Talk:Survivor: San Juan del Sur

Tribe names
The tribe names for the upcoming season are Coyopa and Hunahpu, and the designated tribe colors are for Coyopa and  for Hunahpu. ApprenticeFan work 02:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Second TC votes
There are four "unknown" votes. Two are obvious but unsourced (Josh and Jaclyn) and two are unclear and unsourced (Alec and Dale). None of these votes can/should be filled in, until a reliable source (e.g., CBS or Jeff Probst) reveals them in some form or another. I have put a note in the voting history cells for these votes noting that they have not been revealed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When comparing episode five's votes with episode's two initial vote, there are two Baylor votes that look almost identical. Since Josh and Jaclyn's votes were explained/revealed, and Alec switched tribes, I believe that Dale voted for Baylor at Coyopa's second tribal council before the re-vote.  There is no way to source this, but the tweet question was very confusing to begin with, and the almost identical handwriting is almost a sure way to ensure that Dale voted for Baylor and Alec voted for Val.  The votes for "Baylor" in episode 2's first TC, episode 3's TC, and episode 5's TC all closely resemble each other.  The only Coyopa member at those three tribal councils, whose vote was once a mystery, was Dale.  SMSstopper0913 23:25, 22 October 2014


 * This is speculation where the only proof is handwriting, which is very little. The tweet from Dale is solid evidence and a very straight forward answer. He voted for Val. CCamp2013 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Episode Titles
Im not sure if this has been mentioned on another season or not, but is there a way to name who said the episode title? CCamp2013 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe like this:

I oppose this. It is more trivia than useful. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also oppose for triviality. - Katanin (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My only argument is that episode titles are kind of trivial also, they have no impact on the game. So if we were going to add the trivial fact of the episode title we might as well add the full trivial fact. I feel who said the quote should be added to the page somewhere, ANYWHERE because usually the quote is an important part of the episode. CCamp2013 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I bring this up, is because on The Amazing Race they put who said each title episode quote. CCamp2013 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but your argument is complete nonsense. By your logic, we can remove episode titles from articles about any and all other television shows. The titles are how the show producers want each episode to be know. Episode titles are not trivia. Who said them is. The Amazing Race articles are violating WP:TRIVIA. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont believe my argument is "complete nonsense" and I think the titles of the episode are necessary, as are who said them. I dont believe The Amazing Race is violating anything. I have read the WP:TRIVIA article many, many times and it's not a strict policy. It gives room for exceptions. Until others comment on this, saying its complete nonsense is uncalled for. CCamp2013 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong. People can watch every episode of Survivor and know precisely who said the quote is not going to make them understand what is going on any better. Someone else has already commented on this, and they called it trivia as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One other person has commented on this, hardly a majority. John Rocker's boot episode was titled "Actions vs. Accusations" stated by John himself. it was a HUGE part of the episode and a big part of the game. It could have been any one who said it, which would make it useless trivia, but it was John. The title and who said it was the basis for the episode. Along with a majority of other episode titles. CCamp2013 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One quote does not make the whole episode. If you happened to walk away from the TV the moment he said that line and then comeback, it would not reduce your understanding of the episode. If you want more people to take part in this discussion, I suggest you start an RfC. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, however on the contrary if you were to miss Josh's "Method To This Madness" You wouldnt understand why Josh voted for Baylor and votes are the major part of Surivor. CCamp2013 (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because if you watch the rest of the episode the context would me explained just by watching Baylor's confessional moments later. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on commenting here but CCamp2013 seems to be looking for additional opinions, so I'll add mine. I'm also opposed to the idea of adding this information. I fully agree that it's very trivial information and has no effect on the episode. I understand Amazing Race does it but I don't agree with it on their articles either.  G loss  03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ CCamp2013 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Question from a stupid person
All I see is stribe|Coyopa for example, so how does Wikipedia knows what colour to add? May I know where is the code to tell Wikipedia what colour to add? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Template:Stribe is the template that holds the code that automatically fills in a predetermined colour (and, if not overwritten, name) based on an input (the tribe name). There's Template:stribe/name to determine what shows up when each tribe name is entered (this is most useful for multi-word tribe names like Foa Foa, or Moto Maji) and Template:stribe/color which, based on the name, holds the associated colour. Hope this helped! - Katanin (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reluctant Request for the Page to be Locked
The ridiculously high, and sudden, amount of vandalism occurring in the "Reception" section should be enough reason for it. I'm not sure if the page should be unlocked for the finale, but something must be done to prevent any further vandalism from multiple IP's to the same section, with the same general changes proving that this is probably just one user with multiple IP's. Nevertheless, it'd be much easier than just constant reverts. 169.231.58.247 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you could just make that section be less biased and terrible so they don't have to fix it anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.197 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it biased and terrible? They're all cited sources from legitimate outlets of reviewing the season. You're basically saying the reception should always be evened out to "please everyone" even if the season is universally panned. You don't see this happening for One World, or Nicaragua, or Thailand, or other universally-panned seasons. 169.231.58.247 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And these vandals aren't simply trying to add other sources in defense of their views of the season, they're just trying to denigrate the sources that are already there with personal attacks against Mr. Ross. That's certainly not helping the situation. 169.231.58.247 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I vote to put it back to the way that didn't mention Dalton Ross or Rob or Spencer. 50.136.206.40 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So your solution is to remove the entire "Reception" section simply because you disagree with it? I'm pretty sure that's out of the question, because that doesn't solve the problem at hand. 169.231.58.247 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nicaragua is, in my opinion, a great season (I will acknowledge that it loses a lot of steam post double quit, however). So is San Juan del Sur. Stating that the seasons are universally panned does not make it so. Also, the reason this isn't happening with other seasons is that the seasons were years ago. Why would anybody make an issue of them now? This season is current, so people still care about making sure that their opinion is not going unrepresented in a Wikipedia article. Check back in a few years and few people will still care. If this didn't happen with the other "universally panned" seasons and it is happening with this one, then clearly this season isn't considered that bad.

