Talk:Survivor: South Pacific/Archive 1

"Phoenix" in logo?
Why does the logo say "Survivor Phoenix" at the bottom? --69.244.182.53 (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the screenshot appears to have been taken from a website called Survivor Phoenix. Due to the questionable source and incomplete Fair Use rationale, I have removed the image. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Rumors
We all have heard about the rumors that coach, Ozzy and Russell's nephew are among the cast. Yet I'm kind of leaning towards the opinion that none of these should be placed on the article until officially confirmed by CBS, whether or not the phrase "it has been reported that..." is used. TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be removed until CBS confirms who is returning. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone has replaced these rumors back into the article. I only edit as a bit of a hobby, and am not interested in getting in an editing war. I just suggest that these need to be removed, but will let someone better informed make the final decision TheTribeHasSpoken (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Every season of Survivor lead to rumors. While some were true, some were absolutly false. Nothing should be considered true until a released by CBS. --Maxime9232 (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Official Announcement by CBS
http://www.cbs.com/shows/survivor/video/2099539676/survivor-south-pacific-meet-the-cast 07 Matthew (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tribal divisions and colours can be found at http://ca.eonline.com/news/watch_with_kristin/survivor_south_pacific_cast_revealed/259429 174.94.34.117 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tribe Colors
It seems like somebody used the Heroes and Villains colors for the tribe. But the cast picture seems to have much brighter shades, like Ravu and Aitu. Mikebloom819 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not quite the same:


 * Feel free to propose a color change as I just added to the template the colors another editor specified. See last season's talk page for discussions related to tribe colors and how they usually go. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd go with:
 * #FF0800 for Savaii
 * #0070FF for Upolu 174.94.34.117 (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Those look good! I mean it could be just as simple as
 * Red for Savaii
 * Blue for Upolu.

You can check out these colors that I used on this link and see what you think. http://survivorfanfics.wikia.com/wiki/Survivor_All-Stars:_Samoa_Fanfic Mikebloom819 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * PlanetBuff.com has released design images for the buffs this season, and according to those, the colors are—
 * #DC232D for Savaii
 * #004B96 for Upolu
 * Hope this info helps!
 * 64.75.215.62 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.94.34.117, 24 August 2011
Hi, can someone please make a correction. On the article, it says that Coach was on Survivor: Tocantins and Survivor: Micronesia. He was actually on Survivor: Tocantins and Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. Thanks 174.94.34.117 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know it has been fixed and the IP address was right. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

brighten the Upolu buff please
The current color is way to dark. The buff is a much brighter blue. MarkMc1990 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestions:

