Talk:Survivor: Philippines/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because this Survivor season has been officially confirmed --Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --99.235.162.35 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --99.235.162.35 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Article name
Alright, so I goofed and misspelled "Philippines". However, the major problem is that the page Survivor Philippines already exists for the Filipino version of the show. What should we do with this page? Should we change it to something like "Survivor: Philippines (US season)" or should we move the original "Survivor Philippines" page? Having the colon in the middle for this page doesn't seem to be an option according to the Wikipedia programming. - Katanin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a problem because it had said "Survivor: Philippines" on the logo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Template
There is a survivor template out there: made by User:BuickCenturyDriver while im sorry for two articles to have been made at once it does happen, I hope we can use this templete somehow here or in the future as it does make things more easy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"The"
If the logo says "Survivor: Phillipines" that should be the title. However, I would check CBS.com to verify the official title. If Survivor: Phillipines is indeed the official title, then we can safely delete Survivor: The Phillipenes as it is a duplicate article. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The logo is here, it says "Survivor: Philippines". - Katanin (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll have to be careful when we type it in the seach box. One article (25th season) has a colon and one (castaways from the Phillipines) doesn't.  I have to admit, the country's name is a tricky name to spell — one "L" and two "P"'s.  It's easy to spell it the other way around delude yourself into think there was no article and the need for a lot of typo redirects.  –BuickCenturyDriver 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An easier, surefire way to reach the US article: Survivor 25 (a redirect)
 * Do you think a dab page would make things more easy? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think mispelled versions should redirect to the correctly spelled version. The duplicate was created when I was unaware of one that existed.  If you mean a "dab" page to be a template, then yes.  A template creates the infoboxes and contestant tables.  All we do is fill the names in as they get revealed later.  –BuickCenturyDriver 04:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One Tribe's Name Confirmed
See this Video The preview provide a glimpse at a yellow flag, confirming one of the tribe names will be Tandang. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the preview also shows a red and blue flag as the 2 other tribe colors pieniazek666 16:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem - This preview was recorded before May 13th. The show hasn't actually started recording yet. The tribe colors and names may still be tentative. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that show is already recorded... Maybe this is worth putting in. Anyone want to determine what exact colors the red, yellow, and blue are? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the preview is on the cbs website and based on the fact that we know they have started filming it already i'm sure those are going to be the colors pieniazek666 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing is whether or not Tandang is the merged tribe. We'll just have to stay tuned for what the red and blue flags are.  As for the show that started recording, that's the 26th installment and that will air next Spring.  –BuickCenturyDriver 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * they have never revealed the merge tribe name before the season started from what i know plus we know there are 3 starting tribes pieniazek666 21:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On top of that, the only paraphernalia, if you will, that the merge name ever shows up directly on on location is the tribe flag that the merged tribe creates, so if a flag carried by a castaway or a buff you see has a name on it, it's a premerge tribe name Stjimmy61892 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually the merged tribe does make up their own name, but in the previous season, the name was assigned to them. I do agree that the colors and name seen are likely the starting tribe names, but my opinion would be to leave it out of the article until the other two tribe names are known.  It isn't imperative that the single tribe name is listed right now.  Waiting for when the castaway list is released is fine in my opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we know "Tikiano" was the producers idea? –BuickCenturyDriver 14:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously with great power comes great idiocracy to Gogo Dodo, the merge tribe name is determined by the castaways (remember Dabu? completely made up) Tikiano was Tarzan/Troyzan I forget. Where is your source that Te Tuna was producer picked? 