remember the map of the Pearl Islands very well (when it was still Survivor Pearl Islands/All-Stars), Casaya and Bayoneta are also part of the Archipelago, along with Chapera, Mogo Mogo, and Saboga. I remember those two islands very well.[12] - 上村七美 12:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

take a look at [13] if you have google earth, that will pretty much answer your questions AdamJacobMuller 05:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding Reward/Immunity challange titles to Graph

Would anybody object if I added the names of the challanges to the game graph? --400lb.Gorilla 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The name of each challenge isn't that notable. It would just increase the size of the table. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

...which is already pretty big... I didn't even know they *had* names. Can you cite official sources for those names?AdamJacobMuller 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Survivor CBS Website lists the challange names in the recaps for the episodes as well as on the Survivor Insder Videos(i think, but i'm sure about during the recaps). It doesn't even have to be in the graph, i wouldn't mind seeing something like the "game" section that is on the Survivor: Guatemala page.--400lb.Gorilla 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

There's a spoiler tag below "The Game" section as it mentions the boot order, however this same boot order appears in the "Contestants" section, which appears before "The Game" section, but no mention is made of the potential spoilers. Perhaps a spoiler tag should be added here, instead of "The Game" section? 144.135.255.103 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily deleting

I'm deleting the page temporarily to remove spoilers from edit summaries. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:54 UTC (2006-02-24)

Done and restored. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:01 UTC (2006-02-24)

What was the point of this? There's a spoiler warning. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The spoilers were in the *edit history* of the page. That means that people looking at the page history, or their watchlist, or the recent changes or in any other place (many other places) where page change summaries are displayed would inadvertenly see it. Even though wikipedia doesn't censor spoilers putting them in the edit history is just a bad idea, and also completely useless. Updating a page with an edit summary of "added RC challenge winners" is no less informative than "Ulong wins Immunity!" (ok, stop laughing, it's not *that* funny) , and the former doesn't contain information that's going to make someone who is TiVo'ing Survivor, go, ah, shit! It's basically just a courtesy thing. I do wish that there was a better way of removing problematic edit summaries. AdamJacobMuller 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sole Survivor

Can you believe someone felt like vanalizing the page by just puting a sub-topic that said "Sole Survivor" and under it just two words, "Bruce won" Also, everyone knows that even if Bruce made it to the final 2 the voted are revealed live on tv so this person doesn't know. And of course, the vandalism is by an unregistered user. Can you use their IP address to tell a moderator to block them from editing, or is that just for users? TeckWiz 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically there are about 4-or-so people who actually look at the votes ahead of time. The ones we know about are Mark Burnett, Jeff Probst and Les Moonves. Now, I highly doubt that they are going to say anything. In general, bans are only placed in cases of repeated vanalism, however you can, and should, put a warning message on their talk page, look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace AdamJacobMuller 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly an improvement to repeat the (potential) spoiler here, is it? Claudia 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Total votes

The rationale given for adding this is that it is important for ties. However, breaking ties based on the number of previous votes votes has not been used since Africa. Is this information really useful? We do have the voting history table after all. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's probably overkill IMO, I have several issues though at the moment that relate to these two tables that will be unable to sort out until the season is over. My instrinct is to leave this stuff alone until the season is over at which time we can start working out what we need to do to make the page work better without having to worry about the fact that the season is in-progress. AdamJacobMuller 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerns and improvements

There are some edits to this article that are seriously concerning me because I think that some editors (especially the annonymous ones) are treating Wikipedia more like a fansite than an encyclopedia. For starters, it'd be a good idea for everyone to review these policies: what Wikipedia is not, verifiability of information and sources, and no original research. I will point out some specific edits that are violating these policies, and often refer to the Lost article on how these can be improved upon because I believe that Lost is a model article for how TV show articles should be treated.

1. Future episodes I am not sure where this information is coming from, but the official site gives no mention of future episode titles. If there was a press release somewhere that mentioned the next episode title then it would be a good idea to cite it. Information from fansites typically are not verifiable unless they have information from an official source that would otherwise be difficult to cite (such as a promotional commercial). Lost had quite an extensive disccusion and straw poll on how to handle future episode information, which you can read about here. I would like to adopt a similar guideline for this article because it had worked flawlessly for Lost for several months now.
2. Trivia Again, Lost had an extensive discussion and straw poll on this that can be reviewed here, and I would like to adopt a similar guideline. I would suggest only including trivia that is not pure cruft. Examples of cruft are: this is the first season with no one's name who begins with J (the deletion of this has been upheld), Bobby was the second person in Survivor history not to be voted out by a majority (this has been deleted and undeleted a number of times), and this is the first season where the first four castoffs were female (which has also been deleted and added again). Basically, saying that you find this trivia "interesting" is not a good reason to add it because anybody could use that excuse. You need to have a good reason. An example is the trivia about the shortened opening. This is notable because one, it has never happened before, two, it affects the rest of the show in that we get about an extra 30-40 seconds of the actual show instead of a theme song, and third, it is a source of ongoing controversy (there is a long thread about it in the Sucks forum, although that is nothing we can cite because of verifiability reasons). I am up to suggestions on how we can more accurately define "notable trivia", but at the rate it is going right now it is going to end up as an exhaustive, crufty list of non notable events.

