Talk:Whodunnit? (2013 TV series)

Editing the elimination chart
The colors on the elimination table in the article cannot be changed. J4lambert (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, how hard is it to keep this thing organized? And do we really need that many edits to fix everything and list the new results? —烏Γ (kaw), 02:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Elimination table colors
Seriously, can we just come to a decision on the colors of the elimination chart? It changes almost every day. First pastels, now these obnoxious primary colors. Can we discuss it here? I have a proposal, but I want everyone's opinion:


 * – Spared
 * – Spared & had the best performance
 * – Scared, but wasn't eliminated
 * – Scared & eliminated
 * – Dead
 * – Winner
 * – Runner-up ( This is an option too.)
 * – Killer

What does everyone think? Nick1372 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Thanks, Nick. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, anything to stabilize the chameleon that has become the elimination chart. Iggyboop (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been long enough, so with no objections, I'll convert it right now. Nick1372 (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, I don't get what's the big deal really, I mean, I didn't notice it until you pointed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I have another idea. The first contestant to solve the riddle in an episode would have these colors:


 * - First contestant to solve the riddle
 * - Contestant solved the riddle first, but was scared
 * - Contestant solved the riddle first and had best performance

That's all for now. J4lambert (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would think the fewer colors the better...if we go with the empty table in the "Elimination table" section below maybe we can just add in a word like "riddle" or "win" (even the asterisk on the current page is alright, although barely noticeable). Also, unless you know something we don't, I don't know of any guests who have solved the riddle and ended up scared as of yet...? Iggyboop (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion on per-episode format
As with most other reality TV shows, might I suggest that instead of doing each episode by the murder, instead wrap that into a brief episode description, as to also capture the major clues and the essence of the riddle challenge? As to the end-of-episode-murder, this should be the lead of the next episode. The details of the "murder" are still covered but in this format a bit better. --M ASEM (t) 15:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Sometimes, a format like the one that is currently on this page works (i.e. The American Baking Competition). Here, it definitely does not. The murder does not constitute the entire episode, thus should not be the entire description of it. Does making an episode list sound like a solution? We can place the summaries right in there, and we'll also have room for other information. Nick1372 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, following something like Survivor seasons. Just translate the "Murders" section to "Episodes", and rewrite those out a bit. --M ASEM (t) 15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh. I was thinking more of an episode chart. I'm sure you could fit the translated summaries into that, though. Nick1372 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chart or per-section summary, it's not critical which way. (I'd suggest looking at The Great Escape (U.S. TV series) for how a table version may look. Just that I think you want the per-episode summary to be more on the episode and less on the murder (even though that's the theme of the episode).  --M ASEM  (t) 06:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again to those who revised the format of these episode summaries. Would it be appropriate to insert information such as the formation of alliances, etc?  It is a competitive reality show at the end of the day.  If so, where would that go within each of these summaries? Iggyboop (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If this were a game like Survivor, where the personal dynamics played into who was going home that episode, that would be a reason to include. Here, there's some of that, but most of it is who basically does best on the quiz (in Mole-speak), with only players giving the right or wrong information to others influencing that. We also don't know exactly what degree these players are lying or telling the truth, making it a bit harder for ourselves to write this. Maybe after an episode more or two a way to describe the inter-actions between players will become more apparent but right now I don't see it easily. --M ASEM (t) 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I had initially wanted to include something in the second episode summary regarding the birth of an alliance when Kam, Ulysses, and Cris reached the end of the riddle challenge together. But it's too early to tell whether this was meaningful or just filler for the episode, as we've already seen some "alliances" come and go on this show.Iggyboop (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cougar or Puma or Mountain Lion
I've seen this name change once already and would like to put a stop to any other renaming of the cat in Don's murder recap. Cougar is the standard name but is called others like puma and mountain lion. I added a wikilink to the animal for lookup. &#8212;Christopher (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with this (was changed again recently), though I can certainly understand the confusion if the producers are going to title the episode "Mountain Lyin'," which while more pun-ny is less accurate. Iggyboop (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Feedback: Pictures/Photos of players
Feedback requests are asking for photos of players. I have found several photos and listed them below. I know photos are automatically copyrighted to the photographer that took them; however, I do not understand what is considered fair use. This had prevented me from adding a photo to the page. Your thoughts would be helpful to my understanding.