62.60.118.38 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, don't disrespect other users. It's not cool (and it pisses some of us off greatly). That said, CBS has had a history of being misleading, but being so misleading as to show a merged tribe instead of one of the three original tribes in this case would be beyond them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks for being so civil for correcting my vague memory. But my general point still stands: the revealed name is likely one of the starting tribes and there is no need to put it in without the other two tribe names. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree here, it seems silly to put one tribe name without the other two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Unless someone can some how make out the other two names from the promo video (or any other future promo video), leave the tribes off. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * watched preview a bunch of times and i believe i made out Kalabaw on the red flag and Matsing on the blue Pieniazek666 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us the exact time on the video, the flags are blurred so I don't know where you got these names from. I would definitely love to see it for myself.  –BuickCenturyDriver 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/entertainment/05/15/12/cbs-releases-survivor-philippines-preview video time 0:39 could make out clearly labaw with couple letters to the other side so i looked up philippine names and stuff and then at 1:10 on the buff you can make matsi so i looked on that Pieniazek666 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You can hardly make out a thing in those shots, rather than going on what we see which is borderline WP:OR why dont we just wait for a source with the tribes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if you put the video in full screen it can be seen better Pieniazek666 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind of reminds me of a scene from Ghostwrtier where the kids ask GW (a ghost that can read text) to decode a blurred message on a video. The episode's name is "Get the Message".  –BuickCenturyDriver 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Knowledgekid87 that the decoding of the name is a little borderline. It is not imperative that the tribe names or even colors be added to the article this very instant.  I think we can wait until there is a clear, reliable source for the names. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with waiting to add the names, since the other two are unconfirmed. But there's nothing wrong with discussing it with other curious fans.  I just know the yellow tribe will be Tandang.  That's the only name to appear clearly in the video.  –BuickCenturyDriver 09:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * i can agree with that. besides it will probably be a while before they announce contestants and all that Pieniazek666 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempts to post the names were rebuffed, and it led to the page getting protected from IP editing. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The lastest attempt, likely to be reverted. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I reverted as the current consensus here looks to be wait. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will work. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.interaksyon.com/article/31926/survivor-philippines---there-will-be-three-tribes-tandang-kalabaw-and---. wondering would this be a reliable source for the tribe names. Pieniazek666 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support the source, but let's see what other have to say. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Summer long rumors have been confirmed. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Notability of survivor contestants
in light of recent redirects of the winner of Survivor: South Pacific, there is a heated discussion on another former contestant: feel free to dig in 209.117.47.251 (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning castaways
One thing we can agree on, waiting until the castaway list is revealed, as this attempt was rebuffed. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Premiere Date
Is there any truth behind the rumours that the release date of September 19 is a mistake, and that the show won't actually start until mid November? TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not a rumor. it has been confirmed to be a sept. 19th premiere with it being 90 minutes. Pieniazek666 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cast (besides the 3 returnees) Revealed!
Update the page people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9tOC9tu15E&feature=player_embedded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.65.112 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Tribe colors
The Thai article has published the tribe colors of Tandang, Matsing and Kalabaw and they are:, and.

