Talk:Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains/Archive 1

Tenth Anniversary Edition
This source mentions that season 20 will be a 10th anniversary edition, meaning it's probably another All-Stars edition. http://www.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/article/survivor_group_wants_hatch_for_anniversary_show/19667/ MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen several sources that also say this is a "Heros vs. Villains", but all of these stem from the same thing: a forum post from a former castaway (Coby from Survivor: Palau) who was not even asked to compete. If anyone can find a source that it more reputable, please add it. Novelwriter65 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tsumani hit mentions Survivor 20
'Survivor' not harmed by Pacific quake, tsunami, if anyone thinks it is worth a note here. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not much to add there. The show wasn't filming at the time and wasn't affected.  No new information was presented in the article.  I think we can skip mention of it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An IP decided to put mention of it in the article, so I changed the reference to this one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it can be sourced properly, the destruction of the ponderosa site may be notable. How does realityblurred.com stack up? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroes vs Villains
I just updated the article thanks to a source now referenced, but had a sudden afterthought... we should probably wait for CBS to confirm this, right? &mdash; tdl trom bonator   09:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should wait before moving the article. I have no opinion on changing the text. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with waiting, too. Need some more verification.  I changed it. --User101010 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That "Nine" reference was rather flimsy. --User101010 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did someone changed everything back to "Survivor 20"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.55.238 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast Speculation
I removed the "rumored cast" category on the main article, it is all based on speculation and there has been no official word from CBS about who is participating 82.17.239.90 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that most speculation without merit shouldn't be posted, the fact that during the reunion they flashed former survivors in frame by frame shots as they introduced the two sides to me is very credible. I think it can be posted as it will end up being announced anyway, in fact, the way they did it is almost a psuedo confirmation. BT14 (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the cast may meet until CBS announce it from the Survivor web site. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For one, the shots used on the promo at the end of the reunion show should not be taken as fact - they always use standins there. But it is actually the case that the full cast list (and boot order) has been spoiled and is out there. Not reliably and therefore not for inclusion, but it does exist and we have to be aware of it until mid-Jan when they will be announced. --M ASEM  (t) 00:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is important to remember that variations of the cast list/boot order do exist. They can't all be true. We should wait until CBS confirms it before adding the list. -- Meaghan  - Merry Christmas!  - 01:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The only confirmed cast member is Russell Hantz, and thats it. (just so people who are doubting me, I went to a page on a website, I can't remeber the name, but if I find it, i will put a link to it, saying that while most of the cast is unconfirmed, one person is confirmed, which is Russel Hantz, confirmed in an interview with his brother, since he said that Russel did compete in season 20) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.101.29 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since you didn't provide any source for that, it is unconfirmed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo, I am Looking Around for the page I was talking about. when I do Find it, I Will Provide A Link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.101.29 (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole cast has been leaked online, and even the boot order and identity of the finalists of the game, it just seems there are no credible sources for it. The people who have revealed it have correctly spoiled other Survivor seasons in past, and the list is fairly easy to find online, but I think we should just wait until CBS confirms it, just incase. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Spoilers
Why are there spoilers on this page? I came on here just to see if there was a cast listed and it shows two of the people who made the top 6 and has a projected winner.--Crazy4metallica (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because some anonymous people are trying to add in unsourced, speculative "spoilers". And I put that word in quotes because it all seems to be made up.  Every season, these anonymous editors show up and try to "spoil" things. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The spoilers were different than the one I saw a few weeks ago. I don't think they were right. In any event, I removed them. Surtarbb (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

