Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force

Citations and Sourcing

Over the years, we have floated various rules and guidelines regarding citation of events, facts and notability, and now that we have this Task Force in place I think it is time to establish a clear set of "ok" and "not ok" sources to use in articles. In particular, this would look at websites such as the infamous Survivor Sucks site, which admittedly is a spoiler site, but does churn out some interesting discussion at times. Some of this discussion has managed to find its way onto Wikipedia (see Talk:Jonathan Penner), and is being cited by anonymous and registered users alike as gospel truth (pun intended, if you read the talk page in question). Having this Manual of Style would allow us to straight off the mark say that, "no, we cannot have this per WP:MOS/Survivor..." instead of endlessly debating the notability of supposed events. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, I think that Survivor Sucks is a "Gray area," but I am tempted to say no. just my opinion! ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the Records and Firsts list

I know how clogging the sections are. Palau's takes a big deal of room! If we could make them less clogging or get rid of them, we'd have better articles. I might take the lists on. I've gotta see how clogging they are.MySurvivorPartay (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the kind of stuff we don't need there is information already included in the article (e.g. Africa having the first tribe shuffle), crufty information of no notability (e.g. Africa showed the temperature in one challenge) and stuff about contestants (e.g. Ethan Zohn is dating Jenna Morasca). The already included information is (duh) already there, but the non-notable stuff can be removed entirely and the stuff about contestants shifted to their individual pages. If they are not notable enough to have a page, then surely the information is also not notable. I have already started on Africa, and will get through the rest in a few days (hopefully!) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

0

I'll take on Palau, Exile and Fiji. (Palau's Records and Firsts section is really large.) That'll save you some work. And I'd love to help out.MySurvivorPartay (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can help in a couple of the things in Cook Islands... I guess I could tackle that one; I'll put my name there.Stjimmy61892 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

This one's good!  Done Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Borneo  Done ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥
• Australia  Done Shapiros10 Came Back! 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Africa  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Marquesas  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thailand ????? There are none! Shapiros10 Came Back! 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Amazon  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Pearl Islands  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• All-Stars Good Job DLT! Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Vanuatu (none as of 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
• Palau MSP and DLT did a good enough job. I think that "Ulong and Koror" is notable enough to stay in. Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Guatemala  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Panama/Exile Island-- If Gogo Dodo Or Dark Lord could check and see what they think.  Done MySurvivorPartay (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (removed the last of it; already in article - TDLT)
• Cook Islands  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Fiji  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• China  Done -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Micronesia (none as of 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me?

Did I get kicked out of this Task Force?Stjimmy61892 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I was removing the blocked editor User:Shapiros10, and must have accidentally removed your name as well. No harm intended. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't intentionally do that! Never. I certainly love the project and love how much everyone can participate. MySurvivorPartay (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright well thank you. I thought I was getting removed due to the fact that I was getting accused of being a sock to Shapiros10, and therefore as he was deleted, I was not deleted, but at least also removed from the task force. Thanks, guys, I'm gonna try to see what I can do next about the "records and firsts" (and thanks for finishing my *almost* finished Cook Islands job, Dark Lord Trombonator! I couldn't figure out what to do with them: should I keep them or are they useless information?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjimmy61892 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversion of episode summaries etc.

Partway through China, Masem and Gogo Dodo (among others) worked on a new format for episode summaries that has been implemented for that season and Micronesia. I think we should look at converting the other seasons' pages into this format as well so we can have some consistency; what do you guys think? (EDIT) also perhaps go on CBS websites and put episode summaries in for the first (I think) eleven seasons, which don't have them.-- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Up for deletion

Two contestant templates are up for deletion. If you feel so inclined, add your comments to the discussions here and the one below it. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sole Survivor Title

Isn't Sole Survivor a title, thus it must be capitalized. Who agrees? From Tagi to Bottom, MySurvivorPartay (Wobbuffet!. Dats right) 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait for a couple more people to pass comment before changing it for every article. Shapiros10 WuzHere  01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Late to the party, but I concur. -- BullWikiWinkle 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Challenge descriptions in episode summaries

Should the standard be for the challenge descriptions to go before the description of events in the episode summaries or after? China has them at the end of each episode summary while Micronesia and Gabon have them at the beginning.

My preference is the end. The challenges just don't seem to be as important as the overall events. -- BullWikiWinkle 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus formed on the Micronesia talk page was before, as it gives the reader the knowledge of what happened in the challenge when they read the summary. The discussion was here. I meant to move the China descriptions last week, but it got away from me. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be before as well, given that, while 99% of the time events in the challenge don't affect the summary, there are a few cases where a specific event in the challenge will affect the strategy discussion --MASEM 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

trombonator - Thanks for pointing out the previous discussion. I must've missed it. Since there was a consensus reached there, I have changed the China article. -- BullWikiWinkle 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reward descriptions

OK... Having settled the placement of challenge descriptions, I now notice that the descriptions of rewards aren't very unified. Some start with 'The winning tribe [gets|wins|will win|etc.]', whereas some just give a list of items or a simple description of the reward.

I think it's overkill to write a full sentence for each one. How about standardizing on just a simple list of items or description (for trips and such)? -- BullWikiWinkle 02:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this for China, Micronesia, and Gabon. -- BullWikiWinkle 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template for talk pages

{{User:The dark lord trombonator/WPST}}

I'm not sure how many of you actually check this page.... but I'll post anyway. I'm in the process of creating a template to go on the top of talk pages, similar to Template:WPHP (despite me being a complete n00b when it comes to templating. It's in a subpage of mine, User:The dark lord trombonator/WPST; feel free to check it out and give feedback. I'd post an example of what it looks like, but somehow all text after it gets stuck inside the box, so check it out at the talk page of the sub above. All help is welcome, thanks! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I found the problem(s) and (hope you don't mind) took the liberty of modifying the template in your subpage (there was an extra colon in the image code and the wikicode for closing the table was missing at the end). I also posted a sample at the top of this topic.

I'd just recommend that the final template be called WPSTF. -- BullWikiWinkle 21:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the use of the word "faction". Possibly too divisive of a word. I suggest "a group of Wikipedia editors" instead. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. BWW - the colon was added bt BJBot because the image is non-free. I wasn't aware of this restriction, so if there are any free-content pictures out there they'd be helpful. ("100px" doesn't really suit our "group of Wikipedia editors"; which is a better word, thanks Gogo). How do we go about making quality/importance assessment criteria? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Twila Tanner AfD currently running. Nom says delete per WP:1E and I would tend to agree. If you feel differently, make your voice heard. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 01:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Article layout discussion

There is a discussion on the Borneo talk page where some changes to the current layout of Survivor articles are being proposed. If you have an opinion, you may want to weigh in. -- BullWikiWinkle 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New format of Survivor seasons

So I'm planning on further expanding as many Survivor seasons as I can. I started with Survivor: Borneo. It is currently up for peer review, and as I was waiting to move it, three editors approached me about being bold and just moving it. All three and myself believe it is much much nicer, and cleaner. My next project will be Survivor: All Stars, once Borneo is done (probably). Look for Boreno to be at FAC in a week or two.