Is anyone confirmed on some published sources? ApprenticeFan work 05:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Matsing could be a lighter blue, if there are any pics of it. Anyone interested in presenting other shandes of blue?  –BuickCenturyDriver 23:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Joining in on the discussion. My suggestions –
 * {|class="wikitable"

! Tribes
 * bgcolor="#190ADC" align="center"|Matsing
 * bgcolor="#CD002D" align="center"|Kalabaw
 * bgcolor="#E6F00A" align="center"| Tandang
 * }
 * 114.243.7.60 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * bgcolor="#E6F00A" align="center"| Tandang
 * }
 * 114.243.7.60 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tangdang is kind of like Kota where the yellow has a feint lime/neon tint to it. The color being used now is way too "school bus yellow" and nowhere near accurate. The example the person before me provided looks about right. Matsing blue should have a somewhat violet hue.MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * bgcolor="#2305D2" align="center"|Matsing
 * }
 * Same IP user as above; changed Matsing from #190ADC to #2305D2.
 * 110.232.37.248 (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 110.232.37.248 (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Found the actual color of Tandang tribe . ApprenticeFan  work 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What are the current colors being used to represent the tribes in this article? 201.10.162.141 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual episode summaries are out of control
This has been trending for several seasons but these individual episode summaries are becoming far far too verbose. They should be treated as plot summaries, which means they need to be concise. Because we have no idea what alliances will work out until they actually have something happen at TC or otherwise, its not necessarily to include every "who talked to who" discussion shown. Go with the plot threads that the show itself seemed to emphasize : Russell not wanting to be the lead but ended up being one; Penner already hunting for the HII, etc. But the level of detail of the premiere episode here is unwarranted. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As the one primarily writing these summaries, I do try to keep it short as possible, excluding things shown that make no obvious impact on the game. I do skip what I feel are non-essential conversations or events like the first episode's fire starting or Jeff's knee injury.  I'll try to keep things as short as possible, but I do see that the summary has been expanded some by other editors.  I do admit that I get wordy from time to time.  -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tribe name translations
I have removed the tribe name translations again as I feel that such information is more like trivia and does not add to the understanding of the game. The names of the tribes and their translations have no particular bearing on the outcome of the game. It is not like a tribe gets a particular advantage for being associated with a monkey, rooster, or carabao. Past season's articles have also not included this information so there is a certain amount of precedent set. It could also potentially cause problems if the merged tribe comes up with some mangled Tagalog word that they think means something, but really doesn't (Murlonio anyone?). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have a source from the show that confirms the tribe name translations, that's fine. People inserting their own, on the other hand... --M ASEM  (t) 04:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, feels more like the episode title quotation source thing that comes up from time to time. Interesting trivia, but generally clutter, in my opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a native speaker of Tagalog so no, no fabricated origins here. --Chris S. (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if I remember the episode right, no one never mentioned the meanings of the names. So why bother? Also, as Gogo already mentioned, the merged tribe would make up their own name. Many versions follow this. However, the Philippine version is among the exceptions because the producers there come up with a merge name that fits the pattern of the initial tribes. Of course, tribe name patterns are not known immediately to both the castaways and the viewers unless told. And since no one mentioned the meanings of the names in this edition, I agree with Gogo that the merge will come up a name that does not exactly fit the pattern. Look at China: Initially we have a Lion-Tiger battle, but in the merge, the name "Hae Da Fung" ("Black Typhoon") doesn't fit anymore. Now, I may stray from the topic, but the point is, what is the relevance of the names if they were not emphasized the game itself? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with taking the section out. I think it would be reasonable to expect that this would be one of the things someone reading the article would be interested in. True, it may not have anything to do with the outcome of the game. But the names of the players have no bearing on the outcome of the game yet they are included. By the way, the origins of the tribe names are mentioned in the articles for Survivor: Vanuatu, Survivor: South Pacific, and possibly others. In fact, I'm rather puzzled why this information is not included in the rest of the Survivor articles. If you feel it's trivial, then perhaps we can include the information another way (not necessarily its own section). --Chris S. (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This information is giving about the tribe names are taken from Survivor Wikia website, one of the users there (IAmNothing712) Ian Kevin Sevilla is a Filipino and is an administrator of that site. He gives trivia about the tribes, historical info and location. ApprenticeFan  work 09:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Should there be an asterisk next to Kalabaw's RC win in episode 6?
They didn't really win the challenge, they negotiated a deal to end the challenge. Kajillion (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dana's "Quit Due to Illness"
Since a certain IP has been changing one of Dana's cells to just "Quit" from "Quit Due to Illness" and I've been reverting it, I thought I would post why I have been reverting it. Dana's quitting for essentially circumstances out of her control is very different than Kelly S. and NaOnka from Survivor: Nicaragua where they just outright quit. I think that the circumstances should be noted and the entry should remain "Quit Due to Illness". The IP changing it on just a single cell makes no sense either. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Quit Due to Illness" is accurately correct. It sounded like that she was going to be checked 12 hrs later if she opted to stay in the game and be judged then. She wasn't pulled by the medical team, but she was given the option to leave on her own terms, which she took. This wasn't an Osten quit, which Probst still despises to this day. --M ASEM (t) 15:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff biased (controversy)
Jeff is notably more biased in this season. Katie was interviewed several times by reputable sources like http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20642718,00.html in it she believes jeff was biased towards her. She also believes that caused other's opinions of her to change. This may not need a seperate section but it can be entered into the down and dirty section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.164.105 (talk • contribs)


