Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart

Tribe names
The tribe names for the upcoming season are Masaya (white collar) in yellow, Nagarote (blue collar) in red and Escameca (no collar) in blue.

Link:  ApprenticeFan  work 04:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added them to the list:


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * }
 * CCamp2013 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we confirm that they're from a reputable source? This is not to assuage my own personal skepticism (I personally think that they're legit) but, for Wikipedia, they should be directly from a reliable source. Do we have a planetbuff link? - Katanin (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it. Not sure how accurate the colours are, but at least they're in the stribe template, so they should be easy to modify if necessary. - Katanin (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That source seems legit, but how hard would it have been for Probst et al. to make blue-collar blue and white-collar white and no-collar something else... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I want a white buff as much as the next guy, but realistically a white buff won't be white anymore by the next day. ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have heard that they used a white buff in an international version and the buff was just fine. Ill try to find out what version it was and get back to you. CCamp2013 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * CCamp2013 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we confirm that they're from a reputable source? This is not to assuage my own personal skepticism (I personally think that they're legit) but, for Wikipedia, they should be directly from a reliable source. Do we have a planetbuff link? - Katanin (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it. Not sure how accurate the colours are, but at least they're in the stribe template, so they should be easy to modify if necessary. - Katanin (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That source seems legit, but how hard would it have been for Probst et al. to make blue-collar blue and white-collar white and no-collar something else... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I want a white buff as much as the next guy, but realistically a white buff won't be white anymore by the next day. ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have heard that they used a white buff in an international version and the buff was just fine. Ill try to find out what version it was and get back to you. CCamp2013 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Names
Please don't abbreviate the names. That's good for texting and talking to somebody but not writing an article.
 * That's how they're all billed by CBS, which is the precedent we use. Take, for example, the cast page for Survivor: Vanuatu: Travis, Chad, and Lea are all listed with nicknames in their bio, and thus are all listed with those nicknames in addition to their proper first names in the article. That is not the case with any of the castaways this season. - Katanin (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * common name. Nuff said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.2.57 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and if the source has typos would you buy it too? The links you cited list their full name with the nickname in quotes and that method was reverted, too.  this is wikipedia, not tribal council.  not just their nicknames.

Time to resolver this once and for all. Please see the WP:DRN thanks

Alright, since the DRN ultimately went nowhere, let's try and figure it out here; at least if there's more discussion and no conclusion, they'll actually take the next DRN seriously. First, let me clarify that me bringing up Tasha as an example isn't to signify that First "Nickname" Last takes precedent; it was meant to illustrate that, when CBS wants to make it clear that they're using a nickname, they'll let it be known, from shortened names—like Tasha—to less direct nicknames, like Survivor: China's Steve "Chicken" Morris. The way CBS operates, there is no apparent hard and fast rule, other than whatever they get from the castaways. To try and get all of the legal names would consist of a lot of original research, and would ultimately be useless and trivial; the names listed are of the castaways in relation to the program itself, not necessarily legally. In the case of Survivor: Worlds Apart according to CBS, the castaway in question's name is Jenn Brown, not Jennifer Brown or Jennifer "Jenn" Brown. Until or unless we hear otherwise from CBS, that's what we should be using. - Katanin (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Katanin! User:Gloss!  I sense that there is hostility here, which is getting in the way of constructive discussion.  Assume good faith.  Assume that the other editors are willing to listen.  You were too quick to go to WP:DRN in the first place without discussion.  Maybe someone thought that a DRN volunteer would impose a content decision on the article that would enforce consistency.  Wikipedia and DRN don't work that way.  The comment that maybe we will take the next DRN seriously does not make your willingness to cooperate look good, if you already assume that discussion will fail.  If you have some reason, other than hostility, to think that you need outside help, try posting a request for informal mediation at  Wikiproject Television.  But first, drop the anger and try to discuss.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to stay and see this to completion, but perhaps a question will help. Could each of you please state, in one paragraph, what you think should be the consistent rule for naming the contestants?  Also, are there any other issues, before the show starts, besides naming?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither myself nor went to DRN; that was initiated by . I believe the consistent rule for naming the contestants is whatever is provided by CBS. Again, there seems to be no hard and fast rule that they use to give the names other than what is provided by the contestants. - Katanin (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you believe the rule should be? - Katanin (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I came over here because I saw the DRN had failed and I've decided to become involved because I have quite a strong opinion here.

