Talk:Colby Donaldson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).

Stub Discussion[edit]

Florent Placide (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Florent PlacideFlorent Placide (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Colby Donaldson appeared in a episode of Larry David's "Curb your enthousisam", episode 9 "The Survivor". I think if it's a choice between a stub article about the subject and a redirect to a different article, a stub is better. MK2 17:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, anything but a redirect is going to get deleted through VfD anyway. It was pretty close to being a speedy candidate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is this just your personal opinion or are you following some existing policy I'm unaware of? There are numerous other articles on Survivor players - enough so that it's become a category. And the article you deleted was only a hour old, so it hardly had enough time to grow beyond a stub. MK2 03:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's my experience of articles on nobodies whose only claim to "notability" is to appear on cheesy reality-TV programmes. Moreover, I didn't delete it, I made it into a redirect. Are you claiming that there's anything more interesting to say about him? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you didn't delete it - you just removed all the words. It's a subtle distinction. If we delete every article on any subject that somebody thinks isn't interesting, we'd have a pretty small encyclopedia. The fact that other people (including myself) consider the series and its players worth writing about indicates that there are other people who are interested in this subject. If you're somebody's who's not interesting in this topic just ignore it. MK2 05:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. First, deleting is very different from blanking. The article is still there, its history intact, as a redirect; if I'd deleted it, there'd have been nothing. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all, where everyone can come and write whatever they like; it's a community, collaborating on an encyclopædia, and it has policies, guidelines, and customs. When I said that the article would have been deleted by VfD, I was making a prediction of what the community would decide, not expressing my personal opinion. My personal opinion coincides with what I think the community would decide, but that's incidental (I often disagree with community decisions). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree: I feel the difference between deleting an article in its entirity and removing all its content is essentially meaningless. And I also feel that you have misread the views of the community on whose behalf you were acting. Others and myself have put forth some effort into writing articles on the television series Survivor and its players. Obviously, we are interested in the subject and think other readers are as well. If you feel this strongly on the issue, I would suggest we submit it to a wider forum and find out what the actual consensus is.MK2 17:08, 6 Jun 2005

Donaldson's rivalry with Jerri Manthey should be mentioned. Ross22 (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fraternity and Survivor discussion[edit]

Mel, I understand your opinion re "It's my experience of articles on nobodies whose only claim to "notability" is to appear on cheesy reality-TV programmes" but just because you think they are nobodies, doesn't necessarily mean they all are. I respect your opinion, but this is a site dedicated towards helping people find information. Just because YOU think that somethings are irrellevant, doesn't make it so. Reality tv is huge and its characters have become minor celebrities.
The discussion above is irrelevant to the current disagreement, though. We now have an article on an actor, and I'm perfectly happy about his notability and the appropriateness of the article.
The issue now is whether to include tedious detail of uninteresting antics on a reality television show (which I'd guess he himself would rather be left behind him), and (even less notably) the fact of his having belonged to a student group one of whose members was someone famous... I mean, you're really not doing the man any favours by implying that these are interesting or notable facts about him. If one is made notable by that sort of thing, then any graduate of a major University is notable. I've been a member of a number of Oxford Colleges, and a list of the novelists, actors, politicians, etc., who were also members, many of whom I knew, would fill a Wikipedia article much longer than this one. I bet you'd vote against it in a VfD, though. I would. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
What he is most remembered for is how he lost a chance at a million dollar prize. Congrats on being a member of many Oxford Colleges. Maybe an article is appropriate for notable members of those colleges. Donaldson's Fraternity Phi Delta Theta has a list of notable members. As do many of the well known Universities that have pages here. Also, you stated "irrelevant matter of who was also a member of his fraternity", and I consider that to be an interesting fact, as some others might. If you feel that the connection is not needed, so be it, but deleted the entire reference to what Fraternity he was even a member of. AriGold 19:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Anyone who's notable will have an article, and the Colleges have lists of notable alumni.
  2. I don't recall seeing membership of fraternities in any other article on genuinely notable people; this seems simply to be an attempt to suggest notability by association.
  3. I've placed this article at requests for commewnt, in the hope that this issue can be settled by outside opinions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You said...

