Talk:Survivor: China/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should this sentence be deleted?

By having seven members of the jury, there's no possible way of having any ties between the final
three unless it's a 3-3-1 split in the final vote.

I was wondering whether this sentence should be deleted. Firstly, it is unsourced. And secondly, I don't think this is worth telling because even though if there will be a tie or not, it is not really that special. What do you guys think? Aranho 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted. Multiple anonymous IPs have been trying to reinsert the sentence and several of us have been removing it. -- Gogo Dodo 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only one sentence so why don't we leave it there until the series ends. If this rare event doesn't happen, then it'll be deleted. Willbender 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay removed (and it appears that several other editors agree with me), because it clutters the article with potentially useless trivia. Previous seasons have had a trivia problem so I believe there is a strong feeling among several editors to keep trivia and what ifs off the article. -- Gogo Dodo 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, assuming the members of the jury aren't allowed to "abstain", and that there are indeed 7 of them, no source is needed since it's a mathemical fact that the only first place tie possible amoung 3 people by 3-3-1. (A 4-4-1 split requires 9 members; a 2-2-3 split results in the contestant with 3 votes winning.) On the other hand it is useless trivia. -- Jon (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Did someone wrote weird content

Just wondering, did someone added weird facts like Peih-Gee winning immunity or Amanda winning the game? Can't we do something about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbender (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a certain vandal who changes IP addresses fairly frequently has been vandalizing the article to the version that you saw. Usually one of the frequent editors of this article reverts it fairly quickly. The same person has been vandalizing other articles. While it is possible to prevent anonymous editors from editing the article, the vandalism is not constant enough to warrant protection at this time. There are also several anonymous editors who are making useful contributions to the article and protection would lock these editors out. -- Gogo Dodo 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Screencaps

From next week's preview: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/ives1114/Survivor15/ep9_p01.jpg

Courtney wearing the immunity necklace from this week: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/ives1114/Survivor15/ep9_p02.jpg

You can clearly see that Peih-Gee is wearing the immunity necklace next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.82.46 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Given how tricky the show's editing can be, we cannot use preview videos as reliable sources for Survivor results. You may be right, but we must wait for the episode to air to confirm it and put it into the article. --MASEM 18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Recap episode?

It currently says on here on the game chart that next week's episode is the recap episode, but on the previews after tonight's episode didn't demonstrate that, unless I missed something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMc1990 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the citation, it's a recap episode. The CBS website also lists the "next episode" as Nov. 29th. -- Gogo Dodo 05:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As a note

Doesn't affect this page directly, but I've split the main Survivor (TV series) page into that page covering concept, format and rules, and then Survivor (US TV series) that covers details of the US broadcast and reception. I just need a couple of eyes to make sure the information split didn't lose anything or if either page needs more (the main page needs a section on international versions, but that's all I can see now). --MASEM 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode title quotes

An editor added the sources for the episode title quotes per The Amazing Race 11 (and subsequent seasons) and I have removed it. Last season, the quote sources were added and removed since there was no consensus on their inclusion (there were only two of us who talked about it). I would like to bring up the topic again for discussion. Please share your thoughts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Seems a bit trivial to me.

• Episode titles - encyclopedic
• Source of titles - trivial

-- BullWikiWinkle 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per BullWikiWinkle. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree with both people who said to delete it. It is trivial. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Youngest Contestant Ever

I don't see how this isn't notable enough to at least be mentioned on this article. No one is going to just assume because Frosti is 20 that he is the youngest contestant ever, it should be noted. The Survivor: Amazon article discusses having the first deaf player, I think that is just as notable. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the things we're trying to avoid with trivia is that which can be determined by looking at the existing pages - otherwise, we start getting trivia that looks like "This is the 4th time that some event happened" - which is no longer notable. Frosti's age as the youngest can be determined by looking at the past seasons and this season. On the other hand, Christi's handicap cannot be determined from this, so it's stated explicitly, or as with Chad's amputee statues in Vanatuu. --MASEM 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But who will go through every season's article looking at everyone's age just to clarify that Frosti is the youngest contestant. That seems a like a hassle to me, when one sentence could just say "This season had the youngest contestant ever", if it weren't that notable they wouldn't have mentioned at the very beginning of the very first episode of this season. I'm not saying to add a whole trivia section, I just really feel this should be included somewhere on the article, it is a lot easier than what you are proposing. Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

