Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force

Citations and Sourcing
Over the years, we have floated various rules and guidelines regarding citation of events, facts and notability, and now that we have this Task Force in place I think it is time to establish a clear set of "ok" and "not ok" sources to use in articles. In particular, this would look at websites such as the infamous Survivor Sucks site, which admittedly is a spoiler site, but does churn out some interesting discussion at times. Some of this discussion has managed to find its way onto Wikipedia (see Talk:Jonathan Penner), and is being cited by anonymous and registered users alike as gospel truth (pun intended, if you read the talk page in question). Having this Manual of Style would allow us to straight off the mark say that, "no, we cannot have this per WP:MOS/Survivor..." instead of endlessly debating the notability of supposed events. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, I think that Survivor Sucks is a "Gray area," but I am tempted to say no.  just my opinion! ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here ♥ 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the Records and Firsts list
I know how clogging the sections are. Palau's takes a big deal of room! If we could make them less clogging or get rid of them, we'd have better articles. I might take the lists on. I've gotta see how clogging they are.MySurvivorPartay (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the kind of stuff we don't need there is information already included in the article (e.g. Africa having the first tribe shuffle), crufty information of no notability (e.g. Africa showed the temperature in one challenge) and stuff about contestants (e.g. Ethan Zohn is dating Jenna Morasca). The already included information is (duh) already there, but the non-notable stuff can be removed entirely and the stuff about contestants shifted to their individual pages. If they are not notable enough to have a page, then surely the information is also not notable. I have already started on Africa, and will get through the rest in a few days (hopefully!) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

0
 * I'll take on Palau, Exile and Fiji. (Palau's Records and Firsts section is really large.) That'll save you some work. And I'd love to help out.MySurvivorPartay (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can help in a couple of the things in Cook Islands... I guess I could tackle that one; I'll put my name there.Stjimmy61892 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checklist
This one's good! ✅ Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Borneo ✅ ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here ♥
 * Australia ✅ Shapiros10 Came Back! 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Africa ✅ -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marquesas ✅ -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thailand ????? There are none! Shapiros10 Came Back! 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazon ✅ -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pearl Islands ✅ -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All-Stars Good Job DLT! Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Vanuatu (none as of 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Palau MSP and DLT did a good enough job.  I think that "Ulong and Koror" is notable enough to stay in.  Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guatemala ✅ -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Panama/Exile Island-- If Gogo Dodo Or Dark Lord could check and see what they think. ✅ MySurvivorPartay (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (removed the last of it; already in article - TDLT)
 * Cook Islands ✅ -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fiji ✅ -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * China ✅ -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Micronesia (none as of 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me?
Did I get kicked out of this Task Force?Stjimmy61892 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. I was removing the blocked editor User:Shapiros10, and must have accidentally removed your name as well. No harm intended. -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't intentionally do that! Never. I certainly love the project and love how much everyone can participate. MySurvivorPartay (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright well thank you. I thought I was getting removed due to the fact that I was getting accused of being a sock to Shapiros10, and therefore as he was deleted, I was not deleted, but at least also removed from the task force. Thanks, guys, I'm gonna try to see what I can do next about the "records and firsts" (and thanks for finishing my *almost* finished Cook Islands job, Dark Lord Trombonator! I couldn't figure out what to do with them: should I keep them or are they useless information?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjimmy61892 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversion of episode summaries etc.
Partway through China, Masem and Gogo Dodo (among others) worked on a new format for episode summaries that has been implemented for that season and Micronesia. I think we should look at converting the other seasons' pages into this format as well so we can have some consistency; what do you guys think? (EDIT) also perhaps go on CBS websites and put episode summaries in for the first (I think) eleven seasons, which don't have them.-- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Up for deletion
Two contestant templates are up for deletion. If you feel so inclined, add your comments to the discussions here and the one below it. -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  07:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sole Survivor Title
Isn't Sole Survivor a title, thus it must be capitalized. Who agrees? From Tagi to Bottom, My Survivor Partay (Wobbuffet!. Dats right) 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's wait for a couple more people to pass comment before changing it for every article.  Shapiros10 Wuz Here    01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - Late to the party, but I concur. -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Challenge descriptions in episode summaries
Should the standard be for the challenge descriptions to go before the description of events in the episode summaries or after? China has them at the end of each episode summary while Micronesia and Gabon have them at the beginning.