I don't recall seeing membership of fraternities in any other article on genuinely notable people

Should I keep going? AriGold 12:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, fair enough; I'd never read any of those (and if I had, I'd probably have ignored the fraternity business, because it doesn't mean anything to me). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, though I still disagree on your deletion of how he lost on Survivor. How can this be resolved? AriGold 13:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I've listed the article on RfC, so I'm hoping that we'll get outside views on the question; I'll go and alter it now, given that half the issue has been resolved. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just my opinion that the way he lost the million dollars is relevant to his article, afterall, it is what made him "famous" in the first place (his picking the wrong opponent for the final round when he had a sure win against a lesser opponent). AriGold 13:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably the main reason we know who he is and I think that is a notable fact about him. Bollar 13:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

But who's the "we"? People who watch U.S. reality television programmes, possibly, but that's not even most Americans. Most people won't (like me) have heard of him at all, but if he's going to become notable, it will surely be because of what he does, not because of a minor incident in a past he'd probably rather leave behind him. (Incidentally, so far as I can tell, he didn't lose a million dollars — he failed to win it... Millions of people fail to win large sums of money, but losing it would have been notable.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"We", yes the american television watching public. Most people in the US don't know who Cristiano Ronaldo is, should we delete most of his post because a lot of people dont know about him or care to know about him? I think you are failing to understand that just because YOU don't think it's a notable fact, doesn't make it so. Let me put it this way, every week over 20 million Americans watch Survivor. That's equivalent to 1/3 of all of the people in England. Survivor has been one of the highest rated/most watched, in certain years it was THE highest, shows on American television. Donaldson became so famous for the way that he "lost" the prize, that Rosie O'Donnell rewarded him with a motorcycle. Donaldson, at the end of Survivor, had two choices 1) Take Keith and be a sure winner for the million dollars, as the other contestants who vote for the winner did not like Keith but did like Colby, or 2) uphold his promise to Tina and run the risk of losing the prize because she was also well liked. He upheld his promise and lost because of it. That is "losing" the prize, when you make a decision you know will take away you chance at an almost sure thing. Bollar agreed so far also, and that is all the input we have so far. In the eyes of the American public and media, he lost it. AriGold 14:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no, you're going back to the beginning; I'm not contesting his notability, or the existence of the article (and I don't know who Gary Neville Cristiano Ronaldo (you changed the example while I was replying) is; I'll look it up in a minute); I'm saying that details of a here today, gone tomorrow reality programme shouldn't overbalance the details of his career. Perhaps he's well-known now — for this now, but Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a news magazine. We're not limited to timeless truths, but we shouldn't include details that are too ephemeral. My view is that this is ephemeral, and while it's fine to mention it, we shouldn't include a blow by blow account. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't decide which player to use, sorry.  :-) I am guessing your not a football fan. The fact is, with Donaldson, regardless of what he manages to do in his career and however pathetic it might be, he will probably always be "the guy who blew it on Survivor". I don't understand why you are so against added the fact that propelled him into being "famous". It's like saying we shouldn't mention the fact that Drew Barrymore is John Barrymore's grand-daughter because it might overshadow her career or include a blow by blow account of her personal life. Also, as far as it being a "here today, gone tomorrow reality programme", it has endured 10 seasons now, it doesn't really seem to be "here today, gone tomorrow". AriGold 14:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the Drew Barrymore example is a good one here: mentioning her famous grandfather is fine; spending hald the article talking about it (how he used to dandle her on his knee, how she had his nose but her other grandfather's eyes, etc.), would be unbalanced. Your version of the article spends more than half its length on this one episode. (And you're right, I'm not very interested in football. Now if you'd mentioned Viv Richards or Ian Botham...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You've reverted the article on the basis of the one person to post here from the RfC; the RfC has been up for a matter of hours — let's have a little more patience. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I didn't mind the detail, the edit you just made seems fine to me. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bollar (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 July.2005