 * Jeff pointing out people not performing during challenges isn't anything new. And until a third party starts to allege bias by Jeff instead of Katie herself in an interview, then there isn't much of a controversy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Voting history
Do we really need an enire column on Dana's evacuatation even if there was no vote? That is pretty much wasted space and not needed. She should just be put above Russell and below Dawnson where all the players names are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Precedent from past seasons is to include the column even though there was no vote. See the previous season and all of the other times people have voluntarily or involuntarily left the game. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What if it gets changed for all of the seasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is consensus for the change then it can be done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Well i think it may look better if it does get changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been saying for several seasons now that the empty column for quitters and evacuees is an unnecessary waste of space. The section/table is called "Voting History", NOT "elimination history", so only eliminations based on votes should be listed there. Notes at the bottom could explain why Dana and the others in previous seasons are absent after a certain point. On the America's Next Top Model call-out order/elimination tables, quitters are not included because they didn't take part in the call-out. Just like quitters and evacuees don't take part in a vote. The same principle applies. The tables are already wide as is, so eliminating the unnecessary columns would be a definite improvement. The empty columns also disrupt the flow if I do say so myself (for example, at first glance it looks like Denise's tribe was immune for a TC due to the blank space for Dana's column). MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is how I feel. If we can get this changed that would be great. There could be a little note by Dana's name, or anyone else who left the game besides being voted out, that that is what happened. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the removal of the "empty space" may improve the quality of the table; however, I think something needs to be added to it. Like this?

Voting history
No vote: Dana chose to quit due to illness.

Jonathan played the hidden immunity idol; the five votes against him did not count.

Yay or nay?--108.11.219.83 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No. To me, it makes it look like Dana quit during the vote out of Dawson, which was that what happened. If you really want to remove Dana column, then it should be removed in its entirety, not tried to merge it into another column. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gogo Dodo. The question though then becomes where to put the ref tag. Next to Dana's name in the voter column? Or in her episode 5 cell? I'd prefer the former. Another issue that would need confronting is situations like Osten/Janu/NaOnka/Purple Kelly who quit AT tribal council. Do we still skip them, or give them a column because a tribal council still took place? At least in my perspective, laying down your torch at TC seems like a slightly different situation than quitting at camp that might warrant its own column. But I'm not adamant either way. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the issue here is that we can't just leave Dana blank. I think the voting table is fine as is and I don't see the need to change what has been for 25 seasons, but if anything, it might look "okay" if we colspan the votes during that episode? The tribal councils would then be connected, and we could keep everything as is now.--TheDevin13 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On my profile page, I have a version of the Survivor: Micronesia voting table where I merely put the evac's/quitter's names above the voted out persons'. What do you think? MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes i like the way you did that. It looks much better MarkMc1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Still looks slightly weird to me. What really needs to be decided is what exactly is the point of the table: is it to show the votes at TCs only or to show the fate of all of the castaways (one could say it was a detailed version of the Total votes column of the Contestants table).


 * If the point of the table is to show what votes occurred during TC, then anybody who quit or was evaced should not be listed at all since there were no votes and nothing happened at TC.*


 * If the point of the table is to show a detailed view of the Total votes column of Contestants table, then the quitters/evacs should be left in with a blank vote (i.e., status quo).


 * * I do think that certain exceptions should be made if choice 1 is determined to be the way to go. If you quit at TC like Osten, NaOnka, or  Kelly S., then a column with blank votes should there because they were at TC when it happened. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it's to show what happened at TC. Therefore, evacuations and quits outside of tribal need not have an entire column devoted to them. I actually don't care if we put "quit" in their last episode cell or just have a ref tag somewhere, but the blank columns need to go. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest, though, that for the Osten/Janu/NaOnka/PK situations that we still shade the background of the cells to make it more visually obvious which tribe was at TC even if there are not votes cast. I think, especially in the merge portion, the blank background stands out too much among the colored columns that border it. Does that make sense? MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes i get what you are saying. I think that would look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the Pearl Islands voting table to the bottom of my page to show what it would look like if we shaded the cells for the tribe at TC when someone quits (I also wrote No vote in them so it's not completely empty and also more accurate and less ambiguous). Gogo Dodo, would you be ok with this idea? MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So the only change was Osten's column? I'd like to see what this season's table would look like before I would agree to any change to the format. I don't like the original proposed table at the top of this section per my previous comments. I'd like to see a consensus for this season's table first as I think that would drive some of the changes to previous seasons. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but keep in mind Osten quit at tribal council, that's why he's listed there and there are the "No vote" labels. In Dana's case, as well as all the other outside-of-TC quits/medevacs, their eliminations won't have a column (if I get consensus to remove them). MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right and I agree so far. I'd still like to see a sample of this season's table built with Dana's column removed so that we can agree on a final table. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The question then becomes what to do with Dana's cell in episode 5. Should it be blank since she was in the game at the beginning of the episode, or should it have a gray background since she quit before that episode's tribal council took place? The latter option looks cleaner imo, but also kind of makes it look like she quit in episode 4, which is why I'm ok with actually writing "Quit" in her cell. But anyway, how does this look?