They're back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.189.5 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The show aired. There's no more spoilers now. --M ASEM (t) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional show
No mention of Surviving Survivor which will air on Feb 4th and will show highlights and updates of past contestants.--Cooly123 19:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
 * Has it been announced by CBS, and if so, do you have a source? Also, remember to always sign your posts with four tildas (~). 69.177.115.157 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is officially airing this week. Also there is no mention of the Tv Guide special for Survivor or for any of their previews for previous series. They should be mentioned as well.--Cooly123 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
 * Those aren't officially done by CBS, though, and therefore not directly associated with the show. I could see putting "Surviving Survivor" on the main Survivor page, but not on here as it is not directly a part of Heroes vs. Villains. And again, sign your posts! 64.252.32.135 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast
Here is what I think is the link to the real full cast of Heroes vs Villains:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO9A4DlTKhs&feature=related--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that isn't a reliable source. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go, then. http://insidetv.aol.com/2009/12/31/survivor-heroes-vs-villains-cast-revealed/ 98.206.60.212 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that is a reliable source. Finally. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the people that are listed there were in tyhe source I gave you.--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As a suggestion for the article, why doesnt someone do the cast descriptions to tell them what the people did in the time they were in survivor before and tell why they were chosen for the show.--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * People can click on the links to the previous seasons to find out how these players did. But as to "why" they were picked, that's information only CBS/Mark Burnett Productions know, and thus they'd either have to say this or we'd be engaging in speculation. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But that is the actual cast right?--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FULL LIST OF CONFIRMED SURVIVORS FOR SEASON 20 - http://www.film.com/tv/survivor-samoa/story/meet-survivors-heroes-and-villains/31727842 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.250.228 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but you're a little late. The cast is already available on the CBS website.  Has been for several days before you posted your message. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to revisit the point made above, I think it would be useful to have a brief note about how this season's contestants did in the previous appearance(s) listed by their names in this article rather than expecting visitors to click through to articles for all of the previous seasons to find out how they did in the past. Headtale (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessary. However, there could be some argument made for including if they were ever a winner, as winner's are often targeted (or perceived as being targeted).  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Preview
It should be noted that a preview of the 1st episode will air tonight Jan 6th during the people's choice awards.--Cooly123 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Yup, and buffs were revealed!! 121.209.33.65 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should add the tribe colour boxes. Either that, or unlock the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross22 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I unlocked the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Somehow it's locked again.
 * House of Buff has officially put S20's buffs on sale - I think we should go with the colors shown on the official design image, as we did with S19.
 * https://www.buffwear.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/102
 * Heroes:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#025BAD"|#025BAD
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Villains:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#96000C"|#96000C
 * }
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * }
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though the season is called "Heroes Vs. Villains", can we hold off calling the tribes "Heroes" and "Villains" for now? I'm sure the tribes will have actual names that pertain to the area (Just like the tribes in Fans Vs. Favorites had actual names). MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The previews have shown that the tribes will actually be called 'Heroes' and 'Villians'. In a challenge shot they are using tribe coloured canoes with their tribes' names on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross22 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we kidding with that dark red? I know the design on whatever buff website says it's that color, but 1) that's clearly not even a picture of the buff, just a mockup and 2) if you look at the actual show it is clearly the same red as Aitutaki/Chapera/Samburu/you name it. 76.204.122.127 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with 76.204.122.127. If you look at Randy's (bottom right) buff in this picture, it looks much lighter. I know that lighting can affect how a buff looks, but lighting probably isn't going to affect it that much. I would recommend one of these colours for the villains:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#FF4040"|#FF4040
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#E32636"| #E32636
 * }
 * -- Meaghan the vanilla twilight 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * }
 * -- Meaghan the vanilla twilight 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion:
 * According to multiple preview videos, the color of the Villains tribe turned out to be not so bright as the cast photo made it to be. On the cast photo those buffs looked as bright as Fang's, but later in all the videos the flags, buffs, and even challenge props seem to have a deeper red.
 * CBS.com's official banner has the Heroes vs. Villains titles written in very solid colors of quite vivid hues of blue and red, and they seem to correspond with the videos as the colors the tribes used.
 * Heroes:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#00479D"|#00479D
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Villains:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#B90013"|#B90013
 * }
 * Will it be okay for those to be used as the colors for this season?
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will it be okay for those to be used as the colors for this season?
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous season standings
I have removed the previous season standings because I feel that it is unnecessary information that clutters the Contestants table. The previous standings do not appear to be relevant to this season. It is not like previous winners received special treatment or that this season's castaways were seeded (like a sports competition) based upon their previous results. Of course, it is possible something might be done related to previous standing, but until the season starts and something is confirmed, I think such information should be excluded. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I put a suggestion above in the "Cast" section that this article should include Previous Season Standings. I see it would fit better here - sorry for that. Anyhow, the way I see it, this article lists the contestants' ages and hometowns which is a lot less relevant to the show than including information about how the contestants have done in the past. For example, in tonight's premiere, it was immediately evident that contestants' previous standings was going to be a big factor in the show. I didn't look in the history to see how this information was formatted before being removed but I also don't think it would clutter the article too much to just have a single number in brackets after the person's name where the season is listed - eg) Colby Donaldson 35, Christoval, TX The Australian Outback (2) & All-Stars (10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headtale (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallpriest2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that also. Survivorfan44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Cast party/reunion
This should be noted that during the weekend of Jan 8-10 there was a party with many past survivor contestants. Zap2it.com has photos of some of whose in attendance including Richards Hatch and Sue Hawk.--Cooly123 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)