Also, I'd like to re-design this project. What about making this it's own project for starts, instead of a "Task Force"? Thoughts? iMatthew 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on Borneo. The article was in such a sorry state that your rewrite was much needed. I have to admit that I'm a bit hesitant on changing to the new format for later seasons that are much more expansive like the current season. A lot of work has gone into writing all of the summaries and occasionally some of us are still reverting anonymous IPs who are using the old format.

I don't have any opinion on if this project is a task force or a separate project. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a consistent format for all seasons. My preference is for the individual episode summaries like the current season, but I'll go with whatever consensus is reached. The main thing missing from the revamped Borneo page are the challenge descriptions. Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps they do not meet the notability standards. Two questions come to mind then:

1. Should we have a standard format across all seasons?
2. If so which one should it be?

-- BullWikiWinkle 06:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, we should wait until Borneo's FAC is over - and if it passes like so, we keep this format, but if a suggested change is brought up, then we talk about changing it. iMatthew 12:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think seeing how the Borneo FAC goes is a good idea. It's a lot of work converting everything over and I wouldn't want to see it all done if the FAC alters the format or fails. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tribe Colors

I have a bunch of problems about tribe colors in the season articles; as in, a lot of them are very inaccurate and not even close. Should I do anything about that, other than bring it up (for a third time in Borneo I might add) in the Talk sections?Stjimmy61892 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree on the tribe color for Rattana on Borneo. I went ahead and changed all three tribe colors for that season to match the archived CBS site.

What other tribe colors do you think should be changed? -- BullWikiWinkle 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For starters, I think Kucha's a little bright in Outback, as is Samburu in Africa and Malakal and Dabu in Micronesia. I always thought that Chuay Gahn was more of a red than an orange in Thailand, but there have been sources that would work for both. I think Viveros is a TAD dark in Exile Island. I was pretty sure that Nobag wasn't QUITE a straight-up blue, but I could be wrong. And for me that's it.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Color edit wars

The color edit wars are becoming tiresome. One possible way to at least contain the warring would be to create a tribe color template, which specifies the background and text color when fed a particular tribe name. If there is any interest, I can make something up. It would basically be a big switch statement which returns a style statement for the particular tribe name. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the edit wars are becoming tiresome, and there seems to be no discussion regarding the changes. Hope you don't mind, but I've created a possible tribe colour template here. The colours used on that template are the colours that were used before all the edit warring, and none of the recent undiscussed colours. Feel free to improve the template. If this template does end up being used, I would suggest semi-protecting it to prevent newer users from changing the colours without discussion, and putting a little hidden note that tells users to discuss any colour changes. --Meäghân _{i can see your halo} 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few minor changes. We could allow for spaces in the tribe name by adding second switch target. Also, we could have it display the tribe name as well, unless this would be too confusing? Or that could be a different template that calls this one, for example one for tribe color boxes, using a <span>...</span> tag. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made it possible to include spaces in certain tribe times. I actually tried adding the tribe names to the template; my plan was to have it display the tribe name by default and having a perimetre that would allow the tribe name to be changed to something else. It messed up the whole thing. I'll try doing it by having a "tribe name" template. The "tribe name" template would be used to colour a box and include the tribe name, the other one would be used to colour any box. Cheers, --Meäghân _{i can see your halo} 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(see User:Meaghan/Tribename). --Meäghân _{i can see your halo} 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. I merged some of the duplication. Now that I look at it, how about if we have a single backend template that returns just the style statement. For example, what you have in User:Meaghan/Survivorcolors, but without the trailing pipe. Then, have frontend templates that call this to produce either (a) a table entry or (b) a "colorbox" for the infobox, by placing the style statement inside of a <span>...</span>. The idea is to reduce the specification of the colors to a single template, to avoid redundancy and possible inconsistency. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! How would you have it so it can be used for a table entry and a colorbox? --Meäghân _{i can see your halo} 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to {{stribe}}, but I am somewhat indifferent to the actual name. I figured this was short. I am also somewhat indifferent to the name of {{stribe/color}} and {{stribe/name}}. This one could be longer since it will most likely won't be used directly. The color template can be used to make a color box as well (see the source code for {{colorbox}}). Any preference for the name for this? It could also be a bit longer since it won't be used too repetitively. One obvious suggestion would be {{survivor colorbox}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the shorter names would be better. If the templates do end up getting moved to a longer title, then the shorter name could be used as a shortcut. For the colorbox, I don't see a problem with it being longer; it's only used 2-5 times on a single Survivor season page. I'll start changing the format on the Survivor season pages tonight. Cheers, -- Meäghân  talk  21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New voting history format

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Survivor: Samoa#Voting history regarding a new voting history format. Cheers, -- Meäghân  talk  21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Questions about sourcing and content of episode summaries have been posed here, which was started after this post. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Survivorwinners template

So, we now have {{Survivorwinners}} and {{Survivor contestants}} and succession boxes? This seems like a bit much, so I have nominated Survivor winners for deletion here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed standardized width for tribe columns in "Contestants" tables

A while ago, standardized widths became the standard for the "The game" table. I don't see why we shouldn't implement them into the "Contestants" table for the tribe columns. On some seasons, especially Gabon, the tribe columns' widths aren't even. I've created a new version of the Gabon table using the proposed standardized width (85px) here. Thoughts? --Meaghan ^:) ≈ 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Contestant Progress?

Whoever created it... I have no idea. I have seen no mention of proposals for it, it's totally unnecessary IMO, and no one has gotten rid of it yet. I'm going to get rid of them because it's on the first three seasons. If you disagree just revert the edit. Stjimmy61892 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It took me a moment to figure out what you meant. See various IP edits on Survivor: The Australian Outback, Survivor: Borneo, and Survivor: Africa.

I agree with the removal of these sections. It is a lot of original research. It doesn't help the understanding of the game and is difficult to understand. I've seen these kinds of tables before on some other reality TV show, but I can't remember which one it was. These tables make some sense on Top Chef and Project Runway, but not with Survivor articles. Some IPs really like to add tables and/or trivia from other reality show articles into the Survivor articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Survivor stats

does Survivor stats violate WP:NOSTATS and WP:OR? Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Jury vote tables

It makes no sense that the names in the Finalist row are don't match the order of total votes in the Votes cell that immediately follows, nor do the vote totals correspond to the rows of votes that follow that cell. In the following partial example from Survivor: Samoa, I've added the ranking to the contestant's name in that row to show how they are misaligned with the vote totals:

Jury vote
Episode #	16
Day #	39
Finalist	Mick (3d)	Russell H. (2d)	Natalie (won)
Votes	7–2–0

Apparently all of the season articles do it this way, and in my opinion, all of the articles are wrong. I was not able to find any old discussions that established a consensus for the jury vote table to list contestants in 3-2-1 position (left to right) and vote totals in 1-2-3 position. It's possible one person put it backwards and the other articles copied it, I don't know. But I cannot think of any plausible justification for this oddity.

