Talk:Survivor: Cambodia

Sources for Cut Candidates
I mean, again, Redmond Martin is clearly a good source considering he WAS accurate with the other names - and what makes Reality Blurred a non-legitimate source? All other such seasons, like Caramoan and Blood vs. Water, have similar sections detailing candidates who were cut, so why not this one? 169.231.59.50 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Redmond has refused to reveal his sources (and even said himself that not all of the sources were 100% certain/reliable), it's unknown as to how he acquired the information that didn't pan out. In the corresponding sections of previous seasons, the direct sources are revealed, such as the contestants themselves, other contestants, Jeff Probst, or Mark Burnett; it's one thing to say "Contestant X claimed they were approached but were later cut," but another to say "There was a guy on the internet who said someone told them X was approached but later cut." Redmond has a great track record, but it's only notable once it's been verified by another source—in the case of the 32 candidates, it was only legitimate once verified by the official CBS poll. Once we get that verification, then it can be included. - Katanin (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Redmond as a RS
Can we start to consider Redmond as a reliable source now? I mean, he obviously has a great track record and now has his own website. What makes Reality Blurred and Dalton Ross reliable sources, but not Redmond? ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dalton Ross is considered a reliable source because he gets his information from CBS directly, and whenever we use Reality Blurred (usually for the next year's location), the article usually comes with a source of some kind; see this article, which clearly outlines the deductional process by which the writer came to the conclusion of where the season's location was. Redmond does not reveal his sources, and has also been wrong in the past, re:Natalie Bolton for the Second Chance vote. I personally follow Redmond and take his stuff seriously, but because there's no way to know whether or not the information he receives is truly from one of his legitimate sources or from a new, unvetted one, there's no accountability, and thus not reliable enough for Wikipedia. - Katanin (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is better to put nothing at all than Survivor 32 because for sure it is not called Survivor 32. Either you put nothing or the correct one. Redmond has a good chance to be correct. In any case, either nothing or Redmond's is better than Survivor 32. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then by that logic, we may as well just put nothing; the name Survivor: Koh Rong has not yet been confirmed by a reliable source. - Katanin (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Past season placement in contestant table
Someone had put past season placement in the contestant table, then someone reverted it, then I put it back in, and then someone else removed it again. I have left it alone, but it seems worthwhile to put in there (though it is not in there for All-Stars or HvV). I was wondering if anyone else can share their sentiments? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with it (provided it's worded/formatted well, like ", xth place"), but my biggest hesitation would be for seasons with three- or four-time players; then what? Let's take Rupert in BvW; would people be okay for his row looking like this?


 * With two-timers, like this entire cast, it doesn't look bad at all, and is informative without distracting from the rest of the content. But then you have something like the above. Thoughts? - Katanin (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Seeing it, I don't actually think it'd be that much of an issue, so put me down for a Support. But again, as long as the wording/formatting is proper (e.g. commas, xth place, runner-up, etc.) - Katanin (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC) See below. - Katanin (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is unnecessary clutter. Their placing in their past season doesn't really mean anything in the seaon. It isn't like they are being ranked or given extra advantage by how they placed (though that would be interesting). It ends up being trivia. The placing should be removed out of the non-selected table for similar reasons; it doesn't matter where they placed as placing didn't factor in such as weighted voting. I seem to remember making a similar argument with past seasons, but I'm too lazy to look it up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Valid. I no longer really care either way. Though the placement is important for the non-selected table because of Mike winning, but if people are cool with that being removed then that's fine with me. - Katanin (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't care too much about either way as well; I just wanted to get a consensus before doing anything. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Season 32 page
Since we have details and since the 32nd season has taped already (Survivor: Cambodia will tape starting Friday). I don't think it hurts to leave an article open about next season, which will air in February 2016. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated to you on my talk page, "beyond the fact that it has already filmed in Cambodia and is the 32nd season of Survivor, we don't have any information on it from a reliable source; what's the point in keeping a page up for months when we know there's nothing we can add to it, beyond being a magnet for unsourced edits? It isn't worth the hassle, and right now there's nothing we can say about it that isn't already on the series page." - Katanin (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Season 32 was what I was talking about when I made the section about Redmond. I still stand by my thinking that Redmond is a RS. ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 00:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And again, my argument remains that he is not. Him having his own website is meaningless; anyone can have a website and post anything. It's a combination of WP:SPS and WP:CRYSTAL, in that Redmond's information is unverified at the moment, and isn't confirmed until corroborated by a reliable source, like CBS. Even now, Redmond is admittedly unsure as to the exact season name; regardless, there's no proof that Redmond won't just wake up one day and decide to punk us all. Not saying he will, just that he very well may and can, given that his website is self-published. - Katanin (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it hurts for Season 32 have it's own page now, but I'm not going to revert the redirect if that's going to cause an edit war. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Candidates table + Cast table
Why couldn't we keep this as the candidates table and then make a new cast table when CBS releases the pregame stuff on their site? There's bound to be new "official" info (i.e. ages [like Kelley's age being incorrect on the ballot. like, she was such a nobody that the people who put her on the ballot forgot that her damn birthday (/Rodney) was during the show.]).

