Talk:Survivor: Island of the Idols

Protection request 8-9-19
I have noticed an unregistered user continues to add a winner to the infobox, even though the season hasn't begun airing yet. Is it possible to protect this page to prevent this from happening? Also, the user that continues to vandalize Wikipedia like that should be banned I think, but it's not up to me. 2600:1003:B10A:EF7D:5C0A:624C:3693:7A87 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I submitted this artlcle and Survivor: Winners at War for protection earlier today, just waiting for an admin to take action. The same edit has been made by multiple IP addresses; I don't think blocking one will help us much. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of contestants
Is the number of contestants for Survivor: Island of the Idols 18 or 20? --TMProofreader (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s 20, but the unreleased contestants are hidden in the table. Jayab314  16:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Protection request 9/18/19
Unregistered users adding winners to the season article's infobox...has been getting way too out of hand. This article needs to be protected in my opinion. 173.79.201.217 (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Buff Colors
Where can I find a wiki where you can change the tirbe colors. The orange and purple are more lighter in this season.2603:9000:A003:9D00:688C:5B56:919D:5F76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can make a request here. Jayab314  00:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Episode 1 summary
Recently, I added a summary for the premiere episode. I tried to keep it as concise as I could, but there was a lot pertaining to the footage that aired. From what I've noticed, Survivor articles' episode summaries as of late cover lots of key points, especially when the episode is 90 minutes long as opposed to an hour, while the overall season summary (which is usually added after the finale) is about as concise as possible. I'm not looking to start any drama, but I don't see any reason to shorten the episode summary...at least not on a drastic level. 50.232.92.83 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Couple things to keep in mind: that was not a 90 minute episode. I mean, I know it ran for 90min, but that was 60min episode stretch with ads by CBS into 90.
 * Also, per MOS:TV, episode summaries here should normally be around 400 words, but that's the general aim for works of fiction. Whereas we're documenting a reality show here, conciseness should still be a priority. Trying to write to navigate all the alliances and the like may be overkill since at the end of the day, it is hindsight about who got to where that matters. --M asem (t) 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TV, the ideal length of an episode summary should be a brief summary of the plot (100–200 words) is applicable and should generally be brief but complete, including spoilers. There have been certain cases before where in order to be "breif, but complete," it had to go over the 200 word "maximum," and we can try to reach a consensus on here if possible if we want.
 * The main points of an episode that should 100% of the time be mentioned in the episode summaries are the challenges, the twists (ex: Island of the Idols, Redemption Island, Ghost Island, etc.), the idols in play (meaning if someone found one, told someone about one, etc.), tribal dynamics leading up to tribal council, and the actual tribal council. Albeit, that would be tough to do in under 200 words, which is why I believe we have to reach a consensus. Jayab314  22:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that there's a balance between size and what actually goes down. I've just seen that some of the past seasons have an excessive amount of the schemings going on that do not actually end up mattering in the long-term of the game. Establishing blindsides and other similar plays, that's important, but not like the details of the non-TC tribe schemings. It is probably best to avoid those unless it becomes important in the long-term (like, whatever season it was with Rob and Phillip and "Stealth-R-Us" about that earlier alliance that dominated the game. --M asem  (t) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Tom's hometown vs. current residence
The fact that he is Canadian and the first contestant on the show to have Canadian-citizenship is already mentioned in the article and doesn't need reinforcing in the table. The format is to use the contestant's current residence as listed on the CBS cast list. The format should not be broken to show that someone was born in Canada as it is a purely trivial fact to begin with. Jayab 314  02:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack in the jury?!
I made an edit removing "1st jury member" from Jack's column in the contestants list, but it was undone. I read the GoldDerby live blog and it did not say that. What is the truth here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.184.176 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeff addressed Jack as the 1st jury member when his torch got snuffed. Jayab  314  02:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I know Jack is in the jury, can someone please update the jury page so that it has 11 jurors and 3 finalists? Also, can you please edit the voting table so that it shows the remaining players' names with bright blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.184.176 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Day 27 temporary tribes
Using the precedent with Survivor: Ghost Island, the temporary tribes used on Day 27 should be reflected in the tables where needed. The cell color for each castaway will remain the same, but the font color will show each player's temporary Day 27 designation ("orange" or "purple"). Greggens (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jayab  314  22:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone undid that. I swear to GOD it was not me.