Here is one photo of the group:, two images with individual photos: & , and a good photo of Giles. &#8212;Christopher (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is generally not appropriate to include cast photos (as non-free images) for reality television. I know I've seen that feedback, but unfortunately, that's really something we don't do. --M ASEM (t) 23:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Right. From looking at other Wikipedia pages about shows, I see none have included cast photos. I was not sure if this was something understood or simply due to WP:C itself. Is there a WP on this as it relates to cast photos (not WP:C or WP:FU)? And if not, could a person artistically create a photo using the cast member's photo to meet the fair use tests? In place of an image, could there be a note with an external link to an image of the cast? &#8212;Christopher (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have the external link to the show's official page which has the cast list and bios with pictures, that should be sufficient. Generally, because these are relative TV shows and not actors and not playing characters, free images of the persons would be the most appropriate way to include them, but we'd likely not get them all. --M ASEM  (t) 01:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because some reality T.V. shows don't show cast photos, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. What people want, people should get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * They're not the ones paying for the server space and setting the requirements on non-free content use. --M ASEM (t) 22:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these Wikipedia pages is to help people understand more about the topic. With all due respect, now you're just being kinda selfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to call people out; it's not like this is his website. This is a group project where we have to respect the rules that have been put into place.  See WP:NFC section 4.2.3. under "Unacceptable use."  You'll notice that for example, on most Wikipedia pages of current actors, the photos are all "amateur" photos taken by Wikipedia users. Iggyboop (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I totally agree. So what are we all going to agree on? Pictures or no pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The major problem is that that picture is not in the public domain. It is owned by ABC & the production companies. Wikipedia's guidelines on non-free images basically say not to use them unless it's necessary to identify the page's subject. That's why it's okay to have the show's logo in the infobox, but not most pictures from the series. So, no. Nick1372 (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there seems to be a frenzy of "no pictures!" feedback with each episode, to reiterate and summarize: Wikipedia's guidelines forbid us from posting screenshots from the show or photos from their website. You are certainly free to go to the official website to view and save your own copies, but we're not allowed to post them here. For the most part, only photos that we ourselves have taken of the contestants would be allowed on here - see any of the Survivor seasons' wiki pages and you will see that the only photos are "amateur" photos. Iggyboop (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Enough scare quotes
I mean seriously. "Killer," "murdered," "shock" (I think the shock is pretty genuine, actually), "killing," "dead" numerous times, "killed," "victim," "killed," "murderer," "deaths," "set on fire," "attacked." Dare I say it is "overkill" ? Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 14:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, for an encyclopedia, I think it's needed. Just as the show had people confused if there were real murders going on, I worry that readers may make the same mistake if we're not careful on the wording and use the quoted versions to assure that when we say "a guest was murdered" that it was all part of the show's fiction. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny, as soon as someone edited the shock to be "shock," I also thought, maybe this has gone too far. I've read enough interviews where contestants expressed real shock at what was going on (most recently, see Kam's interview) so I'm gonna go ahead and change that one back. But as for the rest, agree with Masem. Iggyboop (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would probably make sure to only quote "murdered" or "killed", but not things like "shocked" or "attacked". I would consider capitalizing Killer since that's actually a game role and not just a general noun (that avoids us having to quote "killer"). I would rewrite anything else to avoid the quotes, if possible, saved with the works "murder" or "kill", only to emphasis that this is just faked deaths. For example, to describe Ulysses's death: "The Killer used the commotion to strike Ulysses with the floorboard, "killing" him through poisoning." --M ASEM  (t) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, I'll give it a shot. Iggyboop (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So there actually aren't that many quotes left (it really helps to just hit Ctrl-F and search for quotes). The "killer" is only in quotes in the first line of the Format section but not elsewhere - and the ABC site doesn't capitalize it so I'm fine with how it is now. The ones that are left are for the beginning of each section or when appropriate grammatically. I left it in for Sheri and Dontae too because their "deaths" caused so much confusion when the show started. Iggyboop (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, using them once or thrice isn't a big deal (as long as the meaning behind them is clear) and the section over viewer confusion about whether the deaths were genuine, unbelievable as it is, needs to remain. It just looked very unprofessional seeing so many words in quotes. Green-eyed girl  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Investigation History table
I see that an IP edit put this thing in the article: (...heh, not exactly, I've edited it since it was moved here) Iggyboop (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what exactly the point of it is? It makes for a total of four tables (not counting the episode recaps) and isn't that too many? I really don't see any correlation between who goes to each of the investigations and anything else, so I feel that there is no reason to have a full table here. Maybe we can add who went to each scene in parenthesis with each episode recap? Andymancan1 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is far too much. It could be possible to list who went where in the table but as we are glossing over the social game aspects (eg, these ad hoc teams that have formed) I don't think it's necessary. --M ASEM (t) 20:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no purpose in this table. We have far too many already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. It's trivial minutia. Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I played around with combining some tables, even, given that the "Scared" and "Spared" text isn't entirely necessary in the elimination table, but that became too confusing. Iggyboop (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And there are many more seasons yet to come. Are we going to have to make a table or two for every season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sadly, given the ratings and reviews, it seems safe to say that this show will not be returning after this season. I think we're lucky they're even going to finish this season out. Iggyboop (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Iggyboop: possible but speculative. The ratings are on par with the timeslot, yet the reviews are negative. It's a flip of the coin in my opinion with improvements on the show being needed. I couldn't see any reason for them not to finish the season, all the episodes are already filmed.