And maybe add a column for if they've been eliminated/went through?

~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 19:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why reintegrate the two tables? That just makes things more confusing, even if we add the "Pass/Fail" column. Given the way the pages are typically organized, with two separate sections for Casting and Contestants, reintegrating the tables when we know the full cast is unnecessary. If anything needs a change, I'd say returning the castaways table to the sortable version (a la the non-selected candidates) until we get tribes, given that right now we have one sortable column, which is useless. If there's any new/corrected information in the official August pre-game release, we can add it then. - Katanin (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Katanin: I'd now added the tribes for this season: Bayon and Takeo, which was announced by Entertainment Weekly and according to the source: . ApprenticeFan  work 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tribe Color
How do you put in the colors for the new tribes?

Angkor tribe color
http://www.planetbuff.com/survivor-31-cambodia-second-chance-angkor-tribe-butterscotch.html The Angkor tribe color and name has been leaked. What shade of yellow should we be using? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone already made this. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Split tribe" vs. "Switched tribe"
Currently the article has the upcoming switch from two tribes to three tribes labelled as "Split tribes". however I think it should read "Switched tribe", assuming that the switch is entirely random and none of the original tribal divisions remain somewhat intact. For seasons that switched from three or four tribes to two, the switch is labelled as "Switched tribes" instead of "Absorbed tribes" or "Dissolved tribes" (Survivor: Philippines and Survivor: All-Stars are exceptions, however in both of those seasons all members of one tribe were divided amongst the other two tribes, therefore the original tribes largely remained intact). Thoughts? OctoMocto (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Past precedent is irrelevant here. Tribes have never before increased in number. Split is appropriate as they are being split up from 2 to 3, not being jumbled up. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They seem to be going to be jumbled like a typical tribe switch, only to be jumbled to 3 tribes instead of 2. A non-jumbled split (similar to absorption in All-Stars and Philippines) would mean that no one from Ta Keo would go to the new Bayon and vice-versa, and seeing some press photos and seeing Redmond's news I think it would be random. Tribe shuffle/switch is applicable here, only difference is that they would go to 1 of 3 rather than 1 of 2. I edit in Survivor Wiki and I use the term Auxiliary Tribe for the additional tribe so you could use "Auxillary Tribe" instead if you want (similarly to Absorbed Tribe used before) Zjzr (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this is not typical, it is something that has never been done. Switch would be inappropriate, because on Wikipedia Survivor articles it has the very meaning you just described. What is happening here is an increase in tribe numbers (with a jumble). Since it is unprecedented, it is okay to call it something other than switch. Also, there may still be a proper tribe switch or a crunch back down to 2 something between this episode and the merge, so the term "switched" should be saved. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You could differentiate it as 1st switch and 2nd switch. That being said, it can't be "split" because you didn't split the members of the two tribes into three, you removed all castaways from the game, then reassigned them to the three new tribes. An "additional" tribe seems more appropriate, or as I said "Auxillary tribe" (just like absorbed tribe in which the term is used as a header even though only one tribe was absorbed). Zjzr (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the "switched tribe" is actually a split tribe which it introduced in this season, with the actual switch occurred in episode 6. Anyone will get a good correction. ApprenticeFan work 08:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

First challenge ?
I don't know why the marooning challenge is not counted as a reward challenge in the table. Jeff Probst clearly said that it was "their first challenge", and it didn't look really different from the others, with Probst's usual running commentaries. The fact that Woo single-handedly won it for Ta Keo could be a deterrent, but I don't think it is the only tribal challenge in Survivor history that has been single-handedly won by a castaway. 92.155.140.224 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers before episode airs?