MarkMc1990 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I usually don't get into color discussions, but I do agree that the current color is too dark. The Azure or Dodger Blue is a better choice.  The problem is that the buffs are really multi-colors with patterns so it is hard to pick a color.  Add in lighting conditions and viewing conditions and you get all sorts of variations in color. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would make the change myself given how severely off the current shade is, but I have no idea how with the new "stribe" template. While we're at it, the Savaii color is also too dark. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can fix it, but we need to decide upon a color. Once that is decided, the change is made in Template:stribe/color, in Template:stribe. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll vote for Azure MarkMc1990 (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Azure then? Anybody else have any input? Feel free to propose alternative colors for Savaii, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Change voted out back to the original table format
I am fine with there being a Finish column, but do not agree with this: Semhar Tadesse 1st, Day 3...under the Voted Out column, I believe you should have it as 1st Voted Out as it has always been, and then continue with the Finish and R.I columns, I read this often, and do not like it not saying Voted Out, just always has been that way since forever, and should be kept that way, but as I say I am fine with the other two additional tables/columns Kiwi_Jaden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the format of the table has been same for many, many seasons, but the format changed with last season due to the R.I. twist. It was decided to split the previously used Finish column into the Voted Out/Redemption Island/Finish columns since it was a mess trying to force the R.I. status into a single Finish column.  Adding "Voted Out" to the individual cells is redundant since it already labeled in the column header.  It would just add clutter to the cells. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They have done that every single season, having Voted Out in the Voted Out column! Now you say it is redundant and would clutter the cells, no, now all three of the columns fail to say Voted Out at all, so how is that REDUNDANT! It is my opinion that everything stay the same apart from the neglect of having Voted Out in the Voted Out column, the rest of the other columns (R.I and Finish) are fine, but that needs to change as it just looks TOO different to other series, otherwise it is a wonderful job by you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In previous seasons "Voted Out" was in the "Finish" column, there was no "Voted Out" column. Therefore, having "1st Voted Out" made sense.  If you left out "Voted Out", you couldn't easily determine what "1st" meant.  However, with the three columns, the "Voted Out" column is clearly labeled, so there is no need to qualify "1st".  The table is different because the game is different.  Redemption Island makes the game completely different in terms of finish order versus voting out order.  Trying to stuff R.I. status into a single Finish column was a mess as last season progressed.  Wikipedia article are not static things, they can change should it be necessary and there is a consensus for it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I still believe that will not change anything if that is added, to remain having some originality. It will change nothing whatsoever, I am kinda finished talking to you, because it isn't being put through to you that it is not going to change anything by putting Voted Out there, to make it look marginially the same as previous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW...I strongly support the "new' style of displaying game results. As User:Gogo states, "the game is different" and the results need to convey that difference. "Voted Out" has a new meaning. The role of an editor is to give clear explanation to the visitor. Buster Seven   Talk  22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When Jeff votes a contestant out he says 1st Voted Out, all I ask is that we put that down as well in the column as it has been, it is not a big ask and it simply looks better than 1st, Day 3, imo. This is a different game, which is why we have the two other columns but to add that is not a huge thing, and I am asking only that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I kind of agree with the original post, because despite the column heading, "1st" all by itself can make it look like it could mean 1st Place at first glance.MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I do believe this is only one change to make on the chart, and it just makes it more 'the same' to other casual users @ first glance. I am fine with all the other changes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please take the time to sign your entries. It is an editor-friendly habit to get into...as is indenting during an on-going discussion. As long as the casual observer can easily ascertain that seasons 22 and 23 are slightly different ie Redemption Island, I have no problem with however the game results are displayed. Maybe what needs to be clearly depicted by the display is that the player is voted out of his/her tribe but NOT out of the game.Buster Seven   Talk  20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Finish column handles that. The South Pacific table right now looks really weird because not a whole lot has happened.  Empty cells are everywhere, so it just looks weird.  As the season goes on, the table will fill out and it will look better and make more sense.  If you want to discuss the overall readability of the table, then using the Redemption Island table is a better choice since it is complete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think it is unnecessary and redundant. The column header is there for a reason: so you don't need to label the cells. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a change that will be huge and destroy anything. It merely makes everything that bit easier for the readers. 3 people have stated that we can just add Voted Out and it will just make everything make a tad more sense, so I understand your worry Gogo Dodo, but I think we should give it a trial run, and see if it begins to make sense. Agree? Kiwi Jaden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.115.83 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Three? I only see MarkMc1990 agreeing you and Buster7 agreeing with me. I never said it would be huge or destroying anything, I've been stating that it's redundant and unnecessary clutter.  The column makes sense on its own with the column header. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:202.180.115.83. Please make the effort to sign your entries. It is an irritant that the SineBot has to constantly sign for you. Agreement has many faces. Compliance with the methods of editorial details will build a collaborative spirit. Buster Seven   Talk  06:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This change is just so that the casual observer can see it easily because when I first came on to the page, I thought Francesca won :( I do not like that and wish to add a simple 'voted out' to the already placed '1st, Day 3'. Dodo, I want the change, Mark wants the change, Buster stated that he doesn't mind too much, but that clarity is important. All because to the casual eye, e.g mine and others, it doesn't look right. You're eye sees it as being fine, because you had a hand/made the changes so you think it is unnecessary clutter and redundant, but others disagree and to keep things easy and still not change it too much (as I agree with the rest of the things in the new format) this change will be made, for all of us who are casual observers, using Wikipedia to get info, not because you as a frequenting editor, believe for yourself that it is unnecessary, when I came in at the start (unable to sign my edtis as I was new and not too sure of how to do things, so apologies Buster) and said as a casual user, this needs to change. We always make edits, this is just a simple ADDITION, and others agree, so I believe we should commence henceforth at Episode 2. This is not a large structural change, merely an addition for clarity, therefore is never UNNECESSARY and helps others like me who didn't make all the changes, able to read easily and not make the mistake I made as I did, again. -- Kiwi Jaden (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kiwi Jaden, but I have to agree with Gogo Dodo and others. It clearly has "Voted Out" in the column heading, and putting it in most rows underneath that would be unnecessary clutter. --Kangaross1989 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Before this gets any further off course and continues into the season, I also support User:Gogo Dodo's edits. To me the question is...."Is the visual presentation clear and un-cluttered?"...which Gogo succeeds at.Buster Seven   Talk  23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How about changing the table to look like this? And then sort it by either the Finish or by the status on Redemption Island.