Anyway, the reception section is based on the opinions of the viewers and as such is inherently subjective. Using the opinions of a few people as sources and then going on to state that the season is generally disliked is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Using that logic, I could Google for a couple of people that expressed positive opinions toward the season and then edit the article saying the season is universally beloved, using those as sources. At the very least you would need to cite the results of a poll or something else that indicates that the negative attitude toward this season goes beyond Rob, Spencer and Dalton. Why are Spencer, Rob and Dalton Ross special? They're just people with their own opinions on the season like the rest of us. The fact that they wrote about their opinions somewhere doesn't mean that those opinions are any more relevant than anyone else's. Everyone has their own distinct taste on what constitutes a good season of Survivor and prioritizing certain opinions over others is clearly bias.

For the reasons I outlined above, I would suggest changing the section to indicate a mixed reception. At the very least, lessen the extent of the negative attitude (ie. change "generally" to "somewhat" and "most" to "some"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:702:52A:C39:AE1A:A199 (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The season was generally panned by fans and critics alike, with most citing the cast as boring or unlikable. Some please tell me how can this fan-fiction be allowed on WP? Fan reception of this season is FAR away from 'generally panned', in fact, by most is one the best deasons post-HvV. Dalton Ross is known as a guy with dreadful opinions that 99% of the people don't agree with, (I mean, RI being anywhere except bottom 2??), so I don't see why would he be a representation of 'critics'?? 193.198.8.211 (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the opinions of a few angry IP users are on Wikipedia - the point is to report the plain and simple facts. I don't know about you, but I've followed the Survivor social media pages on FB, Twitter, etc., and the general response I see is also overwhelmingly negative. But in the end, NONE of the Survivor pages with a "Reception" section list the so-called "popular opinion," because it primarily comes down to what the critics say. Take a look at Thailand, Nicaragua, and One World - those consist entirely of the opinions of Dalton Ross - an official critic who has given his input on every season of Survivor since its earliest days - and Jeff Probst the host. There are no "polls" or anything on those pages, yet you're not getting in an uproarious over those. And One World and Nicaragua really weren't that long ago, so that logic of this season being recent as the problem makes no sense. This one even features new opinions, like Rob Cesternino, the host of one of the more legitimate, semi-official Survivor fan sites. This is most definitely not "fan fiction," nor is is the place to discuss your personal opinions. Go do that on the forums or something. The fact is that the evidence generally leans towards negative. It doesn't even say "universally" panned, just "generally." even that leaves it open to some argument in favor of the season, like the little tidbits that were added in about what aspects of the season Ross praised. Sorry to disappoint some angry fanboys, but this is Wikipedia, not Survivor Sucks. 169.231.22.141 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence says "the season was generally panned by fans and critics alike. Fine if you want to leave the critics part in. Even though Dalton Ross has some highly questionable opinions, he is indeed a critic. However, you cannot state that fans did not like the seson as a fact based on the opinions of a few people, at least one of whom is a critic.