 * Having a party isn't very notable and it is just a bunch of pictures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect?
Should we semi-protect this page for now due to the recent vandalism, like spoiling, etc.? Look at the history to find the examples. What do you all think? —Untitledmind72 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a great idea. Someone963852 (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's funny that some people that tried to spoil failed at spoiling. I had to delete a whole bunch of spoilers that were completely wrong (after watching tonight's episode). FAIL.--71.179.171.101 (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a bunch more up there nowJ2summers (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We need something to protect it, because we are forever removing the spoilers, which unfortunately have been proving true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor5612 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Letterman Top 10
Appearance should be noted.--Cooly123 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Why? It has no relevance to the article and was solely a promotional tool 82.17.239.90 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cooly, you need to really figure out what's relevant and what's not. You're clogging up the talk page with proposals for information that any other normal person would easily be able to figure out is irrelevant. Please cut it out. And sign your posts.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Summaries
There's no problem with per episode summaries, but lets keep them at that, identifying (as best we can tell) the major plot aspects that will go forward into the future. I've trimmed down the one that was about twice as long before. --M ASEM (t) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was a little wordy. Long episode that seemed to go on for too long. =P -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting history
Should the "Voting history" section be listed as a subsection in "The game"? We should at least standardize this because some of the older seasons have it like so while newer seasons have it as a new section. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Voting history" sould have its own section, because technically EVERYTHING could be a subsection to "The Game" but it doesn't have to be. Survivorfan44 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong logo
The logo currently shown on the page is NOT the actual logo, but a parody one with some of the contestants' silhouettes switched around, most likely originating from Survivor Sucks. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the actual logo: http://thelittlestwinslow.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1.jpg. Compare the silhouettes. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The current logo was not found from Survivor Sucks. Rather, it can be found on Survivor's Facebook page. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still clearly the wrong one. Compare it with the one in the link I posted, which was shown at the end of the preview at the Samoa reunion. Whoever is in charge of the facebook page probably found it and uploaded it without realizing it was a fake. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected http://cdn.sheknows.com/realitytvmagazine/2010/01/jeff-and-mark-logo.jpg. This is odd, why are there two versions of the logo? MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I figured it out. The one on the facebook page was made before the season began filming, before they finalized the cast and tribes, and was used during the season on the buffs/tribe flags, etc. The one shown at the end of the Samoa finale preview is the updated, official version with the finalized tribes, and is being shown in the episode previews, official CBS site, and at the end of the intro. Here is the 2D high-res version http://resources.survivorphoenix.com/S20/graphics/S20_Logo_RC.jpg. I think we should use it on the page. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just it now. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tribe Color discussion
I feel the current colors are too dull and don't accurately represent the actual buff colors. The actual buff colors are more vivid than the ones portrayed on the page, at least in the case of the heroes tribe. MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to agree with you. --Maxime9232 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the actual buff colours are brighter than the colours we originally had, however I think that the new Heroes blue is a bit too bright and vivid. I personally think that the actual buff has a slight greenish tinge to it. I would recommend #0075DB for the Heroes:


 * -- Meäghân i can see your halo 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Joining in on the discussion. My suggestions –
 * Heroes:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#0064D2"|#0064D2
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Villains:
 * {| class="wiki table"


 * bgcolor="#D70014"|#D70014
 * }
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think those colours are pretty much spot-on. Cheers, -- Meäghân i can see your halo 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm good with those colors. Any volunteers to go through the contestant's pages and update them? MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heads up, the merge tribe's color will be black, as announced here: http://www.planetbuff.com/CBS-Survivor-Buff/c34/p1062/Survivor-Heroes-vs-Villians-Blue/product_info.html
 * "Available, starting April 9th, the all new Black Merged Tribe Survivor Buff!"
 * May we add the colorbox now, or should we wait for the merge episode to air?
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We should wait until we know the name of the merged tribe. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We should wait until we know the name of the merged tribe. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tribal Concil
There should be a discription of tribal concil in this and all the survivor season pages with a picture as well.--Cooly123 14:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of a description? I think it's only important to know that it's the place where people get voted off. I don't understand what whould be so useful to say about it? --Maxime9232 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

With this seasons unqiue approach( a raised tree house, season 2 over a waterfall and season 5 huts) and a picture would complete this page and others more so.--Cooly123 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
 * You're wrong. It would not make it complete but rather overcramped. That's unnecessary information. Same reason why I removed the "sit-outs" from each challenge description. Stjimmy61892 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I cannot think of anything special beyond any of the Tribal Council locations beyond the first season (which had the money prize in a chest but they dropped that quickly). It's always seats for the players, seats for the jury, the fire pit, and Jeff's podium. --M ASEM  (t) 22:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion
Should we make profiles/pages of memorable contestants like James Clement or Russell Hantz? Because I think they both deserve their own special Wikipedia page. And what I mean by profiles/ pages is like the pages that were recently constructed on Danielle DiLorenzo and Benjamin "Coach" Wade? (98.231.219.50 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)) or RSRC


 * The problem is that both of these were created, but subsequently deleted per an AFD decision. I can point you to the discussions in question, but basically that was the result.  That's not to say they could not be recreated.  But, we would need to gather a significant number of reliable sources which establish their individual notability (preferably beyond simply appearing on Survivor).  Once sources have been gathered, one could try to see if a new iteration could survive.  However, without something there, I would say it would probably just be re-deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ok then (98.231.219.50 (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)) or RSRC

Schmergen Brawl
Since there seems to be some conflict over whether the episode 5 Reward Challenge, "Schmergen Brawl", should be included in the article or not, I thought I would bring the issue up here.