 * As for the tables, three tables prior to episode recap seems to be a bit too much in itself. I agree that the above table would be going overboard. As for "making a table or two every season," I don't see why not. Maintain the same format but give each season it's own page. Once the tables are set up, keeping them updated is fairly easy. &#8212;Christopher (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If* the show got a second season. we can make separate articles for each season and leave this as the overall article. So multiple tables won't be an issue (though I still agree that this above table is too much). --M ASEM  (t) 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as the lack of success of the show, I agree there probably won't be a second season. Absolute worst case scenario with respect to this season would be the episodes being posted online or the heretofore unaired episodes being burned off some time. Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 14:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, while we've got it here, might as well update it for the curious. I've shortened the location names to make the table a little less unwieldy. Iggyboop (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And again... Iggyboop (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Under the murdered chart you can add Melina to the list the ABC site for next episode confirms this as says only 3 contestants remain and 1 is the killer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.117.64 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Until we know exactly which three contestants remain, we'll probably leave it the way it is. Another update to this investigative chart, just for kicks...I'm gonna miss this show. Iggyboop (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also if you go to the ABC website, under the contestant list a red X is placed over a player after the episode in which he/she dies airs (not the episode when his/her desth is investigated). Because there is no red X over Melina, we can't assume she is dead even though the shows producer has publicly stated that the finale will only have 3 contestants left. User:JeremiahWootendotcom (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2013 (CT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.192 (talk)

One final edit to this table, for what it's worth. Iggyboop (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Elimination Table
Does it seem redundant to have the explanation of being "Spared"/"Scared" in each cell of the table and then explain it in the legend below it? My suggestion is to just have the explanation in the legend and not have any wording in the table at all. - B2Project (Talk) 02:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not doing them any good, as a first-time reader needs an explanation of what scared and spared mean. If it was just a simple In/Out or Eliminated it could stay, but having phrases/words coined by the show in the table could potentially confuse the reader. Nick1372 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not comfortable with this. I did a mock up in my and the removal of the wording inside the table makes it look awkward to me. As for clarity, the only confusing part would be the eliminated player's red block. It could be taken as eliminated that episode so was not given a "scare card", when he is actually given a scare card and eliminated the next episode. &#8212;Christopher (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: The clarity issue can be resolved by changing the color key's discription of the red block to some like "This player was chosen to be eliminated next." &#8212;Christopher (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this: [Table was incorporated into another example, removed for space] It eliminates the clutter in the table and adds the explanation in the legend that also includes the eliminated player being "Scared". – B2Project (Talk) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I toyed around with the empty table as well - and I found both awkward, though I thought that the current version with the "Scared/Spared" was less awkward. You expect text in a table, ya know? I played around with adding the location info (scene of the crime, etc.) as I mentioned in the Investigation History section above, but the table got confusing. Also, I thought it might be useful info to highlight the guest who solved the riddle challenge in each episode as well - perhaps that can be put in as "Riddle" on this table to make it a little less empty.
 * For what it's worth, I would vote to keep the phrase as "murdered" rather than "eliminated" given the show's theme. If we use the table above, I would make the text for the murdered guest "Scared – The player was marked for possible elimination and was eliminated at the end of the episode." to further clarify it. Iggyboop (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[The table that used to be here has been incorporated into the next so I deleted it to make room for the next iteration.] Iggyboop (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe this? Don't mean to start table wars... The casual reader might be confused as to whether these are votes to eliminate, like in other reality shows, but one hopes they'd read the opening paragraph of the article first. Iggyboop (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to like this table… but I'm thinking it would just confuse the reader. This table may give them the impression that who a player thought was the killer played a part in whether or not they were eliminated, something we've seen is clearly not true. Nick1372 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It does however maximize information usage. I think it's a smart idea to do it as long as the top of the table explains everything at the start. --M ASEM (t) 18:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[Table was incorporated into another example, removed for space]
 * This should pretty much include all the tables into one now...any thoughts? (PS I prefer the darkgray for the background so it makes the row looks like it just ends rather that a different background color) – B2Project (Talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[Table was incorporated into another example, removed for space]