As of this writing, there are spoilers on the page on an elimination before the episode in question has aired. Shouldn't this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.32.181 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CBS' promotional material for the upcoming episode (including the synopsis, TV spot, and photos) is fair game as it comes from a reliable source and is properly linked to said sources; we don't need to wait for the episode, just until a reliable source confirms it, as we do with twists and other info revealed through promo material. Additionally, per WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." The identity of the castaway who leaves the game in early episode 6 has been revealed by CBS, and thus merits inclusion on here before the episode airs. - Katanin (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The promo that is cited on the page DOES NOT contain the identity of the player leaving. The episode description says a player leaves the game due to emergency, but DOES NOT say which player it is. The promo photos on the CBS website that I can find DO NOT show who leaves the game. Maybe there is something else that does, but that's a bullshit policy to put that kind of thing on here a week before it happens. It's now turned what I found to be a useful resource into a page I and others will have to avoid for fear of being spoiled. Great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.23.48 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is never safe from spoiler, see WP:SPOILERS. The photo shows the three tribes at their mats, and Terry is clearly missing from Ta Keo. CBS has been spoiling this kind of stuff for years. Anyone who watches the preview closely can clearly tell that Terry is the quitter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will give you an example of a proper spoiler. On Reddit, there is a bootlist that is being circulated that has been scary accurate. It says Woo is voted out in this episode, and he most likely will be; however, since this so-far accurate list isn't a reliable source, we cannot use it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to format replies here so I apologize in advance for whatever havoc this wreaks on the thread, however, I just wanted to come back tonight to tell you what a fucking asshole you are. After I made my post I intentionally avoided both the wiki page and this talk page for the rest of the season in case some wise-ass decided to respond to my post with actual spoilers, and it looks like I made a good call. You not only posted a link to a mostly-accurate boot list (which requires me to click it, so fair enough, I wouldn't have been spoiled by that directly), but then you go ahead and post what you essentially knew was a spoiler for the next episode, based on the accuracy of the list that far. What is your problem? Like I said before, I'll have to avoid Wikipedia when seasons are airing now because of people like you. Disappointing for sure, but better than letting assholes ruin the show for me.
 * Did you consider that perhaps the user you were replying to didn't want to know that there was a bootlist circulating, nor who was listed as next for elimination based on that bootlist? I can think of absolutely nobody who would be looking at this page that would desire to see information that had not yet aired. CBS did not reveal who left. CBS did not say someone quit. (Medevac? Elimination due to cheating?) You are making gross implication based off of a a few frames of video and, much more likely, spoilers you have heard that come from less "reliable sources." Unless you can show me where CBS specifically stated that Terry quit, I'm going to remove the spoilers as they are not from reliable sources. 66.254.247.142 (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CBS revealed who left. CBS is a reliable source. If you look at who is at the mats in the press photos and in the video, you will see a conspicuous lack of Terry. If you look at the video caption, CBS says the quit was due to a family emergency. CBS is stupid, they always spoil too much. A few seasons back, they spoiled that Gervais won immunity and that three specific contestants were drawing rocks. That information was put on the page once the "spoiler" aired on television well before the episode. Thanks in part to your actions, my request for semi-protection went through. If you want to remove the content, you will need to register to edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also "I can think of absolutely nobody who would be looking at this page that would desire to see information that had not yet aired." - Considering how many people undid vandalism to add the information back to the page, it appears you are not thinking enough. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the only person I see advocating this spoiler is you, I think I'm right. CBS has not stated that Terry quit. As such, I will continue to revert any edits you make implying he does. I also notice you didn't respond to my point that you seem to enjoy spoiling people, linking to a reliable bootlist and announcing without any provocation that Woo was next on the list. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. ProtectingSurvivor (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was providing a comparison of an reliable source that is reliable by Wikipedia standards compared to one that is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thegreyanomaly, I think that your interpretation of WP:SPOILERS is arguable. I've read it as well, and I didn't see anything that allows to spoil stuff that has yet to be released . So far, CBS never stated EXPLICITLY that Terry is quitting. Of course, there are teasers saying that somebody is pulled from the game, but Terry's name is not mentioned. And yes, there is that picture in the preview video showing that Terry is missing, but 1) it only shows for a second, and the viewer isn't supposed to notice it, and 2) who knows what could happen ? Terry could be elsewhere on the challenge site, or he could be absent for another reason. And the same thing applies for the switch : some castaways were shown on Bayon, but that's it. We don't know anything for the others. They could be on Ta Keo, or Angkor, or anywhere else. Any hypothesis, even the most unlikely ones, could be valid until the official confirmation. 90.34.71.241 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