The justification for its inclusion seems to be based on two points:
 * 1) The challenge was deemed too dangerous and will never be used again.
 * 2) Jeff told somebody to put into Wikipedia.

Point #2 is not a valid reason for adding it, no matter how funny/cute the request might have been. While it is certainly nice to be acknowledged by Jeff, even if indirectly, that does not mean that what he wants goes into the article. What is included is decided by the consensus of the editors here. He is welcome to show up and discuss the issue here about why it is important for it to be included, though he would have to get over the WP:COI issues. =)

My objection to its inclusion boils down to one thing: it is trivia. The inclusion of challenge names (similar to inclusion of who stated the episode titles or who sat out a challenge) is just trivia that doesn't provide anything substantial to the articles. While the point about it being too dangerous and therefore never appearing again to slightly less trivial, it doesn't make the challenge's banishment particularly notable. The majority of challenges from previous seasons are never seen again, so what makes this one particularly notable? Nothing really. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the conflict revolves around the reason for which the challenge was not used again. Unlike almost all other challenges that are not used because their "not as memorable", this challenge has been deemed dangerous and therefore not used—this one, however, for a specific reason. I may be wrong, but that may be the reason why the fact was put on the article. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey editers, you should know that the link you are using for this section is dead. You need to find a better link that has the same information. I can't find the source that says why the challenge is banned.

65.214.69.226 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

March 24th voting
Please tell me who voted Tyson off last night, besides Parveti & Russell. I missed the vote showing. Thanks, Mar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.60.196 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Danielle also voted for Tyson. Hallpriest9 ( Talk ) 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Hallpriest2

Alphabetical order
There's been some debate about the first-name alphabetical order in the "Voting history" section, mainly with J.T.'s name. Some say J.T. comes after Jerri, some before. This is also a problem in listing names in episode summaries; for example, "...Candice and Cirie decided to join Amanda, James, J.T., and Rupert..." So, what's the correct way? Are the "J" and the "T" considered two separate names (therefore having J.T. come before James and Jerri), or are they just one name, as in "J.T."? —Untitledmind72 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your argument and I partially agree but purely technically speaking the name is J(.)T. And technically punctuation marks come before letters. Hallpriest2 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Hallpriest2
 * I disagree. J.T. is alphabetically before Jerry. James is alphabetically before Jerry.  Hence, J.T. should come before Jerry.  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Season20.jpg
The file can be found. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote count?
Like whoever changed it, I had once thought about sorting still-alive contestants by total vote count, but then I reconsidered, realizing this would make it harder to see where the eliminated ones stop and the remaining ones begin. So, which way do we prefer it? We have the active contestants alphabetical in the voting history; I prefer that way in the intro table as well.Simplebutpowerful 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical. The change was missed and has since been reverted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The game table
There has been some recent dispute on whether we should include in The game table the finish for each castaway—precisely, whether we should list which number jury member each one was (if they even made it to that stage). Some edit wars have been going on—not only on this season, but tons of other seasons. Most of these have come from an IP user at 84.228.155.177. Before more edit wars continue, we should standardize it so there is a "correct" way to do it. An example is below, with the part in bold being the part that is disputed. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jury membership should be included; at this point, that table is already telling you what the boot order is, so there's no reason why not to include jurors. --M ASEM (t) 13:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Include juror status. No reason not to. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone's removed juror status from the Game table. So, what's the ruling?Simplebutpowerful 14:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep thejury membership. There is no reason not to.  It does not make it overcramped.Survivorfan44 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Merged tribe
A lot of rumors—and some spoilers—have been going around that the merged buff color for this season will be black. Instead of the incredibly (and blindingly) black colors used in other seasons like Pearl Islands and China, I think the best match for dark-colored fabrics such as black Survivor buffs would be the Timbira grayish-black. The proposal for the color is in the below table (with two contestants of each tribe). I know we can't upload the actual color to the template until the merge episode airs (when we find out the tribe name). —Untitledmind72 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is proven that the merge buff for this season is black.
 * Second, I can say with certainty that many of the black buffs ever used on Survivor differ in darkness, as I am a collector of Survivor Buffs myself.
 * Balboa, Aitutonga and Timbira are dark gray, but not pure black.
 * Gitanos and Hae Da Fung are deep, concentrated black.
 * As of now, we have no idea what the merge tribe (rumored to be named Yin Yang)'s exact color will be. It may happen to be a dark gray, or simply plain black. We must wait until CBS releases an official design picture of the buff, or until it can be identified from the episode.
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with 192. Before we decide on a colour, we should wait until CBS releases an official design. For all we know, the buff might not actually even be black or dark-grey. For example, it could be a really dark shade of purple. -- Meäghân  talk   20:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the buff of Danielle at 0:13 in this preview? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_NI6iGhAag&playnext_from=TL&videos=siZkF4U_xws&feature=sub --Maxime9232 (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's closer to option 3, Black. Arsenic is way too light and Prussian Blue has too strong a tint of blue. Compare the buff's base color with the border of the season's logo (which we have official images proving it to be a pure black) printed on the buff and you'd see that they're almost the same shade. From the shots of these buffs in the preview they may be so very slightly lighter and bluer than pure black. I'd go with