Page protect request
If I may make a suggestion, anonymous users keep vandalizing this article with fake spoilers (blatantly revealing elimination order, saying Chris Underwood is a finalist, etc...). I am not one of those people vandalizing the article, but it's been getting out of hand lately. I think the page should be semi-protected until at least the end of the season. 50.232.92.83 (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask for pending changes review so that IP's can still make edits, but they have to be reviewed to get accepted. Jayab  314  22:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Dan/Kellee Wikipedia Article
I feel like this controversy that the whole country knows about should get one of Dan or Kellee a Wikipedia article. Does anyone agree> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.184.176 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we try to avoid articles on persons notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) which anything tied to this season would be a part of. If they are notable for anything pre- or post-Survivor, then we can consider an article, but even with that, we'd had to focus any discussion on the controversy back to here. --M asem  (t) 22:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The controversy section of this article has good coverage of the subject. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did Jeff Varner have a Wikipedia article before the episode where he outed Zeke aired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.184.176 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jeff Varner's article was created on March 24, 2005. Jayab  314  14:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

On the edits attempting to move things around
who is doing these edits like - be aware that the controversy needs to be sections off on its own - it is a significant and major facet of this season, and extends beyond the game (outside of how Kellee was manipulated in being voted off and Dan's ejection). Merging the controversy into the episode articles doesn't help because the narrative of the controversy extends across multiple episodes. And as the fact it was a major part of this season, per WP:LEDE it needs to be summarized there, along with the major format change (Sandra and Rob). This is standard for WP articles. --M asem (t) 01:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Controversy sections are generally to be avoided if they are already mentioned elsewhere in the article, or can be adequately discussed in other sections of the article. Typically, Survivor controversies only warrant their own section when they involve something not covered in the rest of the article, such as the Parents Television Council (as in season 17), or contestants breaking local laws (as in season two), or game malfunctions (as in seasons three and four), or the reunion show stage not including people that normally should be included (as in seasons 26, 31, and 37). But anything considered controversial in season 39 can be adequately and thoroughly mentioned in the "Episodes" and "Reception" sections, as such events are part of the episode descriptions and also part of the critiques made by various entertainment writers who cover Survivor. Thus, there is no need for a separate Controversy section for this season's article. If it turns out that a standalone Controversy section is warranted, it will not be for the reasons that you think.
 * Also, not everything than can be included in an article like this should be. Some memories of this season simply won't stand the test of time. The things that we might consider important today might end up being just a footnote in history tomorrow. Greggens (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We generally want to avoid generic "criticism and controversies" sections which just gather random odds-and-ends of complaints towards a topic. Everything around Spilo was a singular controversy of this season and needs to be documented in a singular location for it to all make sense. What you are talking about is true if we were talking about, say, the general reptuation of Russell Hantz on the show, where it was the overall way he played the game; we should not create a separate section for that. But this mess with Spilo is definitely of major coverage on its own, which hurt the reception of the season, and is the type of thing that would be called out like the Purple Rock controversy from Survivor: Marquesas. --M asem  (t) 03:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The info in question is called out in the Reception and Episodes sections; not creating a separate section called "Controversy" would not cause the info in question to cease making sense. There is no reason to repeat that info in its own section. Why beat a dead horse? Greggens (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are ramifications of the issues around Dan which are properly part of the reception - in that the controversy soured the entire season. But it is silly to separate the events that led up to why several players, Survivor and CBS all apologized, why they spent time talking about what happened to the press, and why they are making rule changes. Burying the details in the episode table does not help. This is just like explaining the Purple Rock issue; the events are explained, as to lead into why people were upset and what the show was doing about it. --M asem (t) 04:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a disservice to readers to not have a section that explains the unusual episode-spanning issue coherently, particularly given its prominence in critics' comments in Reception. And to try to give the "big picture" of the issue in the context of Reception would be awkward. I don't think the explanatory section needs to be labelled "controversy" (although no better heading is coming to mind at the moment) but I do think the issue had such a huge impact on the season (and possibly future seasons) that it really must be its own section. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, this wasn't really a "controversy" to say - it was an incident that did have controversial aspects in how it was discussed on airing. I'm going to rename the section. --M asem (t) 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. Greggens (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Final Five buff color change
I have edited the tables in this article to reflect the fact that the Final Five castaways received buffs in a new color (charcoal grey with blue accents) alongside their relocation to the Island of the Idols. Considering that this new buff was presented as having symbolic significance in the show, and that the in-show chyron acknowledged this color change (the text went from a blue-to-lighter-blue gradient to a grey-to-blue gradient), I believe that the article should include it also. How does everyone else feel about this?

— Авария·витиевА  тая 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, someone reverted your edit. I can't restore it, because other people have edited after that.

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)  16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)