CBS says there is a quitter, and their preview whether they intended or not shows that it is Terry. You are in the minority. I am not the only one advocating the spoiler,, , , , , , , and others have all made edits pertaining to the quit or reverted vandals removing the quit. CBS has released the fact that Terry quits based on the content of the preview they made. As for the tribe swap, the promotional images referenced show the indicate who is the Bayon and the video of the next challenge from one of the previews show that the other tribe is Ta Keo (and not Angkor). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "You are in the minority." I really doubt that statement. I suggest we open this up for discussion in order to reach a consensus. Several social media sites that discuss Survivor are warning to stay away from the Wikipedia page because of this premature speculation/spoiling. WS:SPOILERS, at least in my view, applies to media that has been intentionally released. For Survivor, this would involve watching the episodes and reading press releases, not analyzing every frame of a video. CBS accidentally spoils things all the time. That does not mean it should be added to the Wiki. They spoiled that Varner made it to the Angkor unintentionally. That does not mean that they purposefully released this information as a reliable source. Think about the purpose of this page. It is a reference for people who watch Survivor to better understand the show. It is centered around 14 episodes that are in the process of being released. People coming to this Wiki want information based off of the episodes, not speculative spoilers. Saying that CBS unintentionally releasing information is a reliable source is silliness. A few years ago, and apparently for this season, there were reliable bootlists that proved to be accurate. They were just as reliable as these unintentional spoilers from CBS. And yet, they weren't added to the Wiki because that defeats the purpose of the page for the entire time that the show is still airing. I would like to suggest for the future that unless information is *explicitly* released by CBS - not implied, not stolen from a few frames of video that most people won't see- but explicitly stated, it does not get added to the wiki until after the episode airs. Survivorfan44 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you aren't counting properly. Look at how many people reinstated or builded upon the edit., , , , , , and all did. By my count, that is more than you and the handful of IPs. I don't give a flying f**k, what CBS intended. I only care about what they did, and what they did was leak a boot and new tribe compositions. Anything CBS says about Survivor is a reliable source. What is reliable in real life versus on Wikipedia are different things, see WP:RS. A bootlist, no matter how accurate, is never reliable unless it is directly and openly attributable to CBS (or Probst, or anyone else involved in show creation). That is why they weren't used. We've been using promotional material as a reliable source for years. Virtually ever tribe swap/switch/absorption over the last few years has been "spoiled" here based on CBS promos despite CBS's hypothesized "intent". One time in BvW they even leaked precisely that Gervais won immunity and who was drawing rocks, and we put that up on the page right after it aired. Page precedence states we use the promos as extensively as possible. You cannot "steal" frames from a video. CBS made each and every frame available for fans to see. Also, you don't know what CBS intended; pretending you know what is in their minds is the real silliness. Assuming intent also violates WP:SPECULATION. Lot of viewer's look for these small details (e.g., people like Rob Cesternino studying "Winner's edits"), for all you know CBS could have actually intended this, Probst has talked about giving the fans what they want , and at least a subset of fans, we like these arcane details. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

First, saying that "so and so quit because they're not in a photo" is original research based on a primary source. No. Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news site. If we just wait a freakin' day or two and insert it or not when the actual episode airs, the sum of all human knowledge will not suffer too terribly. Chill out and leave it alone.  Volunteer Marek  03:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears you have never edited Wikipedia articles on Survivor. We tend to try to be every up to date. The Youtube caption clearly states someone quits. Also, you should be giving Survivorfan44 an edit warning notice too. And if you actually paid some attention to this pattern, you would notice in the edit history that this wasn't my doing, several users have reinstated or built upon the edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care how this "we" do it. I'm simply following Wikipedia policy: WP:OR.  Volunteer Marek   03:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I rewatched the promo, and it is unambiguously Terry Deitz on the boat leaving with Probst. The preview clearly indicates the person on the boat is the quitter. That is not original research. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is EXACTLY the definition of original research. Quote: "I rewatched the promo" (sic). This is an encyclopedia and even when writing about tv shows and current events we use WP:SECONDARY sources, not the fact that someone on the internet "rewatched the promo". I'm tempted to remove even the tribe-switching stuff.  Volunteer Marek   04:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that using a CBS source to report sourced material. We have press photo unambiguously showing the new tribe compositions. Just so you know, you are at 2RR. If you start reverting tribe compositions, you will be edit-warring. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The CBS photo is a WP:PRIMARY source. You are interpreting (no, it does not "unambiguously" show a new tribe composition and even if it did, so what?) a primary source. That is quintessential original research. The burden of proof for inclusion is on you. Until you come up with a reliable secondary source, it any kind of speculation or "spoilers" stay out.  Volunteer Marek   04:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read through the BvsW talk page. GreyAnomaly, you were by far in the minority in wanting to keep spoilers in the page before the eppisode aired. I propose that we implement WP:IAR in order to ignore your researched spoilers and WP:SPOILERS until the episode finishes airing. Survivorfan44 (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IAR is used on isolated situations, so you cannot generate a consensus to IAR. pointed out Just to interject, I believe the point Thegreyanomaly and 108.162.157.141 is that there can not be a local consensus for just this article that overrides a community-wide consensus. However, if you were to create a new community-wide consensus through the Village Pump, well, that that wouldn't be a local consensus anymore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC). If you look back at that the aftermath of that there was a Village Pump discussion on the matter to ban using promo materials, and it went nowhere. IIRC, there was some consensus that "spoiling" tribal rearrangements is kosher. The Terry quitting thing is a new territory, I admit (but so was the rock situation). The fact of the matter is, WP:SPOILERS is a community-wide consensus that cannot be overrode by a local decision to IAR. Take another go at the Village Pump if you are so dedicated. Anyways, it is approaching 1AM here. Gnite. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The "community-wide" consensus is the WP:NOR no original research rule. Local consensus to ignore the WP:NOR rule cannot override the actual WP:NOR rule. WP:SPOILERS, as has been pointed out several times before doesn't apply here. WP:SPOILERS is for shows which already aired (so you can put in the persons who've already got booted and thus "spoil" it for readers who haven't seen the show). It is not for somebody who does original research based on hearsay and their own interpretation of promo photos.  Volunteer Marek   04:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. From an essay on IAR. I don't know where you are getting the idea that IAR can't override a community-wide consensus. That's exactly what it can do, in my understanding. Good night. Survivorfan44 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * IAR is an essay, not an actual policy. Furthermore, it's "ignore all rules", not ignore the rules you don't like. Read the discussion in full Gogo Dodo, an IP, and me all pointed out you can have a local rule to ignore a global rule. That is like saying a state government can execute a law saying they are going to ignore a federal law. Your majority/minority math is off on BvW. That edit stayed on the page. Look at the edit history for the days before December 4th, 2013 . You don't have a consensus to remove the Deitz quit. Also, some of the people who rallied against putting that information up actually edited in favor of having the Deitz quit up. I didn't note it in my previous message, but you err in calling it "your researched spoilers."   was the first one to put it up. They were the first Wikipedian to put it up. You don't have any consensus to remove spoilers, you two and some IPs are the only ones backing removal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:IAR? It's literally one sentence. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Not every single rule at once. A rule. Ignore it. It is in fact a policy, not an essay, as stated its page. And as far as consensus goes, you keep naming Wikipedians yet not a single person has come to your defense. (In fact, you left a message on all of their talk pages asking them to come defend you. Really? Should I post a request on reddit.com/r/survivor for backup and see who shows up?) You are currently in the minority. Again. Survivorfan44 Survivorfan44 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a total of three people discussing here, one supporter, two opposers. If you take a second to actually look at the edit history, and you count the number of people reinstating the edits they far exceed the number of people reverting. IAR is an essay not a policy. I have no clue why no one is coming to defend their edits. For all I know they are busy with something else. Some of them have no edits whatsoever over the last couple days. Then again there are people still making those edits . At the same time, no one, other than VM, is coming to defend you. 2-1 is very big majority... The people who post on Reddit are not relevant to Wikipedia. Also, doing so could be tantamount to canvasing. The people who like looking at previews generally post at reddit.com/r/survivorspoilers. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IAR is a policy. It is a policy which has had essays written about it. You are wrong. I continue to implore you to go to WP:IAR and read the page. It won't take that long. Further, what you are doing with all of those talk pages is canvassing in and of itself. 2-1 is a majority, however weak it may seem. In fact, it's actually 4-1 including the IPs. Survivorfan44 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)'
 * I stand corrected; however, consensus is not a strict majority, consensus is based on policies. The IPs made one or two posts and then disappeared. 2-1 is the weakest of majorities, not a consensus. The IPs are not actually making any policy based claims. Also those 2-1s and 4-1 don't actually correspond to the behavior of editors of this page who continually re-add the information. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction, it is more like a 1-1-1. Volunteer Marek's opposition and Survivorfan44's oppositions are not quite overlapping. The former is based on OR (and emphatically not about SPOILERS) and the latter is based on SPOILERS/IAR. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your view about primary and secondary sources is a bit whack. First of all, it is not crystal clear that CBS is a primary source; CBS did not actually make the show, another company did and CBS bough the distribution rights to it. In other countries other channels (i.e., Canada and Australia) make their own promotional material. CBS promotional material is arguably a secondary source. Primary sources are frequently used. Look at election-related pages, many times primary sources are used (e.g. voting totals from the relevant government websites). The Survivor-editing community, which includes admins (such as Gogo Dodo, whom I am pretty sure understands the concept of original research), has consistently backed the "spoiling" of Survivor articles based on CBS promotional material, especially for tribe switches. I will admit, revealing the Deitz quit is new territory (and I won't revert it until after that part airs in a few hours). You can claim OR all you want, but you are full of bullshit in the case of the tribe switch Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it's "wack" not "whack". And second, no my "view" on primary and secondary sources is exactly correct. CBS photos are a primary source. Which you are interpreting. If Erasmus writes a manuscript, which is then published by publisher ABC, the fact that it was published by ABC does not turn it from being a primary source into a secondary source. It's not about who publisher or distributes or airs something, it's about the nature of the source.
 * Yes, in some cases we can use primary sources. Those cases are when 1) it's not controversial and 2) no one objects. Even if somehow 1) is true (it's not), then here I am objecting. Finally, if the "Survivor-editing community" does not know how to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines, that's not my problem. It's the "Survivor-editing community"'s problem, admin or not.