 * . But, in my opinion, we'd better wait until we get more footage, or until CBS releases a detailed design picture.
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think 192's colour looks pretty accurate; there does seem to be a tint of blueish-grey, however we should wait until there's more footage. Just fyi, CBS buff picture's are not actual pictures of buffs; they're just a mock-up to show the design, and they're not always the actual colour. For example, CBS's picture of the Villains buff is much darker than the actual colour.

Preview of table with 192's colour: --  M e a g h a n ) ≈ 22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need a more accurate fabric representation, such as this. Buffs are not computer-generated colors, so a pure black on a computer screen is not a pure black on a buff. There is quite a difference. It would look like..., which is #161616. This is the same color as the Aitutonga black buff. I know the colors aren't final, but this seems pretty good. Thoughts? —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 00:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the color of the buff may often seem lighter than pure black (Fabric texture, ambient lighting, etc. With these factors considered, pretty much nothing we can see in this world is "pure black" by definition.), Plus, I can testify that the colors of the buffs used on the show really are as vivid and bold as can be represented on the screen. Some black buffs are actually almost close to pure black. For example, I have bought a Gitanos (Season 12 merge) buff myself, and it literally is as black as you can get it to be. Do know that Aitutonga's buff is gray instead of pure black – it pales in comparison to Gitanos. Literally.
 * We can put this discussion as it is until the episode airs. Even if we don't settle on a consensus then, eventually I'll buy the buff anyway and get more information on the matter. =)
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

After watching tonight's episode, i think the color is Arsenic, because it's like blue and gray, it's a color between those 2.... and the only one i found was arsenic. Gonzalochileno (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the mock-up, for reference.
 * http://www.planetbuff.com/images/BLKMERGEDTHISISIT.bmp.png
 * The color on that is, in fact, #000000. After watching the episode, I'd say that the buff's color is probably the same as the color of the border of the Survivor logo (which we know is black) printed on the buff. So I suggest we change it to #000000.
 * By the way, I ordered the buff – should be able to see it in real life pretty soon. If that can't help me decide, I don't know what will. =)
 * Suggestion:


 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ep7 IC
The net part retrieving puzzle pieces is from Survivor Africa alone, and not Survivor Guatemala where they had to climb on a spider web net in Guatemala and fall into water, where this challenge is an adaptation to the one in Africa it has no reference to in HvV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.134.147 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/recaps/304/recaps.php?season=3, where they list challenge as Caught in Web, and