Propose listing vote totals in the jury vote table in each Survivor season article in the same order as the finalists. Discussion?

This project appears to be dormant, so I will notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force and the talk pages for each Survivor season in order to reach interested editors.

Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as the one who reverted the edit made by Schazjmd in the Samoa article, though I do agree with their reasoning as I pointed out to them at that article's talk page. The way the tables are presented right now, with the most votes listed first in the vote count, but the one receiving the most votes (i.e., the winner) being listed in the rightmost column, last, the numbers don't correspond to the votegetters, and it will be misleading to readers who comes across this (particularly non-Survivor fans or those who have never seen the series). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support finalist order change - The vote total order is fine but the finalists should be done winner first. So it should be:

Jury vote
Episode #	16
Day #	39
Finalists	Natalie (won)	Russell H. (2d)	Mick (3d)
Votes	7–2–0

Won, 2nd, 3rd order looks best. We would not want the votes order to be 0–2–7. You might even want the vote total above the finalists row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jury vote
Episode #	16
Day #	39
Votes	7–2–0
Finalists	Natalie (won)	Russell H. (2d)	Mick (3d)

There is also a problem with the html in creating this table. Exclamation point headers should not be used for bolding. They should be use once at the top and then the standard three apostrophes should be used for bolding. It makes it tougher on screen readers that are used by those with poor eyesight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, Fyunck(click), but that approach would be a huge amount of manual work compared to switching the vote totals since all of the individual vote rows would also have to be changed. (At least it would be huge amount of manual work for me, as I don't know of any easy way to edit tables.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

How hard can it be? If we are fixing an obvious problem, now would be the time to fix it all. There is also no reason the juror names should be in blue (it's actually worse that way)... just the votes should have the cell colorized. It should be more like:

Jury vote
Episode #	16
Day #	39
Finalist	Natalie	Russell H.	Mick
Votes	7–2–0
Juror	Votes
Brett	Natalie
Jaison	Natalie
Shambo		Russell H.
Monica	Natalie
Dave	Natalie
John		Russell H.
Laura	Natalie
Kelly	Natalie
Erik	Natalie

Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I also support the proposal by Schazjmd. The latest table above by Fyunck(click) (with the winner listed first, the runner-up second, second runner-up third, etc. along with the corresponding number of votes from highest to lowest) seems like the best solution. I'm looking through some of the seasons and it appears that the jury tables are listed in order of second-runner up, runner-up, then winner. The easiest solution would just be to change the number of votes so they match up with the vote-getter, since there's no quick and non-tedious method (that I know of) to switch table columns around. Some1 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

I have begun to make the change of corresponding the vote counts in the jury vote table to the finalists who received the votes, placing the winner on the left and runner(s)-up on the right. Right now, I'm focusing on the first 12 seasons, when it was just a final two and seven on the jury, and only rearranging the columns. As far as the changing of the colors of the jurors and going with boldface, it might be better to wait for further discussion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Decided to do the same for seasons 16 (Micronesia) and 28 (Cagayan), with those being the only other two seasons with a final two. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I was going to give the discussion more time just in case anyone disagreed with the idea but since nobody has yet, I appreciate you tackling that work, MPFitz1968, and Some1 cleaned up Survivor: Samoa which was the article that started this whole discussion. It's especially helpful that you both linked this discussion in the edit summaries, thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Schazjmd. I didn't find the column rearrangement for the ones I did (with the final two only) too tedious, though it was a little slow. Tackling the final three set is a little more difficult, but analyzing the table setup, I think I could manage a few at a time. Probably a good idea to handle the most recent seasons first (Winners at War especially), in preparation for the next Survivor season ... though probably no hurry at this point, as it'll be at least a few months before Survivor 41. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

MPFitz1968, you motivated me to chip in, so I've begun doing the rest starting with the most recent season and working backwards. I'm down to Survivor: Worlds Apart. I really dislike working on tables, but I've figured out a methodical way to swap the two columns without getting myself too confused and making a hash of it. fingers crossed, knock on wood Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And it looks like all of the seasons are  Done. Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, forgot that season 18 (Tocantins) was also a final two and I missed that. Anyway, thanks, Schazjmd. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Standardized terms for elimination-style reality program progress tables

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Standardized terms for elimination-style reality program progress tables. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GA push

Hi all, I recently started watching the Survivor series for the first time (I'm onto series 12 now, started watching at the start of the month), and I'm thinking I could start taking some of the series articles through the WP:GA process. I started looking at Survivor: Borneo and there's a few things that should probably be mentioned here, as if these changes were made, the articles would be a template and other articles would likely pass a GAN review. I have done a bit of a copy edit of what is already there.

First, I'm going to put in a overview section. A bit about how the Survivor game is played, basic rules (votes, castaways having to forage for food etc) as well as the structure, television rights, etc. This would be combined into the production section, or production would be a subsection of overview. I'll get to work on an example soon, as something like this could be unilaterally applied to all of the series, with some expansion for the newer rules, such as Immunity idols or whatever the new thing is.

Second, we really need to cut down the amount of tables that are duplicates of others. The "Challenge winners and eliminations by episode" table is simply the same info as the "episodes" list. The only additional info this table has is who wins the immunity and reward tasks. This could either be in prose in the episode list, or just removed altogether. We aren't a respository of information, this seems pretty WP:CRUFTy to me. The "CBS Recap" external links should really be culled - it's not particularly enclyopedic, especially as they are currently deadlinks.

The colours used in the tables also need to be changed. Currently they don't meet WP:ACCESS. I'd recommend using set colours rather than tribe colours, or use †, ‡ etc to denote which tribes a participant was on.

I'll make some changes over the coming days, but just a heads up on this. If there are any suggestions to make these changes meet the policies better, please let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Voting history

On this, I've done some changes to the article, and whilst I do have some general misgivings to {{stribe}}, they don't completely fall foul of MOS:COLOR other than in the Voting History. Colour should only be used to make things easier to read, and never be used to denote information on its own (with also WP:ACCESS issues). Whilst I'd like to remove all of the colours from the Voting history section, at the very least, the opening column is particularly bad. May I suggest the below. The jury is almost always made up of a merged tribe, so the colours there are completey useless. If we did use this, I'd also want to use some !scope fields to meet our screen reader needs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