My preference is the end. The challenges just don't seem to be as important as the overall events. -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus formed on the Micronesia talk page was before, as it gives the reader the knowledge of what happened in the challenge when they read the summary. The discussion was here. I meant to move the China descriptions last week, but it got away from me. -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be before as well, given that, while 99% of the time events in the challenge don't affect the summary, there are a few cases where a specific event in the challenge will affect the strategy discussion --M<font size="-3">ASEM 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * trombonator - Thanks for pointing out the previous discussion. I must've missed it.  Since there was a consensus reached there, I have changed the China article.  --  Bull  Wiki  Winkle  02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reward descriptions
OK... Having settled the placement of challenge descriptions, I now notice that the descriptions of rewards aren't very unified. Some start with 'The winning tribe [gets|wins|will win|etc.]', whereas some just give a list of items or a simple description of the reward.

I think it's overkill to write a full sentence for each one. How about standardizing on just a simple list of items or description (for trips and such)? -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  02:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this for China, Micronesia, and Gabon. -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template for talk pages
User:The dark lord trombonator/WPST

I'm not sure how many of you actually check this page.... but I'll post anyway. I'm in the process of creating a template to go on the top of talk pages, similar to Template:WPHP (despite me being a complete n00b when it comes to templating. It's in a subpage of mine, User:The dark lord trombonator/WPST; feel free to check it out and give feedback. I'd post an example of what it looks like, but somehow all text after it gets stuck inside the box, so check it out at the talk page of the sub above. All help is welcome, thanks! -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  06:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the problem(s) and (hope you don't mind) took the liberty of modifying the template in your subpage (there was an extra colon in the image code and the wikicode for closing the table was missing at the end). I also posted a sample at the top of this topic.
 * I'd just recommend that the final template be called WPSTF. -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  21:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like the use of the word "faction". Possibly too divisive of a word.  I suggest "a group of Wikipedia editors" instead. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. BWW - the colon was added bt BJBot because the image is non-free. I wasn't aware of this restriction, so if there are any free-content pictures out there they'd be helpful. ("100px" doesn't really suit our "group of Wikipedia editors"; which is a better word, thanks Gogo). How do we go about making quality/importance assessment criteria? -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Twila Tanner AfD currently running. Nom says delete per WP:1E and I would tend to agree. If you feel differently, make your voice heard. -- THE <b style="color:black;">DARK LORD</b> TROMBONATOR  01:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Article layout discussion
There is a discussion on the Borneo talk page where some changes to the current layout of Survivor articles are being proposed. If you have an opinion, you may want to weigh in. -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New format of Survivor seasons
So I'm planning on further expanding as many Survivor seasons as I can. I started with Survivor: Borneo. It is currently up for peer review, and as I was waiting to move it, three editors approached me about being bold and just moving it. All three and myself believe it is much much nicer, and cleaner. My next project will be Survivor: All Stars, once Borneo is done (probably). Look for Boreno to be at FAC in a week or two.

Also, I'd like to re-design this project. What about making this it's own project for starts, instead of a "Task Force"? Thoughts?  iMa tth ew  18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work on Borneo. The article was in such a sorry state that your rewrite was much needed.  I have to admit that I'm a bit hesitant on changing to the new format for later seasons that are much more expansive like the current season.  A lot of work has gone into writing all of the summaries and occasionally some of us are still reverting anonymous IPs who are using the old format.