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/recaps/1102/recaps.php?season=11, where challenge is Web Over Water and is completely different from the one played in HvV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.134.147 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you guys putting in Vanuatu in the Ep7 IC as a reference, the challenge is totally from Survivor Africa besides for the puzzle, which is from Survivor Cook Islands, someone take out the Guatemala and Vanuatu parts because they are not relevant. I cannot edit that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.44.79.170 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note about Sandra
Should the note about Sandra playing the idol be included? It's the same situation as Alex in Fiji and Russell H. in Samoa in that they played the idol when they didn't receive votes. Obviously, Russell H. played a second idol later that season so a note was added beside his vote tally, but there wasn't any note added to Alex's vote tally in the Fiji article so should Sandra's note be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.89.191 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The New Voting Table Format
I posted my opinion on the Samoa talk page after the consensus was already reached, but I'll open the discussion again here. I absolutely detest this new format! I don't like that if I want to see how a particular post-merge castaway voted throughout the game, then I have to look at the first table and find their name in alphabetical order, then scroll down and re-find them in the second table in the new order of finish and continue from there. That's a lot less convenient and more confusing than having to scroll slightly to the right to see the end votes. The old version of the table was organized just fine. If size is that big of an issue, then perhaps using a smaller text size would be a more reasonable solution. I posted a smaller version of the whole table on the Samoa talk page that I think solves the problem. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you... The old format is much better. I support reverting it to the old format. If size was the only issue with the old one, then the act of adopting this new format is absolutely unnecessary.
 * 192.83.228.119 (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm indifferent to the change from one table to two. Smaller text size can cause readability problems, but probably not anything more serious than the already existing poor color contrast. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Color contrast really shouldn't be an issue. If those are the colors used by the show, then those are the ones used in the tables. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The show doesn't have a voting table, with a coloured background and text displayed on top. The blue footnotes on a blue background are particularly bad. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the full connected table. I like reading across each castaway's lines at a time, and that gets hard when it's discontinuous like with the current format.  Shrinking the font size will make at least the first 38 days of every season fittable within a normal screen; if you want to and have to, we could make the Jury votes separate, but I think everything should be continuous and fittable with a small text size adjustment, judging by the example given on Samoa's talk page.Simplebutpowerful 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Either format is fine with me. I don't think it would be a bad idea to separate the jury votes; sometimes it can get hard to see who the early jurors voted for because of all the grey background. I've created an example with the jury votes separated and the text at 95% at User:Meaghan/Sandbox. Thoughts? --  M e a g h a n ) ≈ 23:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Meaghan's format better than the split merge format currently in use, but I still prefer the original whole-season format with no splitting. Can we at least get a consensus to revert back to the original format for now, and then decide what to do about the jury votes later? This split format truly is horrid. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with reverting back to the old format and separating the jury votes at the Final Tribal Council. However, I don't feel changing the font size is necessary. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Im personally 100% against the new table. Its harder to read and makes it seem as if there were two seperate games - almost as if things reset at the merge. I dont see what the problem would be in reducing the size of the font just for the tables but as an alternative, I would suggest just putting jury votes in one drop, like the tables used in the Big Brother tables? (Kyleofark (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

So it's clear that all of us dislike this new format or are indifferent. Can we make it into one table again? Then as for the jury votes, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the old table format better. Never mind having to scroll so as long that there is less confusion in showing the game. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also like Meaghan's example, though as MarkMc1990 pointed out, we can deal with the Jury a little while later. Looks like the consensus has spoken.Simplebutpowerful 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers
I read this page earlier today that had the list of people voted out in future episodes. I undid that edit straight away. I find it totally disrespectful to those people who would rather find out the outcome by watching the episodes. Luckily I didn't read anyone's name specifically, so I don't know who was voted off. But please, DON'T ADD ANY SPOILERS!!!!
 * I hear and agree; especially with the pre-rumored merge name Yin Yang (see above) going accurate, I'm now scarred with the fear for the lives of each person claimed next to be eliminated.Simplebutpowerful 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol
A discussion about the deletion of Tyson Apostol is going on at Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol. It will be closed in around 3 days days. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandra's vote total in the contestants section
I don't see it necessary to put "0" with the footnote explaining the idol she played considering she didn't get any votes. That's only necessary when the contestant actually received votes that therefore don't count, to clear up potential confusion why they aren't included in the contestant's total. Since Sandra didn't get any votes, no one should be confused, so it's kind of redundant to put the 0 in there when it could be left blank like Rupert/Candice/Danielle who also haven't gotten any votes yet. I say we leave the cell empty until she actually does receive some votes. Thoughts? MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The current number in the column for each contestant is a running total. The question then becomes whether Sandra has accumulated any votes, canceled or not, to be totaled; the answer is, unlike Parvati, she hasn't. So, while the zero may not belong by that logic, it still serves as an attaching point for the footnote. My opinion is that any footnote in that column merits a running count attached to it, so I'd say leave the zero. But, it could go either way.Simplebutpowerful 20:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably safe to assume Sandra will have at least one vote cast against her in the coming days, so her vote count should be listed as "0" with a footnote following to indicate the use of a Hidden Immunity Idol. Adding two numbers really wouldn't make a significant difference. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 21:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel like the footnotes' purpose are, not to indicate the use of an HII, but rather to explain why some votes that a contestant received aren't counted in their total. Since Sandra didn't even get any votes, I don't feel like the footnote really even serves any purpose. Her playing the idol had no effect whatsoever. Do you get where I'm coming from? MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do understand now. Either way, I'm indifferent. It really doesn't make a significance in my opinion. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 20:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, Sandra's playing of the HII concerns the votes. These footnotes generally comprise every playing of HIIs, so even though Sandra's playing it has not changed her vote count, I say the note belongs.Simplebutpowerful 20:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it's a problem to include the note, but if we do decide to keep it, one needs to be added to last seasons's article, for when Russell played his first idol even though nobody had voted for him. (The tribal when Erik was eliminated) (Kyleofark (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC))