 * Nice work, just a few suggested changes: Added another row for the riddle challenge winner (how do y'all feel about this?). Added a line to explain what the contents of the cells were (i.e., not votes). Amended it to "Accusations Against" and reverted back to the old N/A for Sheri. Changed "player" to "guest." I'm not sure what you mean about the dark grey background but it's fine to me either way. Iggyboop (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like this better than the previous version, but it's not perfect. It does kind of look like "Riddle Solver" is just another contestant, which it's not. Maybe, instead of just bolding, you can change the background color of that row? Nick1372 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the dark line and shaded the last square in the row. Is it any better? I'm pretty new to this table stuff, so if anyone knows how to make it look better, have at it. Iggyboop (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Each guest's suspect for the killer is listed for each week.
 * Color key
 * – Spared – The guest performed well enough to escape the killer's attention.
 * – Scared – The guest was marked for possible elimination but survived.
 * – Scared – The guest was marked for possible elimination and was eliminated at the end of the episode.
 * – The killer singled the guest out as the strongest performer.
 * – The guest had been eliminated in a previous episode.
 * – The guest was revealed to be the killer.
 * – The guest was the runner-up.
 * – The guest won the competition.
 * Removed previous examples and combined into one that doesn't make the riddle solver look like another contestant. Any additional thoughts? – B2Project (Talk) 02:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I like the way that row is set up now. Is this ready for an informal vote? There's only a couple weeks left, anyway! Iggyboop (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded! I prefer this table to the previous done. I like how the table combines the two tables in the article to reduce the number of tables but still provide a visual summary to the episode recaps. The riddle solver line uses a third axis that provides more details, but doesn't confuse the viewer with the main details. If there is no other oppositions or changes, let's move this format to the main article this week. &#8212;Christopher (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just updated it to Episode 7 so that it's ready for transfer :) Iggyboop (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that "Elimination chart/Accusation history" is way too long of a section title. Can't it just be "Elimination Chart"? Nick1372 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? I'll change it right now. Also, I have no idea what to do with the note that currently reads, "The fellow guest that each guest suspects as being the killer is listed under the week that accusation was made. "There is no correlation between the guests' suspicions of the killer's identity and who was eliminated that episode." I agree the first note "Each guest's suspect for the killer is listed for each week." was confusing. But the longer note was a bit awkward, so I tried to rephrase it to eliminate one of those he/she situations. Thoughts? Iggyboop (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've worked a bit on tweaking the chart, title, and explanation:

Game History

''The following chart shows each guest's progress through the game, and displays which fellow guest he or she accused of being the killer in each episode. There is no correlation between the guests' suspicions of the killer's identity and who was eliminated that episode.''


 * Color key
 * – Spared - The killer singled the guest out as the strongest performer.
 * – Spared - The guest performed well enough to escape the killer's attention.
 * – Scared - The guest was marked for possible elimination but survived.
 * – Scared - The guest was marked for possible elimination and was eliminated at the end of the episode.
 * – The guest had been eliminated in a previous episode.
 * – The guest was revealed to be the killer.
 * – The guest was the runner-up.
 * – The guest won the competition.

Jedzz (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, why did both original tables need to be changed at all? I strongly preferred the old system, as this one table simply includes too much information with little organization or obvious meaning. —烏Γ (kaw), 18:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Reddit info
Not sure how to reference Reddit so I've left it off the article for now, but there's some interesting info from Kam, who has been posting there with some regularity since midway through the season (http://www.reddit.com/user/kamperez). Specifically:
 * the quiz never asks the guest to ID the killer
 * Good news for Kam, considering he NEVER DID! Sucks for Lindsey to get it right every time and still lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ABC (and presumably Standards and Practices, as has been mentioned in previous interviews referenced in the article) handles the quizzes, and only sends the names of the top and bottom scorers to the production team for Whodunnit. Hence, other scared cards are given out per the production team - while usually to another low-scoring player, mostly it is for dramatic effect
 * in Episode 6, all teams were allowed to examine the "Scene of the Crime" though it was edited out for certain reasons (Kam plays coy on this point)