If nobody took issue with the reception section of those seasons back when it was originally put on the page, why would they do it now? It doesn't matter that they were only a couple years ago. Anyone who cared enough to change the reception section would have done it already. And again, the fact that there are so many people focusing on this season and not all the other "universally panned" seasons, means that this season has a lot more fans than those seasons and shouldn't be lumped in with them.

Again, citing the opinions of a few people is not enough evidence that the season was generally panned by fans. The part about critics can be left the same, but I still suggest that the extent of the negative attitude be lessened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.197 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

But again, it's so much harder to find a reliable, legitimate source for "fan" opinions than critics' opinions. It just doesn't work that way. You don't see "fan" sources being cited on those other seasons, do you? But again, your argument here is a VERY subjective one, and the fact is that those who are trying to argue for this season having Positive reception aren't helping - they're not citing sources or making constructive edits, they're just vandalizing what's already there. But I find it funny that you guys are claiming Ross, Cesternino, Bledsoe, Vlachos, and others DON'T represent the voice of the fans...yet less than a dozen angry IP users on Wikipedia (most of which are probably under one account anyway) do represent the fanbase? Again, if you would take one glance at the Survivor Twitter and Facebook, you'd see a generally negative response. Plus, since most of these vandals obviously don't read the sources, I'll state it here: In his explanation for ranking this season so low, Ross starts off by saying, quote: "I asked you all over Twitter this week where you would rank it, and most of you had it somewhere around here. I agree." So even Ross, for this particular season, first turned to his fans/the general public for an opinion first and foremost. So he's not completely alone on this. 169.231.59.188 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I realize there's no official fan based polls so it's impossible to have an accurate read on just what the general opinion of this season is, but I don't believe it's right or fair to just dismiss Survivor Sucks as a measure for fan opinions as that website has been around since the very beginning and even had it's own Wikipedia page at one point. Despite it's name, most of the people who post there do like and care about the show.

If you're going to cite critics for the season's reception and then go on to only source Dalton Ross, then stop referring to "critics" in the plural. Sure he's the most well known, but there are other media sources who report on the show regularly such as Gordon Holmes of Xfinity and the official Survivor Hall of Fame, Tom Santilli of the Examiner, Ben Waterworth of Survivor Oz, Elizabeth Kwiatkowski of Reality TV World, and Andy Dehnart of Reality Blurred just to name a few. Just using Dalton Ross, who's been nothing more than Jeff Probst's bias mouthpiece for the last six or so years does not a consensuses make. Yes the section also cited Rob and Spencer, but even that was wrong. They did not say this season had a weak final five. Some fan called into the show calling it that and Rob and Spencer just commented on it. You want to cite another former Survivor, who also blogs for a major media outlet, then go for Stephen Fishbach who writes for People Magazine. Most Survivor season's pages don't even have a reception section, I don't know why this season has to have one. My suggestion is to just get rid of it altogether. 73.29.144.187 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course my argument is subjective. This section is based on how people view the season, and as such there is an inherent level of subjectivity involved. Some edits (I will concede they are in the minority) were constructive. Do not put words in my mouth. Ross et al do not represent the voice of the fans. Neither do the vandals (they are not all the same person). First of all, the fact that the section was separated into fans and critics means that Ross' opinion is completely irrelevant, as he falls under the category of a critic. Second, everyone who watched the season is a part of the voice of the fans (unless they are a critic, in which case their opinions fall under the category of critic's reception). No one person or group of people is representative of it as a whole. I am not saying that the people editing the article are representative of anything. I am merely pointing out that the fact that so many people are willing to go to bat for this season (albeit not in a particularly constructive manner), and not all the other "universally panned" seasons, shows that it should be expressed in a more positive light than those other seasons.