I am bringing these issues up because I care a lot about the article. I think that if we let non notable information run rampant then this article will quickly end up like South Park, which is filled with a lot of useless fan information that is not at all encyclopedic (read the episode guides for that show, they're an embarrassment to both Wikipedia and the authors who wrote them). My main concern is that we cannot keep adding information because we find it "interesting" because interesting is a completely subjective term that anyone can use to add endless amounts of cruft to an otherwise great article. So please reply with your opinions and suggestions on guidelines we can enforce to prevent this article from becoming a fansite. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with most of what your saying. I will say that future episode titles can be obtained from TV.com. I've never known this site to be inaccurate for this sort of thing, so I'll add that site as a link if it's not there already. Side note: if you want your head to explode, check out the Survivor Trivia article. -- MisterHand 13:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the concept of notability. It is notable to mention the fact that Bobby was voted off without a majority vote. This differs from the first season where nobody's name starts with J type triva in one very large respect. The fact that noones name begins with J has nothing to do with the game of Survivor. The tribal council vote has substantial implications. It means that La Mina is a tribe divided, it means that there is substantial mistrust there and that there are some very hard-headed people in the tribe. Triva, IMO, should be restricted to things that relate to the game. As far as episode titles, they are released when CBS pushes the data on all it's programming to TVGuide, the generally become generally avaliable 1 to 2 weeks prior to a particular episode. For example, this is next week and two weeks this should be considered official as the information is in fact released by CBS to TVGuide. AdamJacobMuller 03:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I added the recap episode to the table on the page, i'm not even entirely sure we want to put recap episodes on that table, but I did it in a way that negates the other information you might expect and marks it as a recap episode so it looks good IMHO. AdamJacobMuller 14:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Council Dates

Somebody keeps putting the incorrect Tribal Council days on the chart. I keep correcting them, but somebody messes them up. RobertCMWV1974 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn I saw Day 8 and Day 11 back a few episodes ago when they were at Tribal Council. They may have sped things up for an unknown reason this season. tv316 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now checked the episodes and those tribal councils did indeed take place on Day 8, Day 11, and Day 14. tv316 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the dates now listed (8,11,14) are indeed the correct ones. After this discussion I made sure to watch the dates closely in last nights episode, and the episode starts with the night of Day 14, right after the tribal council. The next council then takes place the very next day, on Day 15 (so they now have completed exactly one more council by day 15 than would normally be expected, implying that there's another twist coming up that'll use the extra 3 days in the schedule...). Maelwys 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

They probably will have the finale with three castaways only instead of 4.RobertCMWV1974 17:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Intersting vote

Off topic: what a depressing vote...I love Dan.

On topic: page is coming along, I'm glad to see that there's still devotion to survivor. Deckiller 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Panama Logo

Quite frankly, both images are horrible, and look bad, i'm not even going to attempt to discern which one looks worse but how about we simply find a better one than what's up there right now and ditch both images AdamJacobMuller 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Trivia Note?

Can I add the this fact to the trivia section?

*This season's tribe merger on Day 16 is the earliest merge to occur in any season of Survivor. Normally, merges between tribes occur between Days 19 and 21, but in some seasons, the merge occurs later.

Or can you rephrase this? - 上村七美 16:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Winner Leak

How can the winner be leaked if the finale results are announced live on tv? TeckWiz 10:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I assume it means that the top two were leaked, since that's all the results that anybody knows right now... unless one of the people in charge of the vote-slips released the count to the public, which is a pretty big leak (and a pretty obvious one I'd think, since very few people would have access to those). --Maelwys 11:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the players who was previously "leaked" to be the eventual winner has since been eliminated, which shows the quality of the source. MK2 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Survivors 13+14

I've created the Survivors 13+14 pages since both had an application form, meaning they are going to happen. I added the pages to the seasons table also. Anyone have anything to add to the pages? Also, I plan to change the page title of Survivor 13 when the name is revealed (probably at the Panama final). Last, I plan to change Survivor 14 to it's real name when it is revealed probably at the Survivor 13 finale (which is a very long time from now)TeckWiz 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I would have waited until at least the official announcement was made with the actual title. But I'm not going to make an issue out of it. MK2 03:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)