It's just a thought, what do you think? Thobiah (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually like that...someone should convert the Redemption Island table so we can see what the finished product would look like. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that as it doesn't quite work for people that never go to R.I. It also packs quite a bit of info into a single cell and one of the reasons for the shift was to unclutter the single cell. Take for example, Matt's last row, Andrea's return, and her final row from last season:

I think it is very difficult to put in finish information (final vote) and non-finish information (R.I.) into the same column, have it sortable, and make sense. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I totally agree with you, it is hard as hell if we would use only single cells, but I believe it might be doable. The formats change back to "normal" when R.I. (Redemption Island) isn't used anymore. For example when Andrea were eliminated:

And it would then be sorted after when they exited the game, which would be in order of Duel Losers and afterwards the last Jury Members. Thobiah (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the inconsistent formatting would be rather odd to read. I think trying to smash everything down into a single column is just too much. Even when we had the interim format before the current format (see this old revision), the table had two columns since the R.I. info is so different than the Finish info.  However, MarkMc1990 suggested building a complete table in your proposed format using last season's results.  I recommend that you do that, too.  Post it here, see how people like it, and if it is acceptable to everybody, we'll change it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the table as it is. There is no good reason to use the seasons 1-21 format given how greatly the game has changed with RI. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings for First Episode
Two different sources reported different figures. Should we choose the default TVbytheNumbers report or the official report from CBS? Or include both? 07 Matthew (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed your comment before I reverted you, but then I reverted myself. Normal practice has been to favor the TVbytheNumbers data unless the numbers are unavailable and then it has either been CBS or some other source.  For now, until the weekly report from TVbytheNumbers comes out, I've left the CBS source in for the household ratings and share.  TVbytheNumbers's weekly report has that number, but sometimes the daily report does and sometimes it doesn't. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The TVbytheNumbers weekly ratings are out. It looks like awhile ago TVbytheNumbers changed their daily reports to only list 18-49 and total viewers instead of what was available last season. Luckily, the weekly rankings have the HH rating/share, so we can use that to fill out the table instead of looking for another source. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request Survivor 24
Can we have the Survivor 24 link removed that redirects to the U.S. Survivor page? There is not very much on the page that relates specifically to Survivor 24. 108.17.48.38 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cochran
In the show, he is clearly being referred to as Cochran. Why is he called John on the voting history. I've seen voting histories with nicknames on them before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.251.16 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's his first name, he just like being called by his last name. It's also on the official site.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He should absolutely be listed as Cochran if that's what the show/editors refer to him as. After all, Ben Wade is listed as Coach in all 3 seasons, as are Sugar, Fabio, Benry, Chicken, etc. All nicknames that got used in the article/tables. MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about bringing this up since we appear to have a slow edit war going on. I'm glad that you brought it up. There are really two nicknames to consider this season: John and Mark. The question should be what to use in the Game and Voting History tables and the season/episode summaries.


 * For John, I agree that he should be listed and used as Cochran. This is what is displayed during the interviews and past precedence is that the interview name is used. The additional question for John is if entry in the Contestants table should be listed as John Cochran or John "Cochran" Cochran in an attempt to indicate why his name is different than everybody else on the other tables.


 * For Mark, we have another "Purple Kelly" from Survivor: Nicaragua problem (ironically, an IP added it back in couple of days ago, but I just changed it back). For her, we had a nickname that Jeff gave her and used repeatedly though the game, but her interviews were always listed as Kelly S. Mark asked to be called Papa Bear, Jeff is calling him that and the other castaways are calling him that, but his interviews so far list Mark.  So I think we should stick to Mark. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He is listed as John in the voting history because that's what he's labelled as when his name appears on the screen in the intro. This is also why "Purple Kelly" was listed as "Kelly S" in the voting history in Nicaragua (Jeff, the other players and fans always called her Purple Kelly, never Kelly S or even Kelly, even after Kelly B was voted out), because that's what appeared for her in the intro. Players like Benry, Sugar, Fabio, Coach and Chicken had those names in the intro. It's really quite simple to see the difference. SurvivorFan77 (talk) 23 September 2011


 * Then why did I see "Cochran" as his name during his interviews in the latest episode? And also, add your name after the post!! (I fixed it for you this time...) Thobiah (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4gzvxVo1MI. SurvivorFan77 (talk) 23 September 2011


 * If you watch the past two episodes, you will see that Cochran is shown in the interviews. Is it inconsistent with the intro from episode 1? Sure, but precedent has been to use the interview names.