The names are given by CBS. Without another reliable source showing another form of the name you cannot use any other form without it being OR. Jenn (for example) might be legally Jenn, or Jenny, or Jennifer, or Jeanette, or Derek but the reference refers to her as Jenn and for Wikipedia to do anything else would require a more reliable source. SPACKlick (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The name "Jenn" is clearly "Jennifer". Besides, older lists of castaways on CBS.com list full names, why not this one?  108.6.38.122 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That it's clearly Jennifer is your opinion. I know Jenn's personally who are legally/officially called all of the above (except Derek) I know a Rod who's officially a James. I know a Will who's officially a Thomas. Without a source confirming the name you have no leg to stand on. That being said, Jenn is presumably being used because Jenn told CBS she was called Jenn so even if you find a birth certificate and high school transcript confirming her legal name as Jennifer, I'd still oppose on the grounds of the general consensus in BLP's to refer to people by the name they choose rather than assigning one too them. SPACKlick (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to call her "Jenn" then we can close this discussion and move on. This was the purpose of the WP:DRN I filed last week.  108.6.38.122 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposition
According to his Facebook, his name is Joseph Anglim. Can it be included? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support 108.162.157.141 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: This has been hashed over many times before.  We use the name as listed on either the CBS website or used in the show.  We don't call Jeff, Jeffrey Lee Probst, now do we?  See WP:COMMONNAME and past Survivor articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: Again, as stated in the above argument, the names listed through CBS or in show take precedence to refer to the people as they were in the context of the program. Additionally, according to WP:NOYT, a Facebook page is "generally not acceptable as a reliable source" as "there is no stringent checking of a user's real name and age." - Katanin (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Location
Reliable journalistic sources such as Entertainment Weekly do not give this season's location as San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua -- it just gives Nicaragua. I am not finding San Juan del Sur mentioned for this season except in unreliable fan sites and mirrors of this article. It would hardly be unusual, given the size of Nicaragua, to stage production at a different spot. Without a reliable journalistic site, we can't say San Juan del Sur. I'm going to hunt for a Nicaraguan newspaper now to see if that helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing pertinent so far at: http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/, http://www.bolsadenoticias.com.ni/, http://www.hoy.com.ni/, or http://www.trincheraonline.com/. Nor at the English language http://nicaraguadispatch.com/ or http://www.voiceofnicaragua.com/. Or the TV-network site http://www.canal4.com.ni/.


 * This article refers to the 29th season: http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2014/05/24/economia/195554-survivor-nuevamente-se-grabara-en-nicaragua

While International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/survivor-worlds-apart-cast-meet-18-contestants-ahead-season-30-premiere-photos-1790610) states that this season is in San Juan del Sur, it links to a "source" that doesn't support that claim.

And Reality Blurred traces its claim of San Juan del Sur back to ambiguous claims by a resort regarding multiple beaches, or to anonymous / pseudonymous "sources" that don't reach the bar of WP:RS. After spending all this time looking for something definitive, it looks like we might have to wait until a legitimate press report or CBS statement gives the definite location.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Filming Dates
Does anyone have any information from reliable sources regarding the filming dates? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

maybe actually change the logo pic bc its blurred and ugly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.2.134 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Votes
It was shown that Mike and Dan voted for Lindsey.108.162.157.141 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the first ballot though? Because at the end of the episode, it only showed the second ballot. The only ones we can say for certain are Sierra and Lindsey (obviously) and Mike, with the "Lindsee-ya". - Katanin (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they are showing the first ballot because they only show Mike's and Dan's. If it was the second ballet, they would have shown all 3. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They showed no votes during the episode. During Lindsey's final words, they show the second ballot; see Kelly's vote at the 0:13 mark. There are three votes shown, all for Lindsey. - Katanin (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmBCghrjwuY confirms that Mike and Dan voted for Lindsey; and Rodney and Kelly voted for Sierra. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Dan voted for Lindsey; his writing looks more like the ballot against Lindsey than the two ones against Sierra, while Kelly's writing (in the second vote and in the following tribal) matches more with the two against Sierra. Sorry if my English is bad. :( 90.47.225.233 (talk)