someone already did. --MASEM 05:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's fine for someone who has a lot of time on their hands, but if someone else were to just read through this article and read that piece of information, and they didn't know it before, then they just learned something. They won't learn it by scanning through hundreds of contestant's ages. No one wants to do that. Why is it so inappropriate to just sum all that up into one sentence?? Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That list is sortable, meaning one could sort the list by age if they were so inclined. Besides, the contestants seem to be getting younger and younger, so this could easily be void by next season. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should it mentioned, the applications stated they have to be 21 years or over to take part in the show. Also, there's other records and firsts like new openings and the business that has to be done at tribal council. Willbender (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly I agree. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. The fact is notable enough for inclusion. Circumspect (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Voter History Names

Should we center the names of all voters in all 15 voting histories? 151.213.92.142 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think no. This keeps it similar to the other tables (where the left hand column - ep. titles, contestant details) are left-aligned, and it makes it look like someone's voted for them. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 00:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree since I reverted the change. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the top two comments, left align works well for the name of the voter Survivorfan101 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible article improvement

While we do need to cut down on the OR in the plot summaries, I'm wondering if it may help to group several sections of the general format we use on Survivor pages into a table and/or list; specifically combining the "The game" table, the elimination/kidnapping notes, and the episode summaries; specifically adding clear indications of what the challenges and rewards are. I'm going to try to make up a few example rows for this in sandbox space for it, as to give an idea of what this would be like. Of course, this would have to be propagated back to the other seasons should we do this. --MASEM 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Combining the "The game" table, the elimination/kidnapping notes, and the episode summaries to make what, exactly? I am confused :( -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, reducing all those to make something that approaches an episode guide. The Contestent and the Voting tables can't be merged into it, but all the other information is basically the equivalent of such.

However, I will make a prototype so that what results can be reviewed and commented on. --MASEM 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, we will have a look at it and see what we think. Thanks for going to the effort, Masem! (Although I may not comment; I am headed overseas in two days :D) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Masem/survivor-test is my first shot at this, and I'm open for suggestions. --MASEM 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No trips for me, so I'll chime in. I've got mixed opinions on the new format. While I understand the point of cutting things down, I think the new format's table length is too long. With the headers only on the top, it is hard to remember what the different columns are as you reach the bottom. With the footnotes being on the bottom, they're a bit hard to find, though the links sort of fix that. If the point of the change is to make the article shorter, then adding descriptions of the challenges makes the text longer, not shorter. If the idea is to shorten the article then perhaps removing the Elimination/Kidnapping notes sections entirely would be the best way since that information should be in the episode summaries. -- Gogo Dodo 03:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo, I completely agree. Although, I don't think there's anything wrong with what we have at the moment. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the Elimination/Kidnapping notes sections as well. The size of these sections in relation to their importance is out of balance. -- BullWikiWinkle 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is consensus to merge the Notes section into the summaries (though there was not much to merge), so I did the deed. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess let me explain the rationale. If you take a look at other reality shows like The Apprentice The Amazing Race or Project Runway there are a few tables to give the overview of the season results but then the rest of the article is a mini-episode guide. Also, the details of each episode are much less - I realize that most of each episode summary at least for China is pretty much unbiased and has WP:NOR, but still, these themselves are a bit heavy. Of course, nothing's broke/don't fix it could apply, but I'm trying to throw around ways to streamline the pages a bit better. --MASEM 06:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I'd hate to have to try and clean up an Apprentice article! And I really hate all the "ins" and "highs" and "outs" of the Project Runway articles. I think, in our articles, a lot of the notes about what challenge it was, what was given as a reward, etc., is irrelevant. We don't need this. Elimination and kidnapping (exile) notes can probably be merged with the episode summaries. I don't believe there is anything wrong with the game table; it is clear and easy to read. The episode summaries are far too long, compared with other seasons. Guatemala's are pathetically short (but then again, they were written by me... the guy who didn't watch the season!). I don't know if that's the standard we want to set for Survivor (too long or too short), so we're going to have to find some middle ground. I don't think your table, as nice as it is, will help, Masem. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's my take (and yes, I agree I think there's a middle ground here). Right now, most of the voting off reasons and episode summaries are edging on original research - I know we're generally careful to put too much of ourselves into the writing (nothing like "Contestant X was an ass and thus was voted off") but this is the part that we're trying to interpret strategy and feelings and the like from limited information and within the context framed by the editors (for example, Courtney's outing with the faux HII made her seem stupid for even trying, despite that they have her interviewing before TC that she knew it was likely not the HII but it couldn't hurt to try it). So I would try to edge off as much as possible, with the extreme case being we discuss no reasons why things happen.