 * I don't have any opinion on if this project is a task force or a separate project. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a consistent format for all seasons. My preference is for the individual episode summaries like the current season, but I'll go with whatever consensus is reached.  The main thing missing from the revamped Borneo page are the challenge descriptions.  Perhaps this is a good thing.  Perhaps they do not meet the notability standards.  Two questions come to mind then:
 * Should we have a standard format across all seasons?
 * If so which one should it be?
 * -- Bull  Wiki  Winkle  06:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly, we should wait until Borneo's FAC is over - and if it passes like so, we keep this format, but if a suggested change is brought up, then we talk about changing it.  iMa tth ew  12:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think seeing how the Borneo FAC goes is a good idea. It's a lot of work converting everything over and I wouldn't want to see it all done if the FAC alters the format or fails. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tribe Colors
I have a bunch of problems about tribe colors in the season articles; as in, a lot of them are very inaccurate and not even close. Should I do anything about that, other than bring it up (for a third time in Borneo I might add) in the Talk sections?Stjimmy61892 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree on the tribe color for Rattana on Borneo. I went ahead and changed all three tribe colors for that season to match the archived CBS site.


 * What other tribe colors do you think should be changed? --  Bull  Wiki  Winkle  20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For starters, I think Kucha's a little bright in Outback, as is Samburu in Africa and Malakal and Dabu in Micronesia. I always thought that Chuay Gahn was more of a red than an orange in Thailand, but there have been sources that would work for both. I think Viveros is a TAD dark in Exile Island. I was pretty sure that Nobag wasn't QUITE a straight-up blue, but I could be wrong. And for me that's it.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Color edit wars
The color edit wars are becoming tiresome. One possible way to at least contain the warring would be to create a tribe color template, which specifies the background and text color when fed a particular tribe name. If there is any interest, I can make something up. It would basically be a big switch statement which returns a style statement for the particular tribe name. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the edit wars are becoming tiresome, and there seems to be no discussion regarding the changes. Hope you don't mind, but I've created a possible tribe colour template here. The colours used on that template are the colours that were used before all the edit warring, and none of the recent undiscussed colours. Feel free to improve the template. If this template does end up being used, I would suggest semi-protecting it to prevent newer users from changing the colours without discussion, and putting a little hidden note that tells users to discuss any colour changes. --<font color="#9E30A2" style="font-size:110%">Meäghân <font color="#E4444A">i can see your halo 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I made a few minor changes.  We could allow for spaces in the tribe name by adding second switch target.  Also, we could have it display the tribe name as well, unless this would be too confusing? Or that could be a different template that calls this one, for example one for tribe color boxes, using a  tag. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made it possible to include spaces in certain tribe times. I actually tried adding the tribe names to the template; my plan was to have it display the tribe name by default and having a perimetre that would allow the tribe name to be changed to something else. It messed up the whole thing. I'll try doing it by having a "tribe name" template. The "tribe name" template would be used to colour a box and include the tribe name, the other one would be used to colour any box. Cheers, --<font color="#9370DB" style="font-size:110%">Meäghân <font color="#E4444A">i can see your halo 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (see User:Meaghan/Tribename). --<font color="#9370DB" style="font-size:110%">Meäghân <font color="#E4444A">i can see your halo 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I merged some of the duplication.  Now that I look at it, how about if we have a single backend template that returns just the style statement.  For example, what you have in User:Meaghan/Survivorcolors, but without the trailing pipe.  Then, have frontend templates that call this to produce either (a) a table entry or (b) a "colorbox" for the infobox, by placing the style statement inside of a .  The idea is to reduce the specification of the colors to a single template, to avoid redundancy and possible inconsistency. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! How would you have it so it can be used for a table entry and a colorbox? --<font color="#9370DB" style="font-size:110%">Meäghân <font color="#E4444A">i can see your halo 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to stribe, but I am somewhat indifferent to the actual name. I figured this was short. I am also somewhat indifferent to the name of stribe/color and stribe/name. This one could be longer since it will most likely won't be used directly. The color template can be used to make a color box as well (see the source code for colorbox). Any preference for the name for this? It could also be a bit longer since it won't be used too repetitively. One obvious suggestion would be survivor colorbox? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the shorter names would be better. If the templates do end up getting moved to a longer title, then the shorter name could be used as a shortcut. For the colorbox, I don't see a problem with it being longer; it's only used 2-5 times on a single Survivor season page. I'll start changing the format on the Survivor season pages tonight. Cheers, -- <font color="#3d2b1f"> Meäghân talk   21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New voting history format
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Survivor: Samoa regarding a new voting history format. Cheers, -- <font color="#3d2b1f"> Meäghân talk   21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Questions about sourcing and content of episode summaries have been posed here, which was started after this post. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Survivorwinners template
So, we now have and Survivor contestants and succession boxes? This seems like a bit much, so I have nominated Survivor winners for deletion here. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed standardized width for tribe columns in "Contestants" tables
A while ago, standardized widths became the standard for the "The game" table. I don't see why we shouldn't implement them into the "Contestants" table for the tribe columns. On some seasons, especially Gabon, the tribe columns' widths aren't even. I've created a new version of the Gabon table using the proposed standardized width (85px) here. Thoughts? -- <font color="#007700">M<font color="#009900">e<font color="#00bb00">a<font color="#00dd00">g h a n ) ≈ 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS
I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Contestant Progress?
Whoever created it... I have no idea. I have seen no mention of proposals for it, it's totally unnecessary IMO, and no one has gotten rid of it yet. I'm going to get rid of them because it's on the first three seasons. If you disagree just revert the edit. Stjimmy61892 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It took me a moment to figure out what you meant. See various IP edits on Survivor: The Australian Outback, Survivor: Borneo, and Survivor: Africa.