		Original tribes						Merged tribe
Episode #		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Day #		3	6	9	12	15	18	21	24	27	30	33	36	37		38
Eliminated		Sonja	B.B.	Stacey	Ramona	Dirk	Joel	Gretchen	Greg	Jenna	Gervase	Colleen	Sean	Tie	Susan	Rudy
Vote		4–3–1	6–2	5–2	4–2–1	4–1–1	4–2	4–1–1–1–1–1–1	6–3	4–3–1	5–2	4–2	4–1	2–2	2–0	1–0
Voter		Votes
Richard		Stacey		Stacey		Dirk		Gretchen	Greg	Jenna	Gervase	Colleen	Sean	Susan	None	None
Kelly		Rudy		Rudy		Dirk		Gretchen	Greg	Sean	Gervase	Sean	Sean	Richard	Susan	Rudy
Rudy		Sonja		Stacey		Dirk		Gretchen	Greg	Jenna	Gervase	Colleen	Sean	Susan	Susan	None
Susan		Sonja		Stacey		Dirk		Gretchen	Greg	Jenna	Gervase	Colleen	Sean	Richard	None
Sean		Sonja		Stacey		Rudy		Colleen	Greg	Jenna	Gervase	Colleen	Susan
Colleen			B.B.		Ramona		Joel	Richard	Jenna	Richard	Sean	Sean
Gervase			B.B.		Colleen		Jenna	Susan	Jenna	Richard	Sean
Jenna			B.B.		Ramona		Joel	Gervase	Greg	Richard
Greg			Ramona		Jenna		Joel	Jenna	Jenna
Gretchen			B.B.		Ramona		Joel	Rudy
Joel			B.B.		Ramona		Jenna
Dirk		Sonja		Stacey		Susan
Ramona			B.B.		Colleen
Stacey		Rudy		Rudy
B.B.			Ramona
Sonja		Rudy

Jury vote
Episode #	13
Day #	39
Finalist	Richard	Kelly
Votes	4–3
Juror	Votes
Rudy	Richard
Susan	Richard
Sean	Richard
Colleen		Kelly
Gervase		Kelly
Jenna		Kelly
Greg	Richard

Notes

Per WP:SILENCE, I'll take this as read. Realistically the current one used on pages is completely against MOS. I will go by and make the changes unilaterally over time. Please follow WP:BRD rather than reverting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Problem with new "voting history" format

Although I see where Lee Vilenski is coming from (with the tables being against MOS), there are certain tribes (like Tavua in Game Changers or Yanuya in Ghost Island) that don't attend Tribal Council because they win immunity. Therefore, if they're removing the tribe-colored section from the "Voter" portion of the table, then there's no way to tell in which tribe each contestant was a part of, unless you return to the Contestant section of the page, which I think would be quite tedious.

Here's an idea of what I had in mind for this "new format".

Example

Take the green-colored Tavua tribe into consideration: considering they never went to any of the three post-swap Tribal Councils, if the color portion is taken out of the "Voter" column, you could only verify which tribe they belonged to if you have to go look at the Contestants' section. This is what I'd suggest instead: keep the colors (without adding any text to them) and add a new column to specify the name of the Voter.

P.S.: I even have some other suggestions when it comes to the tables, such as font size (which should be smaller), jury vote (which should also probably be added above instead of in a separate table), etc.

Survivor: Game Changers voting history.

					Original tribes		First swap			Second swap		Merged tribe
Episode #					1		2	3	4	5	6	7			8	9	10	11			12
Day #					3	6	9	11	13	16	18	21	24		26	29	32	33	35		36		37	38
Eliminated					Ciera	Tony	Caleb	Malcolm	J.T.	Sandra	Jeff	Hali	Ozzy		Debbie	Zeke	Sierra	Andrea	Michaela		None	Cirie	Aubry	Tai
Votes					9–1	7–2	5–1	5–0	3–2	5–2	6–0	7–3–2–1	7–4–1–1		6–5	5–3–2	6–3	6–2	4–2–1		0–0–0	Default	4–1	3–1
Voter					Vote
				Sarah						Sandra	Jeff	Debbie	Ozzy		Debbie	Zeke	Sierra	Andrea	Michaela	Michaela	Tai	Immune	Aubry	Tai
				Brad			Caleb	Malcolm				Hali	Ozzy		Sarah	Tai	Andrea	Andrea	Michaela		Aubry	Immune	Aubry	Tai
				Troyzan	Ciera	Tony						Hali	Ozzy		Sarah	Tai	Andrea	Andrea	Michaela		Tai	Immune	Aubry	Tai
				Tai			Caleb	Malcolm		Sandra	Jeff	Hali	Ozzy		Sarah	Cirie	Sierra	Andrea	None		Sarah	Immune	Aubry	Troyzan
				Aubry	Ciera	Tony		Sierra	Michaela			Hali	Zeke		Debbie	Zeke	Sierra	Brad	Tai		Sarah	Immune	Troyzan
				Cirie								Michaela	Sierra		Debbie	Zeke	Sierra	Andrea	Aubry		Sarah	Eliminated
				Michaela	Ciera	Tony		Sierra	J.T.			Zeke	Zeke		Debbie	Zeke	Sierra	Andrea	Tai
				Andrea						Sandra	Jeff	Michaela	Zeke		Debbie	Zeke	Sierra	Brad
				Sierra			Caleb	Malcolm				Hali	Ozzy		Sarah	Tai	Andrea
				Zeke						Sandra	Jeff	Michaela	Aubry		Debbie	Cirie
				Debbie			Caleb	Malcolm		Exiled	Jeff	Hali	Ozzy	Ozzy	Sarah
				Ozzy						Sandra	Jeff	Hali	Zeke
				Hali	Ciera	Tony	Caleb	Malcolm				Zeke
				Jeff	Ciera	Tony		Sierra	J.T.	Sarah	None
				Sandra	Ciera	Aubry		Sierra	J.T.	Sarah
				J.T.				Sierra	Michaela
				Malcolm	Ciera	Tony		Sierra
				Caleb	Ciera	Tony	Hali
				Tony	Ciera	Aubry
				Ciera	Michaela

Jury vote<ref name="Eldridge Industries"/>
Episode #	13
Day #	39
Finalist	Sarah	Brad	Troyzan
Votes	7–3–0
Juror	Vote
Tai	Sarah
Aubry	Sarah
Cirie	Sarah
Michaela	Sarah
Andrea	Sarah
Sierra		Brad
Zeke	Sarah
Debbie		Brad
Ozzy		Brad
Hali	Sarah

Notes

Hi! Thanks for actually talking this one through. It's a little bit irrelevant the information that you are trying to gleam from these tables in terms of Wikipedia. Firstly, the MOS issues are all-encompasing. We can't have WP:COLOUR used to demonstrate information on its own, so the tribe colours themselves are bad enough, but having a series of columns at the start of the table with an assortment of colours means nothing to anyone who didn't write it and looks incredibly garish. We must focus on MOS:ACCESS requirements when we make tables, which is a very valuable part of our MOS.

As you say, the information as to which tribes people belonged to is already in the article once, at the contestants section, which is where it should stay. It's worth remembering that this is Wikipedia, and we are not a collection of all information about a subject anyway. The information beinh requested would be better off in a fan wiki. Tables that don't fit with our MOS need to be fixed and up to standard, which at least is getting there with fixing the left hand column of the table. They do need additional scopes.