On the other side, aspects like the challenges and rewards are actually a fundamental part of Survivor and can be stated quite factually (much like how Project Runway, The Apprentice, and The Amazing Race discuss each challenge) so there seems to be no reason to hide what the challenges/rewards are. I'd much rather see that information in place of what we currently have as episode summaries.

I don't think we want to go the route of The Apprentice - I've helped there and still its a pain to watch people through OR into the mix ("This was Trump's most angriest decision ever!"). When you completely depersonalize it such as with Project Runway, The Amazing Race, or Top Chef, it does feel a little bland though perfectly encyclopedic.

What I was attempting to do was reach a middle ground - We still explain the episode, but we include the factual pieces. Now, the format may not be best, but I do know people like easy to see at-a-glance layouts so a table still seems appropriate, but how to put in the other information is where I'm trying to figure out how address this. --MASEM 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who primarily writes most of the summaries, I've tried to keep the OR stuff and my personal opinions out. I've also tried to keep things fairly short, but sometimes the complexities of the plotting and twists (like the whole HII searching, fake HII, clue swapping, etc.) require a few more words than normal. Do feel free to edit me should I get out of line. =)

I do notice that I have gotten a bitter long winded than say last season. I still think that my original suggestion of dropping the Elimination/Kidnapping notes is still a good one as I think that is where most of the OR stuff comes in, especially the Elimination Notes.

I don't watch the other shows that you gave as examples, but the Apprentice stuff feels, ironically, too much like a PowerPoint presentation with a bunch of bullets. Project Runway's tables are just a mess. The Amazing Race feels more like the Survivor pages, but the icons are unclear on what they mean (and I'm glad that all of the silly "records" were finally deleted). I think that style might be the better one to glean suggestions for improvements. -- Gogo Dodo 19:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try another variation based on TAR's approach. I will get back to here when this is sandboxed and ready to go. Also that suggests an idea for TAR that likely needs to be added - a caption box to explain what the icons are. --MASEM 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that, guys. Thanks Gogo Dodo for your expert summaries, Masem for the time taken to improve these articles, and anyone else that wants thanking as well! ('Tis the season of goodwill, after all). I look forward to seeing it next year (or even sooner depending on potential editing capacities!) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) Take two... --MASEM 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The small table at the top of each episode summary doesn't seem right to me. A table made sense when you could just scan down the thing and get a general overview of the game, but with the format you've put together, it would make more sense to just put all that info as bullets like the challenge details.