 * I agree with the removal of these sections. It is a lot of original research.  It doesn't help the understanding of the game and is difficult to understand.  I've seen these kinds of tables before on some other reality TV show, but I can't remember which one it was.  These tables make some sense on Top Chef and Project Runway, but not with Survivor articles.  Some IPs really like to add tables and/or trivia from other reality show articles into the Survivor articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Survivor stats
does Survivor stats violate WP:NOSTATS and WP:OR? Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Jury vote tables
It makes no sense that the names in the Finalist row are don't match the order of total votes in the Votes cell that immediately follows, nor do the vote totals correspond to the rows of votes that follow that cell. In the following partial example from Survivor: Samoa, I've added the ranking to the contestant's name in that row to show how they are misaligned with the vote totals:

Apparently all of the season articles do it this way, and in my opinion, all of the articles are wrong. I was not able to find any old discussions that established a consensus for the jury vote table to list contestants in 3-2-1 position (left to right) and vote totals in 1-2-3 position. It's possible one person put it backwards and the other articles copied it, I don't know. But I cannot think of any plausible justification for this oddity.Propose listing vote totals in the jury vote table in each Survivor season article in the same order as the finalists. Discussion? This project appears to be dormant, so I will notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force and the talk pages for each Survivor season in order to reach interested editors. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, as the one who reverted the edit made by Schazjmd in the Samoa article, though I do agree with their reasoning as I pointed out to them at that article's talk page. The way the tables are presented right now, with the most votes listed first in the vote count, but the one receiving the most votes (i.e., the winner) being listed in the rightmost column, last, the numbers don't correspond to the votegetters, and it will be misleading to readers who comes across this (particularly non-Survivor fans or those who have never seen the series). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support finalist order change - The vote total order is fine but the finalists should be done winner first. So it should be:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;

!colspan="4"|Jury vote !Episode # !colspan="3"|16 ! Day # ! align="left"|Finalists ! align="left"|Votes
 * colspan="3"|39
 * colspan=3
 * }
 * Won, 2nd, 3rd order looks best. We would not want the votes order to be 0–2–7. You might even want the vote total above the finalists row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;
 * {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;