In terms of the other suggestions, we almost always try to stay away from small text (see WP:SMALL, for the same access reasons as above), but another column for the jury voting would make a lot more sense to me, so I'd be up for that. Once again, thanks for opening a discussion.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS fixes for tables

Hi! To avoid the massive split topic that has happened across so many articles now, I've created a thread here to discuss the tables being used on Survivor articles. The MOS itself is non-negotiable, but if anyone has any ideas as to how to create these tables without failing MOS, please create an example topic. This is for all three tables, the Contestants, season history (which needs work, it's still a mess), and the voting history table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS is a not a be all, its a guide. You do not have consensus for this nonsensical changes Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This is true. We try to use the MOS "guideline" if at all possible. It does get voted down by consensus from time to time though, especially if it makes it worse for our millions of readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Confused how the previous format present for over a decade across all Survivor articles (across all franchises mind you, not just the US version) fails to meet whatever standard of Wikipedia you are clinging to. Upon recent discovery you seem to be the only person to have ever had issue with how the information was displayed and seem to think purging the charts like voting history of color and tribe distinction somehow enhances a viewer's ability to gather and read information off of it. Genuinely perplexed why in your mind it seems like a better fix to change something that's been in place since at least 2005 rather than advocating for what falls under acceptable terms of this 'MOS' 47.138.105.171 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I stopped editing the pages because I realized someone reverted all my edits, and this thread exists. Unfortunately, I don't think most of us opposed to this are familiar with MOS and the rule the old tables break. MrNoahK (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey man. You are the only person who doesn't like the voting charts having color. Literally the only person. Ever. We, the Survivor fans, have enjoyed using and looking at these charts for LONG before you showed up. If the MOS makes reading the charts more difficult, than what good is the MOS? The whole point of this is communication of information! You have literally made it harder to communicate information on a webpage designed for communicating information. The changes are ridiculous and unnecessary. You've seen the backlash that you are getting. You've seen how the people who actually use these charts DO NOT LIKE THE CHANGES. At what point to you is it not worth it? Who is benefitting from this? I'd really like an answer for that question. WHO is benefitting from this? With respect, TPMan02. TPMan02 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

One thing though. "IF" the color used is really bad for those who have vision issues it is better to tweak those colors to make it better. It would still be red or blue or green, but a more vision-friendly red, blue, or green. I don't think anyone has a big issue with that, or at least I hope not. We want to be helpful but not to the point of elimination of vital colors to discern the tribes names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Declaration of conflict of interest first: I am the person who spent ages making sure that the tribe colors that we have documented on Template:Stribe/color for American and Australian Survivor were as accurate as possible.

I admit that I was not aware that many of the tribe colors that I arrived at were unsuitable to be used as cell background colors as per MOS:COLORS. I have every intention to help work out a way to render these tables that better reconciles with the MOS.

That said, I sympathize with one reader, who wrote about their habit of referring to, and remembering, the tribes by their colors instead of their names. I imagine that this habit will only grow more widespread among viewers now that the show is stuck in Fiji and new tribe names grow less and less unique. And this is why I believe that these articles should ideally still feature tribe colors to some degree.

A large component of a Survivor tribe's identity is its color. I don't think anyone can even argue against that in good conscience. When a tribe's name shows up as on-screen text, it's always in its tribe color. When a contestant's name shows up, it's always in the color of the tribe they are affiliated with at the time (unless temporarily tribeless). The name and the color go hand-in-hand. These current edits, however, carry an implication that is completely at odds with this fact: that tribe names alone do an adequate job at conveying all relevant information while tribe colors are at best a "garish" distraction that do not matter.

In reality, we have had a dyslexic reader testify that having tribe colors in cell backgrounds used to make it so much easier for them to tell, at a glance, the shifts in tribal statuses and affiliations over the course of a season, and now that the colors are gone this has become significantly less accessible for them.

In addition, I strongly disagree with Lee's assessment from February that no one can even understand what these "garish" colors are supposed to mean when there's no key—I would wager that the significance of the colors were always intuitively obvious and trivially understandable in the old format (in fact, we even used to have keys for the tribes' names and colors in the infobox of each season many years ago, and it was decided by consensus that they were redundant).

Seeing the patterns of differing/changing colors on a season's voting chart made a lot of information immediately and transparently obtainable: the point at which the tribal phase turned into the individual, which tribe went to Tribal Council each episode, the tribal affiliation history of each contestant, which tribe a contestant belonged to at any given vote, etc. And this is a type of information that color is uniquely well-suited as a means to convey effectively whereas text just can't do so as elegantly no matter how hard you try to make it work. As it happens, a large part of these articles' reader base find this information relevant if not essential. Under the new format, this information will either now require additional back-and-forth glances at the edges of the tables or become completely opaque. This, I take it, is why one colorblind reader opined that making the entire tables uniformly grey will actually be a step in the direction of decreased, not increased, accessibility on the aggregate: taking a format that a minority of readers might not be able to parse well, and turning it into a format that is difficult to parse for everyone.

I get that the MOS stipulates unambiguously that color must never be used as the sole conveyor of information in any instance, but why must we so intransigently refuse to just put color to good use in this case when it genuinely is the optimal candidate medium for conveying these types of information? It seems like this is an edge case of the MOS not being conducive toward the purposes for which it was formulated, as evidenced by all the aforementioned reader feedback citing genuine accessibility concerns and adverse effects of the edits.

Also, just what would be the consequences here if these tables didn't conform to the MOS, anyway? As I understand, this series of edits came about as part of a larger endeavor to get these articles to pass GA reviews. Well, to hell with them becoming Good Articles! The majority of readers would be perfectly happy if they remained as simply "articles" if it means they got to keep their colors.

As for the particular tribe colors that currently violate text-background contrast guidelines, however, I am open to doing some tweaks on those in the near future.

So let's make something work.

Best,

—Авария·витиевА_тая 06:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to tweak colors as needed and for pointing out the some vision impaired readers benefit from color. And remember, these colors aren't always used as the sole conveyer of info... the tribe name does that for some tables (like the very first table). What you need for the ones that don't conform is a tiny symbol next to the player name in conjunction with the color and key above the table that tells us so. It's pretty easy and we have done that in many tennis articles. So color and a superscript symbol or number. And of course some tables may not need the tribe colored every time. Working as a team we can get this done as opposed to using draconian 1950s black and white for everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This was an extremely helpful comment.

Here to say that I do NOT agree with the unilateral edits on this by one user. There is NOT consensus for this in our readerbase or among editors. Secarctangent (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am going to make a response here, as someone who set this off in reviewing a page for our good article standards, a process called good article nomination (GAN). I hope those who come here from elsewhere read this and understand where other editors (and myself) are coming from.