Note that I ended up putting the ref tag next to her name in the contestants' column. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah i like the way that looks. Since she was not at tribal council her space in epsiode 5 should be grey. I think it looks good the way it is. I also like the way MarkMC1990 did the voting table with Pearl Islands & Palau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree: It looks like she was removed during episode four. I actually think it's fine the way it is now. We can't just leave her space blank. And most of you are talking as if you're ONLY looking at the voting table. People who look at the game table would be able to tell who won immunity, who didn't, and what happened. --TheDevin13 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone reads the entire article though, in fact the vote history tables are the main thing I look at. We could leave Dana's cell in episode 5 blank if you and others prefer, but I really think it's unacceptable to leave an entire column blank just to show she quit. As I said somewhere above, it makes it look like both tribes won immunity or something. Especially in Denise's case since of course she went to every TC so far. I have altered it to show Dana's cell blank with the ref tag in it. Does it look better? MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The footnoting of nothing is just strange looking. Footnotes are supposed to be there have an additional explanation of something, not to be a standalone element. I might agree to no column for Dana and no footnote either, but I'd have to see it.  And I'm still not entirely convinced that the removal is necessary at all, especially now that you say that you look at the voting history table mainly.  I'm still flip-flopping between removing it or leaving it alone.  The "it is wasted space" argument doesn't hold up a lot for me.  The removal of one column isn't going to make the table all that much narrower or all of a sudden make it easier to read.  The table is just going to be wide. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "wasted space" argument isn't even my main concern. I mainly don't like how it disconnects the tribal councils and can make it appear as if a contestant's tribe had immunity for a TC. With all due respect, I'm not understanding how all the proposed revisions look weird to you guys, but a gaping hole in episode 5 looks completely normal? Dana's final cell will be blank either way, but just because hers is doesn't mean everyone in that episode has to be. I'm also not sure why me saying that the voting table is the main thing I look at is making you not want to change it. Also, ANY amount of improvement is a good thing. The less wide the tables are, the better. Also allow me to remind everyone that the table is called "VOTING history" and NOT "elimination history" so why is it listing things that had nothing to do with votes? But I took the footnote out. MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dana's blank column (i.e., status quo) doesn't particularly bother me. I don't read it as being a particular tribe having immunity. On the other hand, I think I could live with your most recent proposal, but I would suggest that Dana's final on episode 5 be changed to the dark gray. To me, the dark gray means that she was ineligible to vote because she was out of the game. She wasn't at TC, so she wasn't eligible to vote, therefore should be dark gray.  Yeah, I know the same could be said for the tribe that has immunity since they are technically ineligible to vote at TC too, but they are still in the game.


 * Might I suggest one more "final" copy of the table and leave it open for others to either support or oppose? Sometimes it is easier to see how the discussion has progressed as get a final support/oppose thing going at the end instead of inlining changes.