!colspan="4"|Jury vote
 * align="left"|Episode #
 * colspan="3"|16
 * align="left"|Day #
 * colspan="3"|39
 * align="left"|Votes
 * colspan=3
 * align="left"|Finalists
 * }
 * There is also a problem with the html in creating this table. Exclamation point headers should not be used for bolding. They should be use once at the top and then the standard three apostrophes should be used for bolding. It makes it tougher on screen readers that are used by those with poor eyesight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense,, but that approach would be a huge amount of manual work compared to switching the vote totals since all of the individual vote rows would also have to be changed. (At least it would be huge amount of manual work for me, as I don't know of any easy way to edit tables.) Schazjmd   (talk)  20:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How hard can it be? If we are fixing an obvious problem, now would be the time to fix it all. There is also no reason the juror names should be in blue (it's actually worse that way)... just the votes should have the cell colorized. It should be more like:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;
 * }
 * There is also a problem with the html in creating this table. Exclamation point headers should not be used for bolding. They should be use once at the top and then the standard three apostrophes should be used for bolding. It makes it tougher on screen readers that are used by those with poor eyesight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense,, but that approach would be a huge amount of manual work compared to switching the vote totals since all of the individual vote rows would also have to be changed. (At least it would be huge amount of manual work for me, as I don't know of any easy way to edit tables.) Schazjmd   (talk)  20:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How hard can it be? If we are fixing an obvious problem, now would be the time to fix it all. There is also no reason the juror names should be in blue (it's actually worse that way)... just the votes should have the cell colorized. It should be more like:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;
 * I think that makes sense,, but that approach would be a huge amount of manual work compared to switching the vote totals since all of the individual vote rows would also have to be changed. (At least it would be huge amount of manual work for me, as I don't know of any easy way to edit tables.) Schazjmd   (talk)  20:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How hard can it be? If we are fixing an obvious problem, now would be the time to fix it all. There is also no reason the juror names should be in blue (it's actually worse that way)... just the votes should have the cell colorized. It should be more like:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;

!colspan="4"|Jury vote !Juror !colspan="3"|Votes
 * align="left"|Episode #
 * colspan="3"|16
 * align="left"|Day #
 * colspan="3"|39
 * align="left"|Finalist
 * align="left"|Votes
 * colspan=3
 * colspan="4" bgcolor="black"|
 * align="left"|Votes
 * colspan=3
 * colspan="4" bgcolor="black"|
 * align="left"|Votes
 * colspan=3
 * colspan="4" bgcolor="black"|
 * colspan="4" bgcolor="black"|
 * colspan="4" bgcolor="black"|
 * align="left" |Brett
 * align="left" |Jaison
 * align="left" |Shambo
 * align="left" |Monica
 * align="left" |Dave
 * align="left" |John
 * align="left" |Laura
 * align="left" |Kelly
 * align="left" |Erik
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * align="left" |Monica
 * align="left" |Dave
 * align="left" |John
 * align="left" |Laura
 * align="left" |Kelly
 * align="left" |Erik
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * align="left" |Dave
 * align="left" |John
 * align="left" |Laura
 * align="left" |Kelly
 * align="left" |Erik
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * align="left" |Laura
 * align="left" |Kelly
 * align="left" |Erik
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * align="left" |Kelly
 * align="left" |Erik
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * align="left" |Erik
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * }
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Easy to read, correct html, and correct order. Would it require some manual work, yep... but there are only 40 season with these tiny tables. I guess I tend to groan more when Tennis Project changes a table and we have 10,000 to fix. I don't really edit much Survivor stuff, so just trying to help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the #votes and names match up, so I appreciate your alternate suggestion.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I also support the proposal by Schazjmd. The latest table above by Fyunck(click) (with the winner listed first, the runner-up second, second runner-up third, etc. along with the corresponding number of votes from highest to lowest) seems like the best solution. I'm looking through some of the seasons and it appears that the jury tables are listed in order of second-runner up, runner-up, then winner. The easiest solution would just be to change the number of votes so they match up with the vote-getter, since there's no quick and non-tedious method (that I know of) to switch table columns around. Some1 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Implementation
I have begun to make the change of corresponding the vote counts in the jury vote table to the finalists who received the votes, placing the winner on the left and runner(s)-up on the right. Right now, I'm focusing on the first 12 seasons, when it was just a final two and seven on the jury, and only rearranging the columns. As far as the changing of the colors of the jurors and going with boldface, it might be better to wait for further discussion. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Decided to do the same for seasons 16 (Micronesia) and 28 (Cagayan), with those being the only other two seasons with a final two. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to give the discussion more time just in case anyone disagreed with the idea but since nobody has yet, I appreciate you tackling that work,, and cleaned up Survivor: Samoa which was the article that started this whole discussion. It's especially helpful that you both linked this discussion in the edit summaries, thank you!  Schazjmd   (talk)  14:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, Schazjmd. I didn't find the column rearrangement for the ones I did (with the final two only) too tedious, though it was a little slow. Tackling the final three set is a little more difficult, but analyzing the table setup, I think I could manage a few at a time. Probably a good idea to handle the most recent seasons first (Winners at War especially), in preparation for the next Survivor season ... though probably no hurry at this point, as it'll be at least a few months before Survivor 41. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you motivated me to chip in, so I've begun doing the rest starting with the most recent season and working backwards. I'm down to Survivor: Worlds Apart. I really dislike working on tables, but I've figured out a methodical way to swap the two columns without getting myself too confused and making a hash of it. fingers crossed, knock on wood Schazjmd   (talk)  16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And it looks like all of the seasons are ✅. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, forgot that season 18 (Tocantins) was also a final two and I missed that. Anyway, thanks, Schazjmd. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Standardized terms for elimination-style reality program progress tables== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Standardized terms for elimination-style reality program progress tables. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GA push
Hi all, I recently started watching the Survivor series for the first time (I'm onto series 12 now, started watching at the start of the month), and I'm thinking I could start taking some of the series articles through the WP:GA process. I started looking at Survivor: Borneo and there's a few things that should probably be mentioned here, as if these changes were made, the articles would be a template and other articles would likely pass a GAN review. I have done a bit of a copy edit of what is already there.