It may surprise you to learn that the gal that put all of this in motion is a lifelong Survivor watcher. But I'm also a Wikipedia editor since 2005 and have been intensively involved for the last three years. Most of my work is in radio and television stations, which like Survivor has a fairly small group of dedicated editors. Prior to a little over two years ago, there were no GAs on active television stations in the United States. Now, there are 17 and more on the way—including a few CBS affiliates that air Survivor. When I bring pages to GA, I wind up learning things, and standards end up changing in the entire subject area. I'm familiar with this dynamic.

Some of what I've learned—and have brought to bear elsewhere—is in accessibility. Historically, I don't think Wikipedia has been that good at promoting a culture of proactive accessibility among its editors. However, in recent years, standards have improved. A lot of pages don't meet them as written because of their recency and because of "local area" conventions that have come into direct conflict with the MOS.

Our accessibility standards exist to help people read pages, and in the field of tables the colorblind and users of screen readers (the visually impaired) are the groups needing to be served properly. Text needs to be readable, there needs to be metadata to help screen readers parse the templates, and color should not be the only means of conveying information. However, color can for some readers be very useful.

I've taken this table and done a demonstration using {{Color sample}} in addition to the passed-at-GA version of the table. I used this instead of {{Color box}} as that template does not support a description for screen readers. The description screen readers see is a color (yellow, red, etc.), so a Hiki cell in the table below would be described as "Yellow / Hiki".

This could be adopted with some minor changes to the stribe infrastructure (to allow a template call to {{stribe/color}} to produce just a hex value) and deployed fairly quickly. I'm not sure if this would go down well, but it at least maintains the accessibility concerns that came into the limelight at GAN. I would love to hear your comments. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Sammi,

Thank you for contributing to this discussion and thank you for the work you have done thus far bringing pages to GA status! I believe that something like what you've shown here is a direction that we can go in.

Ideally, we should be able to tinker with the template infrastructure to someday devise a optimized template specifically for this purpose that displays the color samples in a visually cleaner manner (less heavy or just simply nonexistent black borders, color icons more in line with the text rather than appearing slightly elevated by a few pts like it does here)—basically combining the visual versatilities of Color_box with the screen reader support of Color_sample plus integrated with the current hex value database in Stribe/color.

The good thing with this approach is that, since the tribe colors are no longer going to be the cells' background colors on which text will be written, I won't need to tweak any of the colors as contrast won't be an issue after all! I will, however, now need to compile a list of the color terms that each tribe has canonically been described by for the benefit of the screen reader descriptions. I look forward to getting to plead my case for why Mana should be described as orange as per the show…

Actually, speaking of Game Changers, what's a good way to convey in the Voting History table that time Mana and Nuku went to Tribal Council together to vote out one person and were allowed to vote for members of each other? I consider the old format to have captured the nature of the scenario pretty elegantly with a color play but am blanking at what would be an adequate way to do it under the new format.

08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC) —Авария·витиевА_тая 08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Avaria vitievA: Yeah, there's a real good case here for having {{Color box}} take on screen reader support so I can set a custom screen description. I'd have used it here if it had it. I'm testing it in the sandbox and asking for some input. As for the Game Changers issue, maybe {{Diagonal split color box}} or {{Color box striped}}? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie:You see, now this is something very constructive rather than color elimination. This might work as a compromise. One thing I don't like is that as a column, the fact the tribe names are all centered, when your eyes scroll down the column it looks bad since the colors don't line up. I would wish that we would left align the color box. I think that would look better and more professional. One thing about three columns for the first three item... name, age, from. Isn't it still sortable by player name if all three items are in the same box? We have no need of sortable ages and froms! That would be extremely trivial for anyone to want to sort those categories. There are time we want sortable columns and times we don't. In tennis articles we never sort the score column. Even the placement and day columns. How would really ever sort those any other way except chronologically? I might add a key at the top of all the tables that shows these color boxes with the tribe name. But thanks for this suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click), that change probably has to stay for accessibility purposes. Izno, the user I consulted with on the accessibility side of things and who did the original cleanup, said to me, If that information is important to include it should be in a separate cell entirely. That said, changing these to unsortable if so desired is trivial to do (Help:Sorting#Making selected columns unsortable). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie:I did a tweak of the tribe column and it looks much better aligned left. In fact, why is this whole table aligned center? Especially the first names? Most tennis data tables we use would align everything left and this entire table should as well. Could we take a look at everything aligned left? I hate changing your sandbox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm neutral about that for those columns. I was mostly trying to demonstrate the color squares. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So something more like this...

Having it aligned with your color boxes. Fixing some spacing issues and some accessibility issues since html is not supposed to use exclamation point headers in the middle of a table unless accompanied by the scope command. Bolding should be done differently if we really even need it at all. But that's what's great about your suggestion... you brought us another way to use color, and someone else may find another way. Not sure which will fly as we will have to see someone elses version of colored cells using html5 compliant colors. But at least ideas are being thrown around instead of eliminating vital info and using 1960 xerox machine black and white. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Note, this is also now at WT:TELEVISION#Reality tv show progression and other tables, MOS and WP:ACCESS. I don't much care, so long as we meet our manual of style. What I don't like is a series of personal attacks and meatpuppetry from a series of fans of a show that think their subseries of articles are somehow beyond our rules. The information above is an awful lot of words over one table, that isn't even the one being reverted constantly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably because it was also being removed and de-colored. It is hideous that the discussion got posted elsewhere on the net... that happens with canvassing on tennis rfc's also. I glanced at the reddit posts though and they have good points as I had just run into this with capitalization of tennis articles. Wikipedia does try to fix things that aren't broken because they look at MOS as some third rail you can't touch that is always correct. It sometimes is at the expense of our readers. I am trying to work out some alternatives but none will be as good, simple, and to the point as the original chart. Everything will likely be a compromise between what works best for our readers and MOS. For me that shouldn't be that case and more flexibility should happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility for all types of readers is more important than aesthetic preferences of one group of readers. Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Many of the changes are not really accessibility issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs)

Agreed, I don't believe that that the Wikipedia administrator realises that symbolisation is easier to recognise than overcomplicated rowspan tables. For Survivor 42 are we purposely merging rowspans based on contestant then should the table not look like this? Short answer, no. It creates MORE WORK. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

List of Survivor 42 contestants

Contestant	Original tribe	No tribe	Merged tribe	Finish
Jackson Fox 48, Houston, Texas	Taku			Medically removed Day 3
Zach Wurtenberger 22, St. Louis, Missouri	Ika			1st voted out Day 3
Marya Sherron 47, Noblesville, Indiana	Taku			2nd voted out Day 5
Jenny Kim 43, Brooklyn, New York	Vati			3rd voted out Day 7
Swati Goel 19, Palo Alto, California	Ika			4th voted out Day 9
Daniel Strunk 30, New Haven, Connecticut	Vati			5th voted out Day 11
Lydia Meredith 22, Santa Monica, California		None		6th voted out Day 14
Chanelle Howell 29, New York, New York			Kula Kula	7th voted out 1st jury member Day 16
Rocksroy Bailey 44, Las Vegas, Nevada	Ika			8th voted out 2nd jury member Day 17
Tori Meehan 25, Rogers, Arkansas				9th voted out 3rd jury member Day 17
Lindsay Dolashewich 31, Asbury Park, New Jersey	Taku
Romeo Escobar 37, Norwalk, California	Ika
Hai Giang 29, New Orleans, Louisiana	Vati
Maryanne Oketch 24, Ajax, Ontario, Canada	Taku
Mike Turner 58, Hoboken, New Jersey	Vati
Drea Wheeler 35, Montreal, Quebec, Canada	Ika
Jonathan Young 29, Gulf Shores, Alabama	Taku
Omar Zaheer 31, Whitby, Ontario, Canada