Ultimately, I like the episode layout, but not enough to replace the current table -- just the current episode details and Elimination/Kidnapping notes. -- BullWikiWinkle 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going have to agree that the current format, save for removing the elimination/exile/kidnapping notes into the episode summary, is probably the best without overloading the page too much. However, I do believe that, given nearly every other reality TV show with challenges spell out the general description of the challenge (but not blow-by-blow of how it ended up), that adding three bullet points for each episode is warranted: reward challenge, reward, and immunity challenge. Let me make up a test section for approval for that. --MASEM 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Masem/survivor-test3 is the version that includes this information; also note that I treat each episode as a subheading and that allows me to link from the summary table to the episode in question. --MASEM 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it! -- BullWikiWinkle 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Looks good. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stretch

A registered user has gone and stretched the columns in all the tables (count 'em, there's three!) in this article. I don't know how they will respond to us adding the new information for later episodes, but I particularly dislike how they cause the voting history to go onto two rows (on my broswer anyway) and have heaps of white space in other places. Is there a consensus to remove or keep this change? EDIT: The same editor appears to be making the changes to all Survivor tables; he has now changed Fiji's as well. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we find someway to make the voting history wide enough to fit names like Jean-Robert and Peih-Gee on one line? 75.117.124.246 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Their names fit on one line depending upon the width of your browser window. There are ways to fix the width of the column, but without doing some things that are not recommended, you can't guarantee that longer names will not wrap. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to change the table to font size 90 because it keeps the double names on one line until the twelfth episode info is added. We can get rid of it when the season is over. 75.117.120.204 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you as how the table flows is browser dependent. Your fix will not necessarily work for everybody. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Freddy, Heather, Ginger, and Ah?

The voting history names have been changed, probably to cause confusion. Messy Thinking (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I think an additional column was added to create even more confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messy Thinking (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It was just some vandalism by a new editor. It's been fully reverted by Scorpion0422. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

final votes

gogo dodo, i don't see what the problem is. the final votes should be listed 1-2-4, amanda, courtney, todd. they're listed exactly like that for survivor fiji. the column is "votes", not "votes off". this is really frustrating. furthermore, why then do you put '5' next to todd? are you claiming he received five votes 'off'? it makes no bloody sense. Anastrophe (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

now i see that survivor fiji does not match up even with that. i'm clearly confused. the 'votes' on fiji don't make sense either. it was 9 votes to nothing for earl. so wtf? what are these vote totals supposed to represent? argh. Anastrophe (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

finally, the light comes on. i get it now. it could be clearer....but only if you're trying to teach a neandertal new tricks. i'll go crawl under a rock now. Anastrophe (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit confusing. None of the previous seasons include the final Tribal Council votes. The "Total Votes" is really a tally of "bad for the castaway" votes instead of the "this time you want to see your name" (quoting Jeff) votes. It needs a footnote. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

a gracious reply, thanks. yes, a footnote might be helpful. my own expectation was that the total votes was listing how many votes there were to remove xyz person at that particular juncture, and how many votes were for person xyz at the final. if not for the fact the word "accumulated" would probably bugger up the columns, having it be 'accumulated votes' might make it clearer. Anastrophe (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just inserted a footnote (though it took me four tries to be happy with it). It's a bit wordy, but if nobody has any issues with it, I will copy it over to previous seasons to keep with the style of the articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Courntey said in an interview that PG and Denise voted for her in the end. Not Frosti. http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor15/video.php?view=ex&id=12&vid=1 Agrippina Minor (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

i'd lean towards even wordier - but that's my M.O. in life. it's clear as is, thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting history - placement vs. episode

The current Voting history table has the labels for the finale results (3rd place, runner-up, sole survivor) in the Episode # column row. This just seems wrong to me, since they do not represent episode numbers. I have replaced the places with the episode (Reunion) in the table. My reasoning is threefold:

• The row is for the episode number
• No other contestants' placements are noted in this table
• The same information is available in the Contestants table

-- BullWikiWinkle 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting history - 'Eliminated' label

The current Voting history table has a label called 'Eliminated'. This is fine up until the sole survivor who is not eliminated. I thought about changing the name to 'Final Tally', but then realized this wouldn't be a global solution for all Survivor articles since some contestants have left the game with no vote. If anyone can think of a better name, let's discuss it here. -- BullWikiWinkle 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Tribal Council Voting

There has been some confusion on who voted for who in the final tribal council. Originally, the official website stated that Courtney's two votes came from Denise and Frosti. Then, Courtney said in an interview that her second vote had came from Peih-Gee, not Frosti. NOW, the official website states that it was Denise and JAMES who voted for Courtney. So what do we put in the voting history table? What are everyone's thoughts? Survivorfan101 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would put in what is currently on CBS's site, footnoting this is the first time the show hasn't confirmed the votes and that the CBS version was changed before. Courtney isn't necessary the most accurate source, compared to cBS. --MASEM 01:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel like Courtney would have directly talked with the jury members at the after party and stuff, and also probably would have a strong interest in who voted for her and not, where as some random cbs website editor might just make a slip up, no?