 * You have your Purple Kelly history backwards. She is listed as Kelly S. in the article and was shown as Kelly S. in the interviews.  My point was that while Jeff called her Purple Kelly, she was always listed as Kelly S. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think episode 3 settled the matter regarding Papa Bear. He was listed as Papa Bear in the interviews and the precedence has been to use the interview name. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Next Challange (episode 3)
this isnt a problem but when you make episode 3 immunity challange just add that the challange was somewhat bassed off of survivor micronesia challange (episode 7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerLovingPhilip (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Many challenges are a lot like challenges from past seasons, though they usually tweak it a little. When repeated challenges occur, I generally try to copy descriptions from past seasons, but I usually have difficulty remembering which seasons I had seen it, so thank you for the pointer. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses in The game table
Since the witnesses column got re-added to the game table, I thought I would bring it up here. My opinion is that such a column is unnecessary. The witnesses to the duels are more or less trivia as they don't have any impact on the game or the duel. They are not "earned" positions like challenge wins or being voted out of the game. The witnesses are mentioned in the episode summaries and I think that is good enough. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Even if the witnesses have some impact on the game, mentioning them in the episode summaries section would suffice.07 Matthew (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree, adds nothing of importance to the table Survivorfan101 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Buster Seven   Talk  11:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion, but given that it seems most agree against it, I rolled back to Gogo's removal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge color
According to this CBS video, the merge color is yellow. How does #FFF700 sound for the color to use in the article? 129.74.229.156 (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone would have drawn rocks
During the episode, Savaii thought immunity holder would have not drawn rocks. Jeff says "the two people who have votes are immune and everyone else draws rocks." This implies the immunity necklaces were null in rock-draw scenarios. This should be noted somewhere. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I have not watched any season that features rock as a tie-breaker but maybe other can help here. 07 Matthew (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The rock draw has only occurred once in Marquesas. Ever since then Survivor contestants have always been afraid of re-vote ties, and the rocks never came out again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At first I thought Jeff miss-spoke. When I watch it again, I'm not so sure. 4 immune players (2 Immunity Necklaces and 2 "people who have votes") does not make sense. My guess is that the Immunity Necklaces are time stamped and they lose their power after the initial vote.Buster Seven   Talk  06:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be mentioned and I see that it was added into the article. Since Jeff's line was quoted directly, I fixed it to be exactly what he said. I think as it was added is sufficient.  Speculating about different scenarios about if you get a rock or not should be avoided: use the HII but get no votes or use the HII and do get votes that are not counted. Unless we get our hands on an official copy of the rules, guessing the rules should be avoided. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Soon, CBS will release their full set of Youtube videos related to this episode and one will likely be Cochran explaining himself in confessional. When we have one of those videos, we will have an answer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Or in the next episode. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

At http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/survivor/2010_May_31_survivor_rules the person has put up a copy of the rules and it talks about a rock drawing senario if it were to occur. -- Pieniazek666 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC

That indicates that Ozzy and Dawn would not draw rocks, Jeff misspoke. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And Jeff confirmed that on Tout http://www.tout.com/m/5cdg9o ... "If you are immune, you are immune". So I removed the sentence from the summary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Finish / voted out / Redemption Island status display
I suggest that it would be easier to understand if there was only one cell for a returning player, but a splitted cell, like they do on Survivor Wiki : This would mean that, for example, Ozzy would not appear twice in the list of players with the mention "return to game". People may be confused and think that it is 2 different players. --Maxime9232 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting idea. However, I think that the split rows allows one to figure out where Ozzy stood when he returned to the game.  Merging the rows would break the sorting and I'm not sure that it worth potentially simpler table. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to chime in and say thank you to whomever editing this article in real time during finale night. It's been fun watching you edit. IvyGold (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 100% Agree. Buster Seven   Talk  03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim/Keith Placement
Keith is listed below Jim on the Voting History table, but Jim is below Keith in the Jury votes, can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.228.23 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The order of the jury votes is correct. Jim was the first jury member followed by Keith. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jury votes
I have removed all of the unsourced or unseen jury votes as it now clear that people are just guessing. We only know the following:


 * Sophie got at least five votes (seen during the vote tally)
 * Coach got at least three votes (seen during the vote tally)
 * Cochran voted for Coach (seen during the vote)
 * Dawn voted for Sophie (seen during the vote)
 * Ozzy and Brandon votes for Sophie (per the article citations)

Everything else is speculative. Past history with previous seasons indicates that people like to guess or assume "Well, so-and-so would have voted for him/her." That doesn't work and I think removal of the votes is best. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to for the pointer, we now know Edna's vote. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to for the reference for Rick's vote.  On a side note, the ninth vote is a mystery because it was never shown.  We do not know at this time if the final tally was 6–3–0 or 5–4–0. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They always show the vote to create maximal suspense. If it was 5-4-0, they would first show a 4-4 tie before revealing the 9th vote. 99.226.198.78 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20554826,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines says Sophie received 6 votes and Coach received 3 votes. 99.226.198.78 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, in http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article13250.art&page=1 ,Coach says that he thought he would lose by a smaller margin. If the vote was 5-4-0, you could not lose by a smaller margin. So it must be 6-3-0. 99.226.198.78 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the last reference, though finding more solid references would be better. I know that I've been a stickler to get the references correct, but in the end, it is the correct thing to do.  It is better to have all of the correct votes instead of wild speculation, especially since the guessed votes were wrong at one time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sophie Clarke


The article Sophie Clarke has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Total vote count for contestants are also including tied votes from the season. Since when?
If you look at the total vote count for the conestants on this date 4/5/13, you'll notice that Rick and Keith's counts have tied voted included. Since when did we do that? To my knowledge that count has never included tied votes up till now. Also if this is the new thing, this season is, currently, inconsistent with other seasons. If you go Redemption island Russell only has 3 votes instead of 8 if we use the new system. Likeweise in Palau, James and Ibreham counts don't have the tied votes, nor does Ian and Jenn. Same goes for Africa and Australia. Haven't checked Samoa or other seasons with a final 4 tie, but I think this needs some clearification.MrInhibitor (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if there is a tie on the first vote, that votes cast in the second round of voting should not be contact on votes tallies. The rationale is simple. Survivor competitors initially vote for the person they want to be eliminated from the game; if there is a tie they may be forced to vote for someone that they didn't vote for initially (this happened at least once, in Survivor Palau, at the Ulong tribal council where five tribe members became four). In addition, in a re-vote only the players who tied for the most votes in the first vote can receive votes, so it's not the same type of vote as the initial vote. Therefore it's not fair on those players to have the "re-vote votes" counted in their total votes.

Sometimes a player deliberately forces a tie in the first vote then flips their vote in the re-vote, sometimes players vote to force a tie in order to flush out an idol; in both cases a player may not be voting for the person they want to eliminate next. However, whem a player writes someone's name down in the first vote, they do so knowing that that person could be voted out of the game without a re-vote - so the voter has to be at the very least happy for the person that they vote for to go home next.

If the majority of people don't like the existing system of listing the total "revote" votes in a list below the top table, an alternative is to place the total number of revote votes either in brackets or a subscript or both in the total votes column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.16.17 (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Results of the future Caramoan season are not relevant to this article
I earlier removed the information on the results of the Caramoan Fans vs. Favorites season because in this article it is an unnecessary spoiler. The person who undid this edit (Katanin) referred to the article of spoilers in Wikipedia, but it is not relevant to this case. I understand that it is necessary to put plot info on the actual subject of the article (Survivor South Pacific in this case) and it is not considered a spoiler that a reader should be warned about.

It is however completely unnecessary and most importantly irrelevant to the subject to reveal the results of a future season in this article. It is not needed to ensure completeness or encyclopedic tone. I can choose not to read this article on Survivor South Pacific if I do not want to know the results of the South Pacific season - that is common sense and that is what I understand the article on spoilers in Wikipedia is talking about. I can choose not to read the article "Survivor: Caramoan" if I don't want to know the results of that season. However I should not be expected not to read an article on South Pacific season if I do not want to know the results of a future Caramoan season. It's like telling in an article on the first season of a series that a character dies in season 5.

Therefore, I still think that info ("Hantz finished in 15th place, Meehan tied for runner-up, and Cochran won the season.") should be deleted. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.147.173 (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)