Merica tribe color.
Their buffs are violet/purple, not black. This was confirmed by the purple-colored text on the screen during their video confessionals.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 06:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

From the official CBS recap: "Shirin reads the enclosed note, which confirms that they are merged, and invites them to feast and then return to their new home at the old Escameca camp. As Tyler puts on his new purple and black buff, he admits, “It’s a whole new life and it smells so sweet.”" It would seem that the buffs are considered both purple and black, hence the on-screen text being a purple-blackish color. SilentGanda (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think in the past we have always gone by the dominant/backdrop color of the buff (black in this case) rather than any accent colors (purple in this case) but given the dark purple on-screen text and the official recap, I think we should go with a very dark shade of purple for the article. 24.14.29.0 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have the HTML code for the merged tribe color? 96.235.19.19 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Double vote
If Dan uses his double vote, how is it gonna be shown on Voting History? Will EpX x Dan be two cells, making Dan's row double the length of the other 17's? ~ Totaldramaman  ( talk ·  contribs ) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about it; if he votes for two different players (which is a possibility, according to Probst), then yes, we'll have to make his row double the length. But if he votes twice for the same person, then we might as well just write "Name (x2) " with an efn tag explaining it (we'd do the efn tag regardless). And put that tag on the vote result as well, just to clarify the numerical discrepancy. - Katanin (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be double row. I think if it is a split vote, it should be First, Second with a foot note. Having one wide column is much preferable than Dan's row being double sized for the whole season. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So given that the advantage has been used, I now agree that it should be two columns for the vote (with the advantage user's ballots in separate columns and everything else in the column expanded by the "rowspan=2" function), regardless of whether or not a player uses the advantage to cast two ballots on the same person. Agree? Disagree? - Katanin (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Two columns looks good to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2015
You can add the numbers for the Weekly Rank on the Finale and the Reunion. Source here: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/05/27/tv-ratings-broadcast-top-25-the-voice-tops-adults-18-49-dancing-with-the-stars-tops-total-viewers-for-the-week-ending-may-24-2015/408503/