For now, i have changed it to Denise and James who voted for Courtney with a footnote, as that is what the official website says ... although it doesn't seem right to me. If anyone can find a source which reveals who everyone voted for that would be great Survivorfan101 (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Denise controversy:

>>During the Reunion show, Denise Martin stated that she lost her job as a lunch lady after her return from filming.

Does anyone have an exact quote? My memory recalls she said "they wouldn't give me my job back". While this implies she lost her job due to the show, according to what has come out since, it's technically accurate. If my memory is correct, I think it should be edited to reflect that she implied she lost her job, and not said it outright. TheHYPO (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my transcription from going back and rewatching. I cleaned it up some to take out some of the 'linguistic speed bumps', but it should be fairly accurate:

Jeff:

Denise, you had a very different welcome home. We just saw in the show where you say in trying to plead your case, 'You know this is it for me. I'm going back home, I'm going back to being the lunch lady making 7 dollars an hour - only when you got home, that isn't even what happened.

Denise:

I went back and I talked to the food service director, and they didn't give me my job back. So I ended up having to go, I'm a janitor now; I clean the toilets, I wash the floors in the bathrooms, I vacuum the kids' rugs. Yeah, I miss dinner with my family, I haven't been to a field hockey game yet. You know, I'm missin' out on a lot more than I had originally had planned on doing.

Jeff:

And the reason that I think you said to me was that it's actually because you're too recognizable? You're a distraction?

Denise:

Yeah, the original reason was they said that it would be too distracting, the kids all come in and everybody in the school comes up to me and everybody's like, 'Hey how ya doin'?' And all the third graders, they walk by me in the afternoon and they're like, 'Hey Denise. Hi Denise. Hi Denise. Hi...' A hundred and twenty five of them walk by and every one of them says hi to me. So, I mean, I still, it's emotional, I mean I miss my job, ya know. If anybody out there is lookin' for a lunch lady on the day shift, gimme a call.

Source: Denise Lies at Survivor Reunion Show on YouTube

The fact that she represented herself as a lunch lady during the entire show, then said, "they didn't give me my job back... they said that it would be too distracting." makes it more than an implication that she lost her job as a lunch lady -- especially since we now know that she had taken the custodial position before participating in Survivor. -- BullWikiWinkle 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, now remembering the part about the distraction, presumably that is false. It sounds more like outright lies. It's possible she applied to Survivor or was recruited when she was a lunchlady and she kept that facade up because she had already told the survivor people that's what she was, but either way, yeah - sounds like some misinformation. Thanks for typing out that whole transcript. TheHYPO (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Next season spoiler

Wouldn't you think mentioning the 2 players and their final positions on the next season should be removed from this article? Thanks. 77.125.154.220 (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. We don't censor articles for such a reason. --Maxamegalon2000 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. From the Spoiler article - "However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warning are largely considered unnecessary".
Please note the article is about Survivor China. I accept the fact that there will be spoilers about Survivor China. However, it doesn't make sense to include spoilers about Survivor Micronesia. Would you agree? Thanks. 77.125.158.37 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the finishing positions of players in another season - not because it's a spoiler, but because it doesn't pertain to the subject at hand, namely Survivor: China. I noticed similar edits throughout the different Survivor articles that in my opinion should be removed as well.

-- BullWikiWinkle 17:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A while back I removed all references to the finishing positions of competitors in subsequent seasons. Then someone put them back. Then I removed them again. Now they're back. I just gave up because it seemed someone wanted them. If we can establish a clear consensus to remove, then I'll take on the task of cleaning those sections up. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)