 * Another suggestion is that if the proposal is accepted, I highly recommend including a few hidden comments about there being a consensus for the change. IPs have a habit of changing things back to old ways without consensus.  It is amazing how the IPs will drag back out things that have long been removed like the "Elimination notes" thing that still pops up from time to time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you described sounds like the original revision proposed in this section (by the IP "108"), just minus the word "Quit" in the dark gray cell. Does that sound accurate? MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, but it would be the usual "darkgray", not "gray". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed to show the dark gray. MarkMc1990 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is important because a contestant quitting or being evacuated affects the voting. The "wasted space" that shows a break in the voting history is kind of necessary, and for anyone who is familiar to how the Voting History table works, or how Survivor works, I'm sure that those fans would be able to realize that Dana quit during Episode five and Denise did not have immunity; if anyone thought that the blank space meant immunity, then they would think everyone had immunity in that episode because everyone is blank. I think the voting history tables are fine now. I see no reason to change.--TheDevin13 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Survivor 26
It's already been taped but the following source is unofficial, so if you're curious about rumors of where it took place, see this: Spoiler. Of course it's too early to create the article, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This better not be true. The returnees aren't even fan favorites; if I remember correctly, most of them were hated by the viewing community. Ugh, next season is gonna suck.--TheDevin13 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeff Probst will reveal the next Survivor on after the Reunion on either Subday Decmber 8 or Sunday December 15, so stay tuned. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Page for Denise
I say that we give Denise her own page (and Kim / Sophie / Natalie / anyone else). For many years, the precedent was that any major contestant got his/her own page. I do not see why that would still not work. Other shows give a separate page to every episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.129.31 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NN to determine the notability of a contestant and WP:1E which was cited when Natalie White's article was removed. - Katanin (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Final three listing order
Since there seems to be a slow edit war by a pile of IPs, I will post here that I concur with User:Katanin that. Therefore, the listing should be Lisa, Michael, Denise. I have inserted hidden inline comments to that effect, but one IP has already chosen to ignore it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * this shouldn't be the case!!! should be listed by alphabetical order by first name!!! the reunion show seating does not mean anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.195 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont really see what the big deal is and you should keep WP:COOL. What Gogo Dodo put in makes sense given how every season during the reunion they have the players seated in the order they got voted out the final three are seated in order on the bottom right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reunion seating order should not matter. For example, at the reunion, Angie and Russell were sitting in the "wrong order" (she was sitting in the spot that, by these rules, should have been reserved for fourth out). Does this mean that Angie outlasted Russell? Absolutely not. More than that, it's likely that Lisa was sitting where she was for the fan favorite reveal, with Jeff pointing out, "...just so happens that these two are sitting next to each other" -- sounds intentional to me. Again, clearly Michael and Lisa tied (though it's likely that, head-to-head, Lisa beats Mike - hence Penner's statement at the final tribal council that he thought it was likely that Michael wouldn't receive a vote (NOT Lisa)), this should be ordered alphabetically according to their first names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaWhel (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The deal is that the reunion doesn't mean anything! It tshould be in alphabetical order by name!!! THAT'S IT!!! Just because the runners-up were given the seating arrangement doesn't mean that is how they should be listed!!! They were not even voted off for crying out loud!!! what makes sense is for them to be in alphabetized order!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.56.124 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We've done seating order since the 3person vote where ties occur. No reason to change it here. --M ASEM (t) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It only happened twice. And in Fiji was alphabetized! C before D! So L comes befor M! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.56.124 (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that reunion seating doesn't always follow boot order but only in specific instances where there was animosity between two people who were to sit next to each other (e.g. Richard and Susan in All-Stars), or when two people were to sit together because of a common segment (e.g. Colton and Bill in One World). These have always had to do with personal relationships between the pre-jury members, and are the exceptions that exemplify the rule. Since there was no reason for Malcolm and Michael not to sit next to each other, the seating order is therefore following the rule. I also understand that this is the second occurrence but it is the rationale for the first occurrence that sets the precedent. This was debated here several years ago and the consensus was that reunion order determined that the person sitting next to the winner would be placed where the sole runner-up would go. - Katanin (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is bullcrap. I don't care anymore. You make stupid rules and assumptions. I hope you are happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.26.77 (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does it even matter? Both lost because they were horrible players in my opinion, especially Lisa so the order is OK. Haha--Luisrafael7 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just another voice thrown out here. I think Lisa should be listed first (under Denise) as alphabetically is how it's gone with Fiji and Caramoan 71.104.231.7 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reception?
I believe this season was pretty much well received, and i'm not talking about viewership. Some reviews and recaps would confirm that if you haven't read it from fans. So you should add that information.--Luisrafael7 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)