 * I left the stuff about the tribe switch in, since that's less controversial, but technically, it's still OR based on primary sources. You know, it's not that hard to wait a day and THEN put the info in. The world won't end. Probst's head won't implode. The sky won't turn polka dot. This is an encyclopedia not a news site.  Volunteer Marek   18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that if CBS or the channels that broadcast it overseas generate a preview, that is a derivative work on the primary work. A derivative work is a secondary source. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to chime in real quick: It said on CBS's slideshow for previews that Terry was taken out of the game, he didn't voluntarily quit. Also, you shouldn't get excited and post any spoilers that casuals aren't aware of. Thank you. Not David Brown (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been searching around for that slideshow. Can you source it? Survivorfan44 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant now, since the episode is less than an hour away (and I have better things to do than hunt for it), but would you agree that citing CBS stating in text that Terry is pulled from the game would not be original research? catering to "casuals" would blatantly violate WP:SPOILERS, which states that reliable sources cannot be ignored in fear of spoiling. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If CBS puts it in writing... it depends but generally I'd be fine with it. It'd have to be explicit though. Also, one more time, WP:SPOILERS applies to shows which already aired (and actually it's not a policy, but a guideline, unlike WP:NOR.  Volunteer Marek   23:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Finally we agree on something! It has been previously argued at the Village Pump that previews are "protected" by WP:SPOILERS as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol. I won't put words into 's mouth, but that is not at all what they said regarding previews. Volunteer seems to agree with me regarding no spoilers until the show airs, and I agree with them regarding WP::NOR. So your 1-1-1 logic above doesn't really work.
 * They just said if CBS put it in explicit writing it could go up. The last discussion at the village pump (linked above) suggests that the previews are protected by WP:SPOILERS in the same manner that the episodes themselves are. That means if the preview is played anywhere, and if the content being posted from the preview is unambiguous (and not original research) then it cannot be censored. Basically, your position of no-spoilers-whatsoever from the preview content is untenable. Remember, the 2-1 or 1-1-1 don't mean anything as no one showed up to the discussion, which is now irrelevant until CBS next decides to "spoil" something of this importance. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yeah but Village Pump is just a bunch of folks mouthing off (in fact folks who did a lot more of mouthing of than actually writing content). Generally I'd say that if something is non-controversial then in that case you could use a preview for a spoiler, although even in that case it should be attributed (after all the preview could be purposefully trying to mislead). Like if the preview said "Next week, so and so is voted off" you could put "so and so will be voted off according to last week's preview". What if all of this turned out wrong and we had info in the article that was both unnecessary and incorrect - Wikipedia'd look silly (more than usual) as a result. Just err on the side of caution and think about what the purpose of the encyclopedia is.  Volunteer Marek   03:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is mostly come to close. I've been watching this show since the beginning, and CBS has never outright lied. They've been misleading bastards (all those times we were led to believe Tony or Mike were going home...; they never said they are going home, but they led us to believe it) but never outright liars. Almost all of the preview spoilers in my "tenure" editing these articles are tribal reconfigs (which are generally non-controversial, maybe not this one though) and then the rock-picking thing and this. It doesn't seem like it, but for the overwhelming majority of the "spoilers" over the years we are roughly in agreement. Given the track record, it's probably going to be a couple years until they give us an equally-big or bigger spoiler. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This will probably be my last reply on this matter, at least until something of similar significance comes up. I just wanted to point out that CBS often lies to us in previews (and this season in the intro) using Buff-O-Matic. They change contestants' buff colors on occasion in post production to hide tribe swaps, merge, etc. In the intro for this season, there's a clip of Tasha crying when she was on Angkor, but her buff was edited pink. Please be cautious in the future not to always take CBS previews as gospel truth. Survivorfan44 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015
Terry deitz needs to be placed out 15th. It is a spoiler with proof and theres no rules against it. Put that he is pulled out at day ?

Nyancat23 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wait a few hours please.  Volunteer Marek   23:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Per Volunteer Marek. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge buff
Here's a pic of all 4 buffs together - https://instagram.com/p/9d78OqEmer/ - try to find a similar color! ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Switched tribe not dissolved tribe
Looking over the previous seasons for terminology: "Switched" has been used to describe: -"Absorbed" has been used to describe
 * 2-to-2 for most cases
 * 3-to-2 for Masaya removal in World Apart
 * 3-to-2 for Luzon removal in Cagayan
 * 3-to-2 for Matsing dropping to 2
 * 3-to 2 for dissolution of Saboga in All-Star
 * 4-to-2 in Panama/Cook Islands
 * 2-to-1 in Palau after Ulong fell to one person

We used "split" for the unprecedented 2-to-3. We have precedent for 3-to-2, and it seems "switched" is most appropriate. In this case we do not need a new term ("dissolved"). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all game for using "switched" when the number of tribes changes, but there are some inconsistencies here. Why would it be "switched" in Cagayan and Worlds Apart but not Panama and Cook Islands? Also, why would it be "switched" when the number of tribes decrease, but not when they increase as in Cambodia, even though the principle is the same (all tribes are scrambled, but the number changes)? I propose that, for methods where all are affected (a simple "drop your buffs" situation), it should be "Switched", and ones that aren't as straightforward (e.g. All-Stars, Palau, Cook Islands mutiny, Philippines, Blood vs. Water ep 1) be the exceptions. - Katanin (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: To preemptively clarify some of my own points: situations like Africa, Amazon, and China, for example, would still count as switches, even though not everyone dropped their buffs. The exceptions are more the ones where tribes are actually absorbed by the other(s) that are left intact (All-Stars, Palau, Philippines), mutinies, or the swap mechanic in Blood vs. Water. Unless I'm forgetting something, everything else (including the addition of Angkor in Cambodia) is a swap. - Katanin (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that Panama/Cook Islands should be "switched," my only concern is the 2-to-3 is an unprecedented move, which should be described uniquely. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree; getting rid of tribes during a switch was an unprecedented move in Panama as well, but is now ubiquitous. How is this any different? I don't think that anything beyond placing its uniqueness in the lead section (which we did) is necessary. If, for example, the initial two tribes sent three members each to form a new tribe, then "Split tribe" would be appropriate, but the mechanism by which this third tribe was formed is the same as been done for "Switched tribes" in the past, and thus merits the same title. - Katanin (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I have implemented "First switch" and "Second switch" per Survivor: Gabon, which also had two switches. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015