 * And to Fiji, where Alex (either he or Mookie) did likewise in the Final Nine.Simplebutpowerful 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem
The entire episode was spoiled yesterday because someone had put that Amanda was the next to go 3 days before it aired and it was correct. This spoiler thing needs to be fixed.--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the entire progression for the season has been posted online since the second week. It is a problem.  I generally don't like semi-protecting these pages, but I can see a reason for it, given the frequency with which unsourced spoilers are being posted. Anyone else have any comments about this? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Usually, the IP spoiler edits are reverted relatively quickly—most users don't even get the opportunity to see them. But this is definitely a problem for the users who go in and revert the edits; they're the ones who are getting the spoilers in their face. In fact, this has unfortunately happened to me. I have laid my eyes on the spoilers in an effort to get rid of them (but don't worry, I ain't gonna spoil 'em to y'all, 'cause that'd be downright depressin'). I just hope and pray—every day—that them there spoilers ain't gonna be true. Oh dear...this is most definitely a problem. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.40.244.209, 2 May 2010
I noticed the finale is erroneously stated as being on May 23. In actuality, the finale is on May 16. If I'm not mistaken, the finale date was changed from the correct date to the incorrect date by Plastikspork. The finale date of May 16 is very well documented. Here are a few sources...

http://twitter.com/JeffProbst/status/11915316196 http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/15/cbs-sets-season-finale-schedule/48745 http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/03/25/jeff-probst-blogs-survivor-heroes-vs-villains-episode-6/ http://www.zap2it.com/zap-2010-season-finales-pictures,0,7040092.photogallery?index=22

68.40.244.209 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The date wasn't changed by me. Thanks for fixing it though. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's been blindsided?
So far, Cirie is listed as definitely blindsided - and I agree. Rob is implied as blindsided - also accurate. Though he's not listed as such, I'd say Coach was blindsided as well. Now, J.T.: he revealed his shock ("D--- it") during Tribal Council as the votes were revealed, so...was he blindsided?Simplebutpowerful 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Tyson was undoubtedly blindsided. Simplebutpowerful 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blindside is a term that should only be used if someone on the shows says it regarding someone's departure, whether its Jeff or the person outed or someone else after the vote. It implies the person had zero to little idea they were at risk when they were outed. All those people that left with idols in previous seasons, like James or Ozzy? Those were blindsides.  Same with Edgardo.  Rob wasn't blindsided, he knew he was going to be a voted name, just not knowing if it was for or against him. Even Cirie's outing is difficult to classify as a blind side.
 * We should never use that term unless the show explicitly says it, since it is a loaded term that is OR if we say it otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. Yes, that makes sense, and sounds to conform to Wikipedia policies. Simplebutpowerful 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You could just use " JT was unexpectedly voted out"--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unexpectedness is basically what a blindside is - when someone had expected they were safe. In J.T.'s case, he - and we viewers - all knew going into the vote it might be him if things worked out for the Villains. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think the "unexpected" wording ever really fits well. If it can apply, the wording is better put as a blindside.Simplebutpowerful 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tyson wasn't blindsided either because him and Rob both had said that Russell was targeting him.--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he thought that at first, but Tyson was pretty confident he wasn't going home when he deviated from the plan and voted Parvati instead of Russell. I think Russell tricked him into a sense of security. Simplebutpowerful 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Coach wasnt blindsided because he knew that Courtney annd Sandra were trying to get him out.--Antonio cruzazul (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Title quotes
Should we add who said the titles quotes said by respective players like you all do in the Amazing Race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.63.72 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus from discussions about this topic in previous seasons was not to include this as it was trivia and did not add substantially to the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand now, but I always thought it was weird that the Amazing Race has it and Survivor does not when the quotes are often said by contestants. I understand though, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.63.72 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus can vary from article to article. The Survivor editors have concluded that the information is trivial, while The Amazing Race editors have concluded that they want the information.  It is inconsistent, but well... that's Wikipedia. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll put my two cents in: I'd like noting who said the title quotes.  If relevant to the summary of the episode (which they often are), the origins of the title quotes could be noted within the summary paragraphs, or else listed separately and formally.  The former'd makes the inclusion less "trivial". Simplebutpowerful 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if we are going to !vote again, I agree with the prior consensus that this information is trivial. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the same opinion as before. The information is trivial.  Who said the title quote has zero bearing on the game.  There are not consequences in game for anything related to what the title is.  Adding it into the summary paragraphs just buries the trivia elsewhere and doesn't make it less trivial.  I have similar opinions to the challenge names found on the CBS website episode summaries.  The name of the challenge doesn't make any impact. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jury Vote break down
Can someone point out a source explaining where they got the info concerning how the season finale jury votes were split. I watched the season finale which I have TIVOed. I know for a fact that Candace, Courtney, and Rupert voted for Sandra; and Jerri, Danielle, and Coach voted for Parverti. As each person voted they showed us their vote, but they didn't show JT's, Colby's, and Amanda's vote. At New York, the votes that were read during the reunion were split (5-3). Jeff didn't read one of the votes so how does the wiki know how JT, Colby, and Amanda voted? What's the source?