Taloson (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which figures need to go where? It would help if you could be more specific. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found the where: the last two items in the "Weekly rank" column in Episodes. But which of the two rankings in the URL needs to be used? — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Done I made the edit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In note b for voting history, it should read final Tribal, not first Tribal. ThomasM123 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe "The first Tribal Council vote resulted in a tie." is correct as the "first" refers to the vote, not the Tribal Council (which wouldn't be the final TC anyways). Can you clarify your request? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
OK, I have to say that this section seems REALLY opinionated and driven by someone with an agenda, considering that A) It was not really that big of a factor in the season, and B) There aren't even any adequate sources, OTHER than the links to the episodes in which they occur, which seems really redundant because those incidents are already covered in the respective episode summaries, and these sources, as such, do NOTHING to highlight the exact incidents or the criticism that they brought about for the season. There's also clear evidence supporting the notion that this is by someone with an agenda due to the fact that Rodney is listed as one of the individuals who allegedly made sexist comments, yet not a single example is given of him doing so. And just because someone "feels" that it's worthy of adding doesn't mean anything. I could "feel" that NaOnka tackling a one-legged girl in Nicaragua is worthy of its own controversy section and thus edit that in, with only the link to the episode in question as a source. Until/Unless someone can provide a couple of adequate sources proving that 1) This WAS a big part of the season, and 2) Generated enough criticism in its own right, this section should be deleted immediately. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a major factor this season otherwise it wouldn't have been added. It was even the main topic at the reunion and many urged Jeff Probst to address the comments made by Dan and Will which I think should be added in there as well once a source is found. But as of now everything in the controversy sections remains relevant because it was such a major factor. There is nothing opinionated about it. All that's being listed are facts and mentions how a huge amount of viewers took these comments personally and offensive. It wasn't like one user was offended and decided to make this up themselves. No, it was a big deal and should be noted because due to this Dan and Will might be considered some of the worst to ever play this game. However, I won't add that because that's my personal opinion. We need to address it. Case closed. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But see? You just admitted it's your personal opinion. Where's your proof that this was being demanded by many people? Where's your proof that it was a "major factor" when it was in only two episodes? The person who first added this section even ADMITTED, quote, "I felt like this was a big factor of the season." THEY felt it. It's personal opinions and vendetta against those the section incriminates. Again, where are the legitimate sources? Where's any evidence that Rodney made such comments? It's horribly written and not properly-sourced. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I said my personal opinion was not liking Dan and Will which is not included in the section. And there is no need for "proof" that it was a major factor this season because I can easily tell you to find proof how it wasn't. My point was that it's a major factor because the episodes were controversial (those sources would be added if you stop reverting) and Jeff Probst felt the need to spend most of the time talking about this topic at the reunion because obviously it made enough of an impact. And as for that person saying they "Felt" is completely irrelevant because the section was not added due to their personal beliefs even if that's what THEY think themselves. Also, nothing incriminates anybody. Dan Foley and Will Sims acted the way they did on television and it's merely being noted here. We're going by what was shown to us on television. If you have a problem with that then you should be taking it out on the production team of Survivor not the Wikipedia article. That's all. And before you went on your revert tirade tantrum people were actually editing it and improving it and working on sources. However, since the page went under protection that's been abandoned due to the inability to edit. And you reverting still isn't helping at all. CloudKade11 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're just not making any sense whatsoever. If people have been trying to edit it and add in legitimate sources, then why haven't they done it yet? And why has no one done anything about the fact that Rodney is included in the summarizing sentence while no examples of him have yet to be given? And no, this isn't about how much it was emphasized in the season, because again, it was featured in literally only two episodes. I could make a "controversy" section about John Rocker in the last season since that lasted the same amount of episodes as the so-called "controversy" in this season. I'm afraid your logic just isn't holding up here, and you need to remove your personal biase. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They haven't done it because you keep reverting it and undoing any edits. If the section was actually there, perhaps people would continue to improve it and revise it. And it doesn't matter how many episodes it was features in. Denise Martin gained controversy in China for a lie she told that was not mentioned once during the season until after the show, however, it still was noted. The only one that's letting their "personal bias" show here is you because obviously you're defending the comments they made by not wanting to note it here in the article. If you continue your DISRUPTIVE editing you will be reported and banned. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be included in the article. Nothing biased about it whatsoever just stating what was shown on air. 5teevee5 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) [This is a sock of CloudKade. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)]
 * Fine, I guess you're right, 5teevee. At least you were polite about this, unlike CloudKade up there. In the future, perhaps you could tone it down and not take everything so seriously, dude? 104.52.53.152 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On a different note, as far as I can tell, none of the references indicate this block of text in anyway whatsoever. Could someone please either provide a source that backs this, or delete it.

She was later accused of being overly critical of other contestants during her time at the Ponderosa resort; she called fellow female contestant Sierra Dawn Thomas a "bitch," and was also deeply critical of Tyler Fredrickson. At one point, Fredrickson was so annoyed at Oskooi constantly trying to intervene and say something during his own personal interview, that he had to stop and ask her to stop talking so that he could "have [his] moment" in front of the camera.