The merge tribe is called orkun http://insidesurvivor.com/2015/11/survivor-second-chance-episode-6-what-you-didnt-see/

Nyancat23 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: As discussed earlier on this page, Inside Survivor/Redmond is not a reliable source. - Katanin (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Orkun text should not be black
I think Orkun stribe template should have white text, not black. The black on orange is a bit painful to the eyes. Am I alone on this? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed (P.S 10 JURY MEMBERS!?) Not David Brown (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ - text is white. Jeff said the 13 merge/10 jury is so that as many people as possible could stay in the game as long as possible. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Vote stealing
In light of the new "vote stealing" mechanic introduced tonight, here's a mock-up of how I think we should go about noting it, if and when it is used. Thoughts? My only question is if the reference is necessary in the stealer and stolen's rows, or only in the vote total? - Katanin (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * shouldn't it be treated like a final 3 where the two people who do not get up to vote have empty cells? the note could remain in the "Vote" row, while Joe's voting cell for ep11 is empty. ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 04:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. If anything, noting why the final IC losers in F2 seasons don't vote is a better solution then just having nothing. Just as with tie votes, the principle is that if a vote is conducted at Tribal Council but someone in that tribe doesn't vote, we should note it. - Katanin (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, I didn't mean to do that... I think the Final 2 cells should be blank. ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 03:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect FINISH reason for Terry Deitz
In the CONTESTANTS section it states that Terry Deitz was "Pulled from the game" on Day 13. This is not correct. Terry was informed by the crew that there was a medical issue at home and that the doctors and his wife recommended that he come home. It may sound harsh, but he quit the game to be with his family. He was not told he had to leave. He quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clibat2 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Probst said in interview that he had no choice and there was no discussion. He was leaving and that was it. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Day 36 Vote.
I figured that I would start this since I usually do not edit articles like this and ended up using the notes on past seasons to try to create one for this season. I was wondering if there could be a discussion on how to handle the Day 36 vote due to how many rules were used to resolve it. Currently, there are five notes about the vote. (A, B, C, H, and I) Considering the number, should we remove some of the notes or are all required to explain what happened? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The table is wrong. After the first Kimmi-Tasha tie Jeff asks Spencer, Jeremy, Kelley and Keith if they're keeping their votes the same and all of them said yes. So they moved on to a deadlocked tie. Same situation as Blood vs Water. There, they agreed to let Kimmi go, so as far as I'm concerned it's not a 4-0 vote, it's not even a vote, just an unanimous agreement they had to make or Keith would've left. (Even if it was 3-1 at that point, Keith would have gotten the boot) --Luisrafael7 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed it up a bit per your suggestions. Super Goku V, I amalgamated the two notes about the 0-0 vote and removed the big block at the top, trying to keep it both consistent with previous seasons for the tied vote but also doing something new as per the unprecedented 0-0 vote. Luisrafael7, I totally get where you're coming from on not counting it as a vote; even though I had initially deemed it such earlier, you're right. It's more like a tiebreaker, in which the loser was still "voted out," but through a non-vote method (e.g. Varner in Australia, Cirie in Panama, among others). Thoughts? - Katanin (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks great now. Thanks! --Luisrafael7 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That has reduced the number of notes down to the point where I believe that all notes are required to explain what happened, so thank you. (Not to mention that the table no longer has a note out of order and in an odd spot.)  The only thing that I would like to suggest is a bit of an addition to note G as already mentioned below by the IP 108.162.157.141.  I will say that if it is altered, I am not fully sure if the rocks detail should be mentioned, but I am leaning to supporting it.  (Example: Due to a deadlocked tie, the non-tied contestants had two minutes to come to a unanimous decision to vote out either Kimmi or Tasha; they unanimously decided to eliminate Kimmi.  Had the decision not be unanimous, the tied contestants would have been granted immunity and all non-immune contestant(s) would have been required to draw rocks to resolve the vote.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. I changed it to "Due to a deadlocked tie, the non-tied castaways had two minutes to come to a unanimous decision to vote out either Kimmi or Tasha, or else Keith, the only non-immune deliberating castaway, would be eliminated; the non-tied castaways unanimously decided to eliminate Kimmi." - Katanin (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for all the work that you have done. :)  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that says that the non-tied castaways had two minutes to come to a unanimous decision because Jeff never said in the episode that they had two minutes to come to a unanimous decision? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd, that is what I had believed it had said during the episode, but I guess I was wrong. Perhaps that is the rule from another Survivor article?  --Super Goku V (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I think note g should add what would happen if they could not agree on a unanimous vote. Something like if they could not agree after 2 minutes, Keith would be voted out by default as he was the only one eligible to draw rocks. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Terry Deitz incorrect reason for being off the show.