First, I'm going to put in a overview section. A bit about how the Survivor game is played, basic rules (votes, castaways having to forage for food etc) as well as the structure, television rights, etc. This would be combined into the production section, or production would be a subsection of overview. I'll get to work on an example soon, as something like this could be unilaterally applied to all of the series, with some expansion for the newer rules, such as Immunity idols or whatever the new thing is.

Second, we really need to cut down the amount of tables that are duplicates of others. The "Challenge winners and eliminations by episode" table is simply the same info as the "episodes" list. The only additional info this table has is who wins the immunity and reward tasks. This could either be in prose in the episode list, or just removed altogether. We aren't a respository of information, this seems pretty WP:CRUFTy to me. The "CBS Recap" external links should really be culled - it's not particularly enclyopedic, especially as they are currently deadlinks.

The colours used in the tables also need to be changed. Currently they don't meet WP:ACCESS. I'd recommend using set colours rather than tribe colours, or use †, etc to denote which tribes a participant was on.

I'll make some changes over the coming days, but just a heads up on this. If there are any suggestions to make these changes meet the policies better, please let me know. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Voting history
On this, I've done some changes to the article, and whilst I do have some general misgivings to stribe, they don't completely fall foul of MOS:COLOR other than in the Voting History. Colour should only be used to make things easier to read, and never be used to denote information on its own (with also WP:ACCESS issues). Whilst I'd like to remove all of the colours from the Voting history section, at the very least, the opening column is particularly bad. May I suggest the below. The jury is almost always made up of a merged tribe, so the colours there are completey useless. If we did use this, I'd also want to use some !scope fields to meet our screen reader needs. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Notes


 * Per WP:SILENCE, I'll take this as read. Realistically the current one used on pages is completely against MOS. I will go by and make the changes unilaterally over time. Please follow WP:BRD rather than reverting. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Problem with new "voting history" format
Although I see where Lee Vilenski is coming from (with the tables being against MOS), there are certain tribes (like Tavua in Game Changers or Yanuya in Ghost Island) that don't attend Tribal Council because they win immunity. Therefore, if they're removing the tribe-colored section from the "Voter" portion of the table, then there's no way to tell in which tribe each contestant was a part of, unless you return to the Contestant section of the page, which I think would be quite tedious.