I feel like there's going to be a lot of (humorous?) behind-the-scenes info coming out after the show finishes. Iggyboop (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Eliminated in Episode...
I've seen a few edits to this in the first table under Cast (which have since been reverted) so I figured I'd add this to explain further. The episode in which guests are first eliminated is the episode listed as their episode of elimination. It can be confusing as unlike most reality shows, the entire next episode is dedicated to their "deaths," but that doesn't change the fact that they leave the game (i.e., lose) at the end of the episode where they do most poorly on the exam/case. ABC greys out and adds a red "X" over the photo of a guest after the episode airs; for example, Geno was eliminated at the end of the most recent episode, and Geno's already gotten the treatment on the official ABC website. Iggyboop (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Final episode
The final episode ended 45 min utes ago. I don't know why I got reverted! Tom pw (talk) (review) 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask... was Cris aware that she was brought here to be the killer? Cuz I am clueless... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.222.227 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have strong reliable sources, but based on the social media, all of the contestants after they were selected were then asked if they wanted to play the role of the killer, and Cris was selected from that group. --M ASEM (t) 03:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * She said on twitter that she wanted to be the killer the whole time, and also that she could have received a scared card. It just never fit the narrative to do it, since she (legitimately) did so well in the challenges. She also did very little in her capacity as the killer during the actual game -- in her own words, "I left the gun hints and the horse hints." Not sure what that means exactly (probably relating to Geno's murder and Ulysses', respectively, but I don't know what "leaving hints" necessarily means). Apparently nothing else. Ultimately having her (or anyone) assume the role of the killer was sort of pointless. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is misleading
The article currently says this:

"The lowest-scoring guest, along with at least one other low-scoring guest will receive a card with the word "Scared." The killer may attempt to mislead the other guests by receiving a "Scared" card as well, though the killer cannot be eliminated.[8] The killer will then eliminate the lowest-scoring guest(s) by "killing" him or her, in turn setting up the murder to be solved in the next episode."

Only the lowest-scoring guest is sure to receive a scared card (or two lowest in the case of episode 5). The second (or third) goes to someone chosen the producers, who aren't aware of everyone's scores (just the top and bottom scorers). The whole teams thing ended up making it clear who would have a similar theory to whom, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way. The last sentence also suggests that Cris did things during gameplay that she didn't do. She didn't eliminate anyone (indeed, the "interviews with the deceased" on the ABC website have the eliminated players take a guess as to who the killer is, and nobody guessed right, not even Ronnie who had the best odds). Another reason that making one of the players be "the killer" was pretty pointless. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also it suggests that Cris herself may have decided to send herself a scared card. Basically it's written in-universe, and isn't that something that generally needs to be avoided? 173.160.130.14 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been corrected in the article. The interview with Zuiker after the finale (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnET6oEFveU) touches upon this - the killer could have received the "Scared" card the same way any of the other contestants did - for performing poorly on the examination. However, the killer couldn't be eliminated. Again, the killer had no extra information from the producers, which is why it was "fair" for her to play on a team, because she knew no more than any other guest did. In fact, one could say that it made Kam's odds worse because if his team did poorly, Cris couldn't be eliminated, increasing the chances of his elimination. It appears that since Cris never received a Scared card, she probably would've done well in the game, if she had not chosen to be the killer. Iggyboop (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see if something made comparisons to the Mole (where the Mole was told a lot of info by production and told often when and where to sabotage), but to do that without sourcing is OR. --M ASEM  (t) 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference for Second Companion Book
The second book's publishing date in the sections Companion Books needs a reference. Will (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17851965-whodunnit-murder-on-mystery-island) work as a reference? It appears to be an article library of books. I have yet to find any other article release dates beyond the retailers. &#8212;Christopher (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Goodreads is not a reliable source. It's user-written (like IMDb), so we can't guarantee if that's true. Nick1372 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured the author, who also is the creator of the show, is good enough of a source. We've used twitter as a source for information about Sheri earlier in this article, so I've done the same here.  Iggyboop (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be good enough. Nick1372 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None
The plot is very similar to the Agatha Christie Novel, And Then There Were None. However, I cannot find any notable resources that state as such. Group29 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)