Can you give me actual reasons why changing "generally" to "somewhat" and "most" to "many" or "some" is a bad thing or in any way factually inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.196 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Xfinitity Survivor Hall of Fame still isn't "official," Survivor Oz isn't official/reliable, and the rest of those that you cited don't comment on Survivor as regularly as Dalton Ross does. He's kinda the Roger Ebert of Survivor, and saying that he's "Jeff Probst's bias mouthpiece" is completely biased in and of itself, in addition to being completely false. None of those others have commented on the last two or three seasons of Survivor, while Ross has been doing it consistently since the earliest days. And how was citing Rob and Spencer "wrong"? I listened to the whole podcast, and they both called it one of the worst/least strategic final fives in the whole series, so that is correct. If you don't want to listen to the whole thing, then fine. It's clear that you didn't listen to it because that podcast does NOT involve fans calling into the show, which you said it did. But don't act like you know what it said even though you don't. At this point, there are only two clear options: Either leave it as it is, citing the accurate sources proving a generally negative reception, or remove it altogether. I'm fine with either one. And "Generally" basically is the exact same as "Somewhat," and "Most" basically equals "Many," so both of those changes would be redundant points. 169.231.59.188 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that you're citing fan forums. Those are most definitely NOT reliable sources, since they are so easily changed with just a few comments. And the main thing right now is that Ross is literally the ONLY major critic who has released a full ranking of all 29 seasons. Perhaps after the finale, more critics' opinions (as well as Jeff Probst, perhaps) can be added to the section. But the general reception is still clearly negative. Not ONE major source has been cited to the contrary. 169.231.59.188 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What, just because one guy jumps the gun with a season ranking, he's the end-all, be-all of general Survivor opinion? One person does not speak for 10 million people, that's just asinine to assume that with that how the reception section of a Wikipedia article is written. All of those people and sites that I mentioned before, yes including Survivor Oz, report on Survivor every week with recaps and interviews, which is what Dalton Ross does. All the names I cited have been granted media rights to at the very least interview all the eliminated contestants the next morning (next week in S-Oz's case), if not actually travel to the locations every other season to pre-game interview the contestants, test run a challenge or two and witness the first tribal council, all along with Dalton Ross. If they have a media pass from CBS then I consider them official media sources for Survivor and should be considered for critic's opinions, and not just Dalton Ross. And calling him the Roger Ebert of Survivor is just as biased and untrue as calling him Probst's bias mouthpiece. I'll leave the irrelevant hyperbole out if you do. Lots of people blog about Survivor, not all of them have next day (or week) interview rights. You want to call me out on not doing research take some of that advice yourself. My point stays the same, take out the irrelevant section since this is causing such a ruckus. It's ultimately irrelevant to the season itself, which should be noted that most of the other seasons to not have reception sections as it is not needed.73.29.144.187 (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you consult a dictionary before stating that two words are the same thing. Can you give me reasons against my suggested change that are based in fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.154 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me, at this point, that you're all more focused on attacking me personally rather than actually presenting EVIDENCE to support your side? If these other critics are SO deserving of their opinions being listed here (even though they don't do season rankings as extensive as Ross's), then why don't you go look for some links to critics' reviews that support this season? Still waiting for that. 169.231.59.188 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The season is not over yet and people are most likely waiting to see how it ends before they come to a conclusion. And have you really read Dalton's season rankings? He never changes either the wording or placement for any previous season, just inserting the current one somewhere and copy/pasting the rest season after season. He never revisits any of them. That's hardly the comprehensive definitive season ranking you're making it sound like. 73.29.144.187 (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that further input should be added when the season is over. That's usually also when we hear opinions from the likes of Jeff Probst. But for the time being, this is all we have. And what's wrong with Ross's system? Should he update each of the old seasons' descriptions JUST because of a new season? That makes zero sense. That, and I'm still baffled that you guys are so silent about past seasons' pages that list ONLY Ross as the critical voice, yet it's THIS one that you're going crazy over for no real reason. 169.231.59.188 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the forest for the trees here. The section says "general consensus" and then goes on to site one critic and three former players. That's not a consensus, that's not general opinion, that's four men's opinions and that's what I'm having an issue with. Just because Dalton has a basic, surface level ranking does not mean he is the only critical voice out there. You want a season ranking I'll give you one if you want a conflicting opinion but if that's the only criteria for including a critic's opinion in the reception section of this season, a season that is not even finished mind you, then I'm sorry, it's a pretty piss-poor one. Considering you didn't know the other columnists I mentioned continue to report on the show week to week, maybe you should actually check them out to get more opinions. Here's your precious citations:

Reality TV World's Survivor coverage: http://survivor.realitytvworld.com/survivor-san-juan-del-sur/

Survivor Oz: http://survivoroz.wordpress.com/

Gordon Holmes' last episode recap for Xfinity: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2014/12/11/survivor-san-juan-del-sur-episode-13-recap-who-got-the-boot/

Stephen Fishbach's latest People Magazine blog: http://www.people.com/article/survivor-blog-jon-learns-trust-natalie-shines

Andy Dehnart's latest blog for Reality Blurred: http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/2014/12/survivor-jon-blindsided/

Granted most of them aren't as black and white on their opinions as Dalton is, but again, the season isn't over yet. I couldn't post Tom Santilli's articles since apparently Examiner's site is blocked by Wikipedia but you can find the links through survivorfever.net. 73.29.144.187 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No need for attitude, man. And obviously, any "source" that is blocked by Wikipedia is worthless, since it can't be cited in the article. 174.253.240.120 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you consider Dalton Ross to be a legitimate source, then you have absolutely no ground to imply any other Survivor columnist is any less of a legitimate source.

Why exactly is the fact that nobody has an issue with other reception sections important? You're basically saying "there's an issue with this but the same problem exists elsewhere so it's okay". I hope I don't have to point out the flaw in that line of thinking to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.154 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't see why you all claim it's just SO biased against the season, when it CLEARLY states the aspects that Ross praised: Natalie and the last few episodes, he praised those. Is that seriously not enough to satisfy you people? 169.231.57.115 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You've got to be kidding. Saying "the final episodes were an improvement" is barely even praise. It's basically saying "these episodes are better than all of the ones I didn't like", which is more of a backhanded compliment than anything. That basically leaves one positive thing listed about the season. A post above lists several other websites with people commenting on the season, but apparently Dalton Ross is the only one that matters since he happens to agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:702:52A:C39:AE1A:A199 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for the personal attacks - this discussion is about the merits of the sources and the subsequent vandalism to them, not the personal opinions of the users. And I'll have you know...I do like the season. But I'm still willing to post what is being said as the general consensus, no matter how much I disagree with it. I wish you people could be mature and do the same. And just for the record, Jeff Probst finally revealed his own opinions in a People magazine interview - he basically said the EXACT same thing as Ross; that the season is lackluster, but the last few episodes were good. Is that STILL not enough for you? 169.231.57.115 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are still missing the point! Regardless of what anybody's opinions are on the season, the section is written as coming to a conclusion for a consensus, before it's even finished, and then only citing four men's opinions. Again, four men out of the roughly 10 million people that still watch the show is nowhere near a general opinion let alone a consensus. Again, just take the pointless, irrelevant section out of the article. It doesn't add anything to the season as a whole as a Survivor fan is going to watch it regardless. If most of the other season pages don't have or need a reception section, why does this one? 73.29.144.187 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And again; less than a dozen vandals on Wikipedia certainly don't speak for those "10 million people" either. If that's your problem, take it up with the user who added the section - that wasn't me. I simply fixed it up and added more citations. 169.231.57.115 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And once more, what you seem to be not getting: NONE of the Survivor pages with "Reception" sections list an outlet of "fan opinion," because there is no clear way to obtain such an opinion. Sure, there are unofficial polls on shady websites and fan forums, but those certainly don't count. Once more, ALL the other Survivor pages with a "Reception" section ONLY list critics' opinions, and leave it at that. I don't see why you take such issue with that happening here when that's already being done elsewhere. That whole complaint makes little to no sense. 169.231.57.115 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can't back something up with citations, then don't leave it in a Wikipedia article. Saying that the fan's reception was negative and then citing critics is ridiculous. Either cite it or take it out.

Africa, Amazon, Pearl Islands, All Stars, Vanuatu, Palau, Guatemala, Panama, Cook Islands, Fiji, China, Gabon, Tocantins, Samoa, Heroes vs. Villains, South Pacific, Philippines, Caramoan and the original Blood vs. Water all don't even have Reception sections in their articles. Why does this article need one?