This has literally all of the issues we are talking about. WP:DTAB means we use rowscopes, we don't use "br" or "small" tags. The reason for the additional row at the top (which is what I assume everyone is having issues with) is to provide context to the user. What does "medically evacuated, day 3" mean to someone who doesn't have context for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you really look at the dtab section you pointed at? It says nothing of the sort under tables. It either leads you accessibility infoboxes where this doesn't apply or talks about text readers reading in order of how it is written. It's going to read Jackson Fox, 48, Houston Texas... in that order. With an infobox it gives a clear example of not doing leader_title = President<br />Vice President and the next cell leader_name = Tweededum<br />Tweedledee Your other example is everyone is going to think it means he was medically evacuated on the third day. We aren't stupid. These changes are being done to appease MOS and make it harder for everyone, sight issues or not, to read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Lee: Medically evacuated is an elimination from the game outside of being voted out or quitting, or are you not familiar with those terms as well? I'm of the belief that you're not familiar with the show and as such, why are you implementing these new changes when you have no experience of, or familiarity to, the subject matter? I stay away from cleaning up/editing articles of which I have no reason to clean up for the sake of cleaning up. I appreciate the sentiment of meeting some arbitrary standards, but in the long run it's creating more work for a greater pushback. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"Scope of headers ( scope="col" and scope="row")" is commented about, we should always scope rows, especially when there is an obvious rowheader like there is in this case, it also specifically says not to use <br /> tags. Small text has been deprecated for a while. I'm fully aware of the subject matter, but you all seem to be under the assumption that we write articles for fans, which we don't. These aren't "arbitrary standards", they are the rules around how all articles should look. Basically what the arguments against fixing these tables to meet MOS are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that these articles should be written in a way only fans would want to read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is written for the reader to understand the subject matter, it has remained unchanged for years because it's worked but now there's an overhaul of some 42 articles and you're of the belief that the standard is changed because it falls under the non-descript reality television tag (not limited to scripted drama, competitive shows etc.) Whilst change is good, and I appreciate that and the angle you're coming from, however, the format switch doesn't suit the page. Oversaturated tables, color removal, unneccesary table adjusting ad nauseum... it's more work for what is a straight-forward show. These new changes open the gates for confusion for the sake of some presumably outdated policy by those who (again) hold no knowledge of what they're overseeing. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I must be missing the "small" tag in the above chart. Row headers usually have an "!" and if they do in the middle of a table they must use the "scope" command. This chart does not have that. You keep saying fans and no one else does. These charts are created for readers of wikipedia. If it is worse for our readers I tend to be against it. MOS or not. I write these articles for ease of use and information for our readers. You have thrown around some terms with their links that MOS says nothing about or something that is not etched in stone. MOS also tells us to use common sense. The table should do the best it can to conform to MOS but many of the changes are POV rather than MOS related. And many MOS items are flexible rather than jet-black wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And the other problem is that these tables are starting from being far far too detailed for what Wikipedia, a tertiary site, should be covering. We are not a Survivor fan site, so there should be no expectation that if we have contestant or elimination tables that they will be for ease of reading by fans. They should be utilitarian to follow to a sufficient degree, and to that end, they must comply with accessibility requirements. And that's the point being missed by those complaining about the changes. They may have been "okay" for a decade, but they were never really right for that long in the first place. --Masem (t) 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have now been linked to an RfC on this topic that is less than a year old specifically stating all elimination charts should abide by accessibility guides. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem on the "undoing" edits made by User:Sportsfan 1234 to understand and rely with the new table format to follow in other seasons to avoid color blindness against bright settings. Things that would make really understand and they get really fucked up right now with the new changes.

Extended content

Here's the example from Survivor: Winners at War: Before Original tribes Swapped tribes Merged tribe Episode # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Day # 2 3 6 9 11 14 16 18 21 23 25 28 29 31 34 36 37 38 Eliminated Natalie Amber Danni Ethan Tyson Rob Parvati Sandra Yul Wendell Adam Tyson Sophie Kim Jeremy Nick None Denise Ben Sarah Votes 7–2–1 6–3–1 8–1 4–3–1 7–1–1 4–1 3–2 1–0 3–1 9–3 8–2–1 5–2–0 4–3–2 5–3 3–2–0 4–2 0–0 4–0 3–2 Challenge Voter Vote Tony Kim Tyson Denise Wendell Adam Tyson Sophie Kim Jeremy Nick Natalie Denise Michele Win Natalie Denise Ben Denise Ben Immune Michele Denise Danni Ethan Wendell Yul Adam Adam Tyson Sophie Jeremy Ben Denise Ben Denise Ben Saved Sarah Kim Tyson Rob Wendell Nick Denise Tyson Michele Kim Michele Nick Natalie None Ben Lose Ben Natalie Danni Ethan Rob Wendell Adam Tyson Jeremy Kim Jeremy Nick Natalie Denise Michele Denise Natalie Danni Ethan Sandra Wendell Nick None Jeremy Jeremy Michele Nick Natalie None Nick Amber Kim Parvati Yul Adam Adam Tyson Sophie Kim Jeremy Denise Jeremy Adam Danni Ethan Denise Wendell Adam Immune Sophie Kim Ben Kim Amber Tyson Denise Wendell Adam Sophie Michele Jeremy Sophie Kim Tyson Rob Wendell Adam Denise Jeremy Tyson Amber Nick Wendell Adam Sophie Adam Natalie Danni Parvati Rob Wendell Sarah Wendell Amber Tyson Parvati Yul Adam Yul Amber Tyson Parvati Wendell Sandra Amber Tyson Denise Parvati Natalie Danni Adam Wendell Rob Natalie Danni Adam Sarah Ethan Natalie Danni Adam Danni Natalie Parvati Amber Nick Jury vote Episode # 14 Day # 39 Finalist Tony Natalie Michele Votes 12–4–0 Juror Vote Sarah Tony Ben Tony Denise Tony Nick Tony Jeremy Natalie Kim Tony Sophie Tony Tyson Natalie Adam Tony Wendell Tony Yul Tony Parvati Natalie Rob Tony Ethan Natalie Danni Tony Amber Tony After Original tribes Swapped tribes Merged tribe Episode # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Day # 2 3 6 9 11 14 16 18 21 23 25 28 29 31 34 36 37 38 Eliminated Natalie Amber Danni Ethan Tyson Rob Parvati Sandra Yul Wendell Adam Tyson Sophie Kim Jeremy Nick None Denise Ben Sarah Votes 7–2–1 6–3–1 8–1 4–3–1 7–1–1 4–1 3–2 1–0 3–1 9–3 8–2–1 5–2–0 4–3–2 5–3 3–2–0 4–2 0–0 4–0 3–2 Challenge Voter Vote Tony Kim Tyson Denise Wendell Adam Tyson Sophie Kim Jeremy Nick Natalie Denise Michele Win Natalie Denise Ben Denise Ben Immune Michele Denise Danni Ethan Wendell Yul Adam Adam Tyson Sophie Jeremy Ben Denise Ben Denise Ben Saved Sarah Kim Tyson Rob Wendell Nick Denise Tyson Michele Kim Michele Nick Natalie None Ben Lose Ben Natalie Danni Ethan Rob Wendell Adam Tyson Jeremy Kim Jeremy Nick Natalie Denise Michele Denise Natalie Danni Ethan Sandra Wendell Nick None Jeremy Jeremy Michele Nick Natalie None Nick Amber Kim Parvati Yul Adam Adam Tyson Sophie Kim Jeremy Denise Jeremy Adam Danni Ethan Denise Wendell Adam Immune Sophie Kim Ben Kim Amber Tyson Denise Wendell Adam Sophie Michele Jeremy Sophie Kim Tyson Rob Wendell Adam Denise Jeremy Tyson Amber Nick Wendell Adam Sophie Adam Natalie Danni Parvati Rob Wendell Sarah Wendell Amber Tyson Parvati Yul Adam Yul Amber Tyson Parvati Wendell Sandra Amber Tyson Denise Parvati Natalie Danni Adam Wendell Rob Natalie Danni Adam Sarah Ethan Natalie Danni Adam Danni Natalie Parvati Amber Nick Jury vote Episode # 14 Day # 39 Finalist Tony Natalie Michele Votes 12–4–0 Juror Vote Sarah Ben Denise Nick Jeremy Kim Sophie Tyson Adam Wendell Yul Parvati Rob Ethan Danni Amber