This is how it appears in the wiki....

Xybernauts (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The votes, finale votes included, are always (or at least 98% of the time) revealed to maximum suspense, revealing the most without giving away who's eliminated (or, the case of the finale, won). If the last vote had been for Parvati, or for Russell, then it almost certainly would have been shown previously. Therefore it is practically given that all not shown to vote for Parvati had voted for Sandra. Simplebutpowerful 18:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what your saying and it sounds logical, but the info isn't official; it's just an assumption. Until it's actual confirmed by official source I think it's wrong to say otherwise. It's like saying the earth is flat just because we can stand on it's surface. It sounds logical, but just because it sounds logical doesn't mean it's true. The wiki should reflect what we know for certain, not what we think. A better example might be, look what happened to JT. He made some big assumptions based on info he thought was logical, look how that turned out. 76.105.119.125 (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from too, but in my opinion some assumptions can be safely made, and this is one of them. In science, a 95% confidence interval is acceptable; as I said above, I estimate at least 98% assuredness that Sandra factually attained all three unshown votes. Simplebutpowerful 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to report what is verifiable, not what we as editors believe to be true. I see no fault in the logic which leads you to believe the unseen votes were cast for Sandra, and I'm sure you are correct, but that just does not meet the standards for inclusion.  By now the point is probably moot, as I'm sure CBS has posted the votes on the Survivor website and we can use that as a reference.  I'd check it to be sure, except "entertainment" websites are blocked by our firewall here.  The other poster is correct--without independent verification, it does not belong in the article. LarryJeff (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the recap at the official website and it did say Sandra got six votes. It didn't expound further though. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should only report what we can confirm and not speculate. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If they showed that Jerri, Danielle, and Coach voted for Parvati and stated that Sandra got six votes, then that would be enough to fill in the rest. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But where did it say she got six votes? Ok great then. So I'm gonna change the vote to reflect what we can verify then. When someone finds a credible source and posts an actual link that can be verified we can change the info accordingly. Xybernauts (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just showing edit Xybernauts (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandra's six total votes is on the CBS episode summary: ...and with six out of the nine votes cast in her favor... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But is casting a vote in someones favor the same as casting a vote for someone? For example, if Sandra got 4 votes, Parvati got 3, and Russell got 2 votes, even though Sandra didn't get the two votes that went to Russell those votes worked in her favor because it prevented Parvati from getting the votes she needed to make it a tie. So technically having votes work in your favor doesn't necessarily mean those votes went to Sandra. Xybernauts (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is fairly safe to say that cast in her favor means that the votes were cast for her. Attempting to twist the wording around to say that it could mean that other votes were cast for Russell is stretching it a bit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

article is crewed up in contestants
ok i just checked the placing of contestents and some russell lover said he won and sundra's name has beeen replaced with sonjia what sandra won and russell is third huge typo hereMrInhibitor (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The vandalism has been reverted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There may have been some sort of strange effect because of the vandalism. I can't find another discussion for it so I don't know what else could have caused it, but Russell's page has been deleted or something like it. If this wasn't somehow caused by the vandalism, then could someone at least point out why the page was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.24 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't deleted. It was redirected.  See Russell Hantz leads you to this article.  The decision to redirect it was made at Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (2nd nomination) or earlier at Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Unknowingly pay homage"
You can unknowningly pay homage. Paying homage is a conscious and intentional action. I suggest that this phrase be deleted or rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.126.26 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Survivor: Redemption Island results shouldn't go here
The past couple of weeks have seen additions to the intro section as people give updates on a completely different season, Redemption Island. Not only does this potentially spoil the current season for someone using wikipedia to review HvsV, but it has almost nothing to do with this season in the first place. Referring readers to the new season is the extent of the relevance. That kind of info all belongs on the Redemption Island page, so I'm removing it here. Feel free to make a case otherwise. Jerodast (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the results should be included because every other season of Survivor that is covered on wikipedia does have the results of the contestants the next time they play. Feel free to look for yourself. But I don't really care either way. I just thought that I'd point this out.

65.214.69.226 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)