Of the articles that have one, only Borneo, Micronesia, Nicaragua, and this one make statements about how the season was received in general. All of the others follow the template "this is how x feels about the season, followed by a citation". Borneo and Micronesia both state that the season is currently well received, while Nicaragua states that it has mixed reception. This season, however does not acknowledge that anyone found the season good,even though the cited sources rank the season above Nicaragua.

Suggested changes: remove any line in a reception section that says "this is how the season is generally received" without citation. It's unnecessary, and pretty much everyone discussing this has admitted it's impossible to source. Just leave the actual citations on their own and let them speak for themselves.

Alternative: Just remove the reception sections from pretty much every season. The majority of seasons don't even have them. Why should a small minority of seasons have them?

Is there any problem with these suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.157.42 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm all for the idea of removing the "fans" mention. That actually makes sense. And in response to the last question: I think the idea is that only the seasons with the absolute highest reception and absolute lowest reception have "Reception" sections, because it IS important to acknowledge the seasons that are considered the absolute best and the absolute worst. So that's why Borneo, Micronesia, and Cagayan all have Reception for positive reasons, while Nicaragua, Thailand, One World, and this have it for negative reasons. The vast majority of the other seasons are merely mixed reception, which is definitely not worth mentioning. Plus, giving a Reception section to all of them would probably result in a ridiculous over-abundance of Dalton Ross's ranking as a reference, which would be excessive. So, yeah - in a nutshell, only the absolute "best" and absolute "worst" seasons have them, while the rest of the "average" seasons don't. Makes sense to me. 169.231.57.115 (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the author of the "Reception" section has a personal agenda. Put me in as a vote for its removal entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.59.57 (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who is this Nazi-enthusiast that keeps vandalizing this article with his biased opinions, but this is what Rob C said after the seasonwas over: ''Rob Cesternino @robcesternino · 4h4 hours ago WHAT A FANTASTIC SEASON OF #SURVIVOR! #notkidding #SurvivorFinale''

I guess we can now change reception to universally praised. tnxbai 193.198.8.211 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys hope to accomplish by saying "I vote for this," because that's also not how it works. And again, just because someone cites sources doesn't automatically mean that they have an agenda, it certainly doesn't mean that they're "vandalizing" the article...and it certainly doesn't mean that they're Nazis. Real mature. Again, sounds to me like you're just bitter about the fact that the critics don't like this season like you do. And as I've said several times already - you can't say that these critics don't represent the voice of the Survivor fanbase, yet you bitter vandals here on Wikipedia do represent them. 169.231.57.115 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, if you want to get REAL nitpicky with these sources...here's Stephen Fishbach flat-out declaring it to be a bad season, with only a good winner, and that's it: https://twitter.com/stephenfishbach/status/545416686221139968

And in his "Survivor" column, he mostly just praised Natalie, but repeatedly insisted that the season was still not a good one, calling it "Humdrum," and even called the final tribal council "one of the worst" FTC's in the show's history: http://www.people.com/article/survivor-blog-finale-winner

169.231.57.115 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone who can edit the article just remove the first sentence altogether? It's a subjective judgement of how the fans received the season, which isn't something that belongs in a Wikipedia article. Also, as mentioned above, it's impossible to properly source. Most of the other articles with reception sections don't include such a summary, instead opting to just let the citations to speak for themselves. It's unnecessary, unsourcable and it should just be gotten rid of.

^Agreed. They do simply list the opinions of Ross and Probst, and let those speak for themselves. It seems to be that first sentence alone that's garnering all this heat. 169.231.57.115 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this section even exists is absolutely ludicrous. NONE of the other Survivor articles have it. It just proves that its creator had an agenda to attack the season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.59.57 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Borneo, Australia, Thailand, Amazon, Pearl Islands, Fiji, Micronesia, Gabon, Heroes vs. Villains, Nicaragua, Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World, Philippines, and Cagayan would ALL like to disagree with you on the statement that "NONE of the other Survivor articles have" a reception section. Next time, do some research on a topic before you blast your false opinions about it. 169.231.23.162 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception
Don't think the reception section is warranted at all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your reasoning? 104.52.53.152 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can discuss it here. But stop removing the section without proper reasoning ("I don't think it's warranted" and "trivial info at best" are not good arguments without reasoning behind it). 169.231.46.167 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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