ThomasM123 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is clearly no consensus here for "yes a controversy section". And the whole thing is a misnomer to begin with. What you are talking about is some internal dispute in your TV show; there is no evidence of a real controversy. You need to bring this into the season summary section. Simple. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You see I actually watched the season as did many users here. It's understandable for someone that hasn't to come to the article and read the section and believe there's no reason for it to be there. However, since what happened was a major factor of the season, many agreed the "Controversy" section should have been added and users have contributed over the months to add to it. Survivor articles having a "Controversy" section is in fact rare, however, some (Borneo, China, The Australian Outback, Africa, Marquesas, Cook Islands, Gabon and Caramoan) do have it and all have their controversy sections respectively because obviously the issue was enough of an impact on the season that it needs to be noted somewhere other than the summary. If you see issue with this, you're going to need to start a revamp process of ALL articles consisting of a "Controversy" section on the main Survivor article by going to the talk page. You can't just change one article and leave all others to stand. It contradicts your argument. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See? Drmies clearly gets it. CloudKade, you're clearly just wrong and stubbornly biased. First you shove this section down our throats without ANY consensus, and NOW you're trying to destroy its neutrality by making it painfully one-sided and clearly filled with an agenda? You're ridiculous. Either leave in the bits criticizing Shirin too, or delete the whole section. One or the other. You CANNOT have your cake and eat it too. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken it upon myself to remove it. As Drmies said, This "controversy" only happened WITHIN the show. All of the other controversies you cited from other Survivor seasons all subsequently sparked legal battles in the aftermath. This so-called "controversy" in this season, was literally just drama - it didn't spark any legal confrontations. That's like if I were to make a "Controversy" section on Nicaragua for the scene where NaOnka tackled a one-legged girl. Or shoot, I could make an additional "Controversy" section on this page based on the way Nina was supposedly "discriminated against" in her early days. There's a difference between "controversy" and just plain-old "drama." Again, most of the sources are literally just the episode recaps from CBS or otherwise unreliable sources. CloudKade, there has literally been NO consensus on this talk page - it's literally just yo declaring it deserves to exist, and that's that. You run around threatening to ban people for disagreeing with you, and you undid Drmies' edit and simply said "Vandalism." Considering Drmies has been around a LOT longer than you and done WAY more than you ever will, I don't think you're in a position to be calling Vandalism on a much more experienced user. Or are you gonna claim all of this as vandalism and threaten to ban me too? 169.231.23.209 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll put back the bit critiquing Shirin as well. However, if it's removed in the future I'm not going to be responsible for putting it back. And if you wish to add NaOnka pushing Kelly Bruno as a controversy section in the Nicaragua article then by all means do it. I actually feel that's a valid issue that did cause some disruption with the viewers. And I'm not "clearly wrong" about anything. I'm going by how Jeff Probst always addresses this shows controversy in particular with this season. And compared to other season articles (such as China and Denise's lie at the reunion) I believe this issue needs to be addressed here when it's brought up on the actual show numerous times. And Shirin being "annoying" is not controversial, so that will have to be taken out permanently. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. First off, I used the NaOnka example to be sarcastic - EVERY season has drama in it, so I'm saying we SHOULDN'T create a "Controversy" section for everything that goes wrong. And again, your comparison of Denise in China falls flat because that controversy, again, DID spark a legal battle. This season's drama did no such thing. And it really doesn't matter that much, because Probst will put a ton of emphasis on a lot of things. For example, if it were all to Probst, then literally the ONLY thing Ciera ever did in Blood vs. Water was vote off her mother, because that's literally ALL Probst talks about when it comes to Ciera. So Probst can have a personal sway that disproportionally affects the recap of a season. And again, any hit against Shirin herself IS worth noting, because she was a controversial character, and she DID bring a lot of the controversy - such as Will's tirade - on herself. To paint her as a completely innocent victim, as you want to, is 100% false, and thus misleading to put in the article. And again, it's for the sake of neutrality to provide credibility to both sides of the argument, and neutrality is always Wikipedia's goal. If you really just want to express your personal biases, then go to the Survivor Wikia as Drmies recommended, or better yet, try the forum Survivor Sucks - with your rude and abrasive personality, I think you'd fit in with the posters there. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , the problem with socking is that it undermines any faith other editors can have in you. And socking is one thing, but socking to stack the deck in a discussion such as this one is quite another. It's the lowest of the low. Fortunately, there wasn't a consensus to begin with for keepint this fan trivia with its terrible sourcing in the article. If you want a fan page, try Wikia. The "vandalism" claims are of course absurd, but your talk page tells me you've been doing that for years. You also compared to other articles, saying "You can't just change one article and leave all others to stand. It contradicts your argument". No it doesn't contradict anything. First of all, you don't let someone walk off with your bicycle because bikes are stolen all over the place--that's stupid. Second, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Third, it's a good opportunity for us to have a look at all of those articles and see if we can turn them into decent articles, so thank you for the pointer. Now, since the IP editor kindly removed that section again, perhaps we can have a little peace in here. I suggest you stop edit warring, since a. it's disruptive in its own right; b. you don't have consensus on this here talk page to put that poorly sourced chatter in there; c. you've kind of lost all moral high ground, since you're not just previously blocked for edit warring but now also for socking--and I think you should send an apple pie and maybe a new pair of sneakers (Ponyo is an avid ultra-runner) for having blocked you for only two weeks. Thank you. PS: This is insightful--you had two socks? And were warned again for referring to other edits as "vandalism"?Drmies (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you wish to challenge the issue, come here to the talk section like I've said so many times. I don't understand simply removing it due to personal opinion when so many editors in the past have contributed to the section and I promise you I won't be the only one pushing for it to stay even if I'm blocked. I also believe it's against the rules to remove an entire section without discussing it first; especially when it's supported by many editors. Others have reverted the IP's disruptive edits in the past and clearly the IP is still doing it. You should be seeing this and the fact that you're coincidentally not points me to believe you're taking their side because of your personal opinion on this. Also, your bicycle example makes no sense and is completely irrelevant to the topic. P.S. the IP user you're referring to above as agreeing with you has been on this case since Day 1. However, their hostile and aggressive responses make it difficult for anyone to take seriously most of the time. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the User Greggens managed to find a better solution and instead included it within the Episodes instead of an entire section itself. I'm okay with it as long as it still points Will Sims and Dan Foley in the negative light they should be in. Shirin did nothing wrong. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See that? That right there just PROVES your personal biase here, CloudKade. You only care about an agenda, obviously, and were willing to break the rules to do so. And you clearly don't understand Wikipedia's policy, since the idea is that a proposed new section needs to be discussed FIRST, BEFORE it is added in. You don't force it in and THEN discuss it. And YOU'Re the one disrupting others' edits, including my own, Drmies', and Raquel Baranow. You're in the wrong here. Just admit it. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And again, the section has NOT been supported by "many editors" - just you and your now-blocked sock puppet account. And please explain how I'm the one being rude and aggressive, when you're the one throwing around ban threats and accusing all edits you disagree with as being "vandalism"? Between you and me, only one of us has broken any rules here, and only one of us has been blocked before. Just saying. 169.231.23.209 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who writes "I'm okay with it as long as it still points Will Sims and Dan Foley in the negative light they should be in" regarding two WP:BLP subjects should not be editing the article at all, let alone continuing to edit war.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was thinking. And in all honesty, I even think that giving this topic the time of day in the "Reunion" section is going too far to appease someone's personal agenda - literally NO other season of Survivor has a detailed description of what was said/done in the Reunion OTHER than "the cast discusses the season with Jeff Probst." So I honestly think even that should be removed, and maybe, at ABSOLUTE most, leave in the bits about the next season's cast being announced. The drama that one person obviously feels needs to be SO emphasized is already covered in the descriptions for the episodes in which they took place. That's more than enough. 169.231.23.162 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I remove said unnecessary tidbits until it's further discussed? 169.231.23.162 (talk)

Why was this fcking deleted and not the one in other seasons? Kindly explain. This is such pure BS from a person who clearly has a boner for this season. 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How eloquent. Perhaps you should take a look at this entire previous discussion? And the revision history, to see the reasoning made there? 169.231.20.173 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Merica color
I'm sorry for reviving the debate, but I think the color used for Merica is really not accurate, because it is clear that the main color of the tribe is black: PlanetBuff stated that it's "black with purple", and the tribe's flag does not have a face purple on it. I know you will probably not want a full-black color because purple is mentioned on the recaps and the confessional subtitles have a purple tone, but black is still the main color, and the current color does not look black at all. So, instead of the color currently used (#24063A), I suggest to use dark purple (#301934), which is closer to black. 90.47.225.21 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2015 (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)