Agreed. I just reworded a bit. Seem ok to everyone? AriGold 17:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm very glad that my attempted compromise went down OK — though I'm more than a little surprised that you took out the reference to the million dollars. I'd thought that that was one of your main points? I removed the brand as I assumed that Wikipedia wasn't in the business of advertising a particular make of razor. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is all up for debate and subject to everyone's opinion, but I thought how he lost was the most important thing to note. Let's not argue about advertising on the page, he is a spokesman for a certain company, there's no need to hide that. Just like Sarah Jessica Parker's work with The Gap, on her page they don't say "a clothing retailer", you know? References in Kate Moss's page recite "Versace, Chanel, Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana" as brands she works for. Just because a brand is listed doesn't make it an ad. Are you just looking to bicker about stuff?  ;-) AriGold 18:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I was explaining why I removed the detail that you'd replaced, and was hoping for some consensus on the right approach. Note that, as Wikipedia is full or mistakes, non-policy formatting and content, and inconsistencies, one shouldn't justify an edit on one article by pointing at another article, unless there's independent reason to think that they're both right rather than both wrong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's my opinion that editing out the names of corporations, brand names or others that are used for informational purposes, and are not blatant spam or unsolicited advertising, are perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with saying, "so-and-so is the spokesmodel for such-and-such brand of clothes". Once you start replacing brand names with generics like "a certain clothing line", you're making a decision that deprives people of basic knowledge for no good reason. I'm done with this whole discussion now. Thanks for all your help. AriGold 19:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I just what to make a comment about the idea that his Survivor appearance is not notable. Survivor was a huge cultural impact on American Television (it basically made Reality TV Popular, though it didn't invent it), and despite your assertion that it is "here today, gone tomorrow", the show is actually still on, and will premier it's Sixteenth season late February. The Finale of Australia I believe was the show's most watched episode, and may have broken 40million viewers, I could be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure I'm at least close. That moment in the scope of reality TV history and even general Television history, is extreme. Reality Television, despite the automatic bias that many non-viewers have against it, is legitimate for of media. Yes, a lot of it is trashy, but Survivor isn't even one of those. It is actually a very interesting look and human nature and even better a really great look at game theory. I have heard of college professors using the show as an example of game theory. Though it has it's casual viewers that treat it like trash entertainment, it's hardcore fans take it to a very high level of intellectual analysis. For example, looking at this thread ( ) shows that statistical game theory analysis involved in the game. I just want you to know that your belittling of the show seems to be an effect of the anti-reality TV bias that sadly even good shows like Survivor (and the Amazing Race) have to suffer. --Madhackrviper (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


"Donaldson also hosts the new spin off of Top Shot, called Top Guns, which premiered on H2 February 15, 2012, which features firearm instructors and former Top Shot competitors from Top Shot who test firearms throughout history."

I can't argue about him hosting Top Guns, especially as at this point I have thus far watched every episode aired. But on that last part of this sentence is it really neceissary to say Top Shot twice. I'm refering to the part discussing the former Top Shot competitors. It seems a redundancy to me to say "former Top Shot competitors" and then say "from Top Shot." I mean if you say former Top Shot competitors doesn't that make sense that they had to appear on the show to be former competitors of it? As it stands it is basically saying twice that these are folks who competed on the show. Perhaps this should be changed to either "former Top Shot competitors who test firearms throughout history" or to "former competitors from Top Shot who test firearms throughout history." No need to say twice that these folks appeared on the show.

Also, isn't this a bit of a run on? Should the sentence end after 2012 then make a second sentence starting with "The show features....." instead of one sentence which appeares to focus on two subjects? The first subject is Donaldson hosting Top Guns and when the new show premiered. But then the focus switches to explaining what Top Guns is about, which is a different subject. -anonymous 3/27/212 11:56 PM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)