I really hate my account getting blocked to avoid and be careful with editing privileges. I am ashamed that I am really a trusted user and be polite with edits. ApprenticeWiki ^work 00:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion for the contestants table:

Extended content

List of Survivor: Cook Islands contestants Contestant Age From Tribe Finish Original Switched Post-mutiny Merged Placement Day Sekou Bunch 45 Los Angeles, California Hiki 1st voted out Day 3 Virgilio "Billy" Garcia 36 New York City, New York Aitu 2nd voted out Day 6 Cecilia Mansilla 29 Oakland, California Aitu 3rd voted out Day 8 John "J.P." Calderon 30 Long Beach, California Raro 4th voted out Day 11 Stephannie Favor 35 Columbia, South Carolina Hiki 5th voted out Day 14 Anh-Tuan "Cao Boi" Bui 42 Christiansburg, Virginia Puka Aitu 6th voted out Day 15 Cristina Coria 35 Santa Monica, California Aitu Raro 7th voted out Jessica Smith 27 Chico, California Raro Aitu 8th voted out Day 18 Brad Virata 29 Santa Monica, California Puka Raro Raro 9th voted out 1st jury member Day 21 Rebecca Borman 34 Laurelton, New York Hiki 10th voted out 2nd jury member Day 24 Jenny Guzon-Bae 36 Lake Forest, Illinois Puka 11th voted out 3rd jury member Nathan "Nate" Gonzalez 26 Playa del Rey, California Hiki Aitutonga 12th voted out 4th jury member Day 27 Candice Woodcock 23 Washington, D.C. Raro Aitu 13th voted out 5th jury member Day 30 Jonathan Penner 44 Los Angeles, California 14th voted out 6th jury member Day 33 Parvati Shallow 23 West Hollywood, California Raro 15th voted out 7th jury member Day 36 Adam Gentry 27 San Diego, California 16th voted out 8th jury member Day 37 Sundra Oakley 31 Los Angeles, California Hiki Aitu Aitu 17th voted out 9th jury member Day 38 Rebekah "Becky" Lee 28 Washington, D.C. Puka 2nd runner-up Day 39 Oscar "Ozzy" Lusth 24 Venice, California Aitu Runner-up Yul Kwon 31 San Mateo, California Puka Sole Survivor

OctoMocto (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why the edits haven't been reverted. Although there are some helpful edits made to the jury table (using checkmarks is a good idea), I'm very confused as to who gets to decide what rules are in place for the voting tables and contestant tables. I find them disruptive, hard to understand, and honestly disrespectful to casuals and fans alike. Wikipedia's "rules" for tables have been disrupting several types of pages I have interest in, and I don't know why all of these rules are being put in place all of a sudden— and it's only degrading the quality of the articles in my opinion. To me, it feels like only Lee's opinions are being followed based on the rules put in place (and put in place by who, out of curiosity?) that should rather fit what the editors believe is best. Sorry if it seems like a rant, but I'm tired of seeing my communities of interest get uglier daily. 72.240.131.143 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Warnings in my talk page

A couple of days ago, User:Sportsfan 1234 warned my message through my talk page and he said:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Survivor 41. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And that user also warned Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) and responded through the latter's talk page as well:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop your disruptive editing on Survivor articles. There is no consensus for your edits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

To these warnings that they don't want us to send a report at WP:ANI to make it understand. That is totally fucking useless with the editing privileges as no shit. ApprenticeWiki ^work 10:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on the new voting/contestant tables?

Can someone please explain to me where the consensus was reached to keep the contestant/voting tables in the new format as they currently are? Every discussion I've seen (S42's talk page, Survivor Africa's talk page, here etc), it appears the overwhelming consensus aside from Lee is to keep them the way they've been agreed on by the community at large for over a decade and a half with minor tweaks here and there. But Lee seems to have made a unilateral change alongside whoever oversaw the GA review and despite many people positing valid arguments why the new tables do not meet the standards he supposedly cited, the minority has prevailed. Any insight?Greenday61892 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A conversation on the matter is in progress in the #MOS fixes for tables section on this page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

See I did see that but I thought the conversation was dead as there has been no additions in 9 days and all 42 season articles still have the new format. So I figured there may have been something I "missed" where a consensus to keep the articles the way they are had been agreed upon. Greenday61892 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably because there's not much more to say after Lee linked to the recent RfC that found consensus for tables in elimination-style reality TV shows meeting accessibility guidelines.[1] Schazjmd (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The RfC is already consensus that we need to follow the MOS, for accessibility, but also generally. But, it's also not something we even needed, as the MOS always applies. Something being in place for a long time doesn't mean it should always continue to be so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)