I think I know exactly what interview you are talking about and you are taking the statement out of context. There was no discussion means just that... we didn't discuss it. If I ask you if you like the color blue and you say "yes", then there is no discussion. It's doesn't mean I forced you to like the color blue. It means there was no discussion about it... It means is was an easy decision for you. Jeff actually said, "There was zero debate" if we are talking about the same interview. If we are not talking about the same interview, please post a link.

What needs to be considered is the countless other articles that say he was given the choice. The Terry Deitz Wiki says "Jeff Probst came to the Ta Keo camp and told Terry about his son's heart condition which made Terry pull himself out of the game to see his son." How can 2 wikis say 2 different things about the same event? The words "pull himself out of the game" are a bit more kind, but the fact is, he quit. Listen to his exit interview with Rob Cesternino... He quit. Read the Terry Deitz Wiki... He quit.... Read the CBS website description of events... he quit... Read the Survivor Rulebook... There is no stipulation that you can be forced to leave due to an event that occurs back home. He quit. Saying he didn't quit is just letting emotion dictate the history of events. He may have "had no choice", but the fact is he did have a choice... an easy one albeit... so he quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clibat2 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC) So if you consider Terry as a quit, you must also reconsider some exits that are widely recognised as medical evacuations. 92.155.46.153 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that saying "No, my son's life is in serious danger and my family wants me to be with him, but I prefer to stay in the game" was a rational choice? Probst reached to him and insisted that the situation was grave enough for him to go, so that's enough to not consider it as a quit. The most similar exit I can recall is when Jonathan Penner is evacuated in Micronesia. The doctor came to him and heavily insisted that his leg infection could be life-threatening, and even if they seemed to let him the final choice, it was the only rational decision (and maybe it was the same kind of situation with Joe in Tocantins, but I don't remember it much). This is not a Gary "Papa Smurf" situation, because Gary called himself the medical team, and they made him leave the game only because he was insisting that he could not handle it anymore. That's why Gary is considered as a quit, and Penner is not.

Terry quit
Thank you. You just helped me prove my point... if the reunion show didn't already when Jeff Probst said... "you didn't even hesitate" which there in itself says that it was Terry's decision. Do I think it was really a choice? Yes, I do. It was an EASY choice, but it was a choice. I wrote that if you read the above posting. The thing is I go by the definition of words and for a page like this that is supposed to state the facts I don't let emotion or a misunderstanding of the English language cloud those facts. Every example you stated in comparison was a medical issue for the contestant. Is Terry a doctor? No. Was he the only person on this earth that could perform a life saving surgery so a court ordered he return home? No. He is a loving father that had to quit the game to be with his family. Would every single father in the world have done the same thing? No. There are messed up people out there, but even if 99.999% of people would have done the same thing, including myself, that doesn't mean you should change the facts and say he was pulled from the game because he wasn't pulled from the game. He quit. Look it up. It's in the dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clibat2 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Terry's case is very different from the others: had Probst not come to him, he would never have left. Probst said to him "Both your wife and the doctor think that it's serious enough that you should go home to be involved": it's clearly a suggestion to leave. I think that in Survivor, the definition should be that a contestant is considered as a quitter if he chose to took himself out without any production interference. 92.155.46.153 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that it's incoherent to consider Terry as a quit and not Penner. Everything you said for Terry could also apply for Penner: even if the medicals told him that he should go, he was clearly given the choice to stay or not. Look at the quit situations: Jenna Morasca chose to quit without any external information; and concerning Gary and Dana, the medicals told them that there was no problem with them staying in the game, and they were taken out only because they asked to. In all these situations, the quitters took their decision by themselves, without any other interference by producers or medicals . I think it is a very important point, and this is why in Survivor, the "quit or not" question is a little more complex than just the dictionary definition.

Survivor jury vote table discussion
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force to list the vote totals in the same order as the names in the finalist row immediately above the vote totals. All interested editors are invited to join that discussion. Since the Survivor task force appears to be inactive, I'm notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force and the talk pages for each Survivor season in order to reach interested editors. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)