Here's an idea of what I had in mind for this "new format".

Example
Take the green-colored Tavua tribe into consideration: considering they never went to any of the three post-swap Tribal Councils, if the color portion is taken out of the "Voter" column, you could only verify which tribe they belonged to if you have to go look at the Contestants' section. This is what I'd suggest instead: keep the colors (without adding any text to them) and add a new column to specify the name of the Voter.

P.S.: I even have some other suggestions when it comes to the tables, such as font size (which should be smaller), jury vote (which should also probably be added above instead of in a separate table), etc.


 * Survivor: Game Changers voting history.


 * Notes


 * Hi! Thanks for actually talking this one through. It's a little bit irrelevant the information that you are trying to gleam from these tables in terms of Wikipedia. Firstly, the MOS issues are all-encompasing. We can't have WP:COLOUR used to demonstrate information on its own, so the tribe colours themselves are bad enough, but having a series of columns at the start of the table with an assortment of colours means nothing to anyone who didn't write it and looks incredibly garish. We must focus on MOS:ACCESS requirements when we make tables, which is a very valuable part of our MOS.


 * As you say, the information as to which tribes people belonged to is already in the article once, at the contestants section, which is where it should stay. It's worth remembering that this is Wikipedia, and we are not a collection of all information about a subject anyway. The information beinh requested would be better off in a fan wiki. Tables that don't fit with our MOS need to be fixed and up to standard, which at least is getting there with fixing the left hand column of the table. They do need additional scopes.


 * In terms of the other suggestions, we almost always try to stay away from small text (see WP:SMALL, for the same access reasons as above), but another column for the jury voting would make a lot more sense to me, so I'd be up for that. Once again, thanks for opening a discussion.Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS fixes for tables
Hi! To avoid the massive split topic that has happened across so many articles now, I've created a thread here to discuss the tables being used on Survivor articles. The MOS itself is non-negotiable, but if anyone has any ideas as to how to create these tables without failing MOS, please create an example topic. This is for all three tables, the Contestants, season history (which needs work, it's still a mess), and the voting history table. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS is a not a be all, its a guide. You do not have consensus for this nonsensical changes Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is true. We try to use the MOS "guideline" if at all possible. It does get voted down by consensus from time to time though, especially if it makes it worse for our millions of readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused how the previous format present for over a decade across all Survivor articles (across all franchises mind you, not just the US version) fails to meet whatever standard of Wikipedia you are clinging to. Upon recent discovery you seem to be the only person to have ever had issue with how the information was displayed and seem to think purging the charts like voting history of color and tribe distinction somehow enhances a viewer's ability to gather and read information off of it. Genuinely perplexed why in your mind it seems like a better fix to change something that's been in place since at least 2005 rather than advocating for what falls under acceptable terms of this 'MOS' 47.138.105.171 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I stopped editing the pages because I realized someone reverted all my edits, and this thread exists. Unfortunately, I don't think most of us opposed to this are familiar with MOS and the rule the old tables break. MrNoahK (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey man. You are the only person who doesn't like the voting charts having color. Literally the only person. Ever. We, the Survivor fans, have enjoyed using and looking at these charts for LONG before you showed up. If the MOS makes reading the charts more difficult, than what good is the MOS? The whole point of this is communication of information! You have literally made it harder to communicate information on a webpage designed for communicating information. The changes are ridiculous and unnecessary. You've seen the backlash that you are getting. You've seen how the people who actually use these charts DO NOT LIKE THE CHANGES. At what point to you is it not worth it? Who is benefitting from this? I'd really like an answer for that question. WHO is benefitting from this? With respect, TPMan02. TPMan02 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing though. "IF" the color used is really bad for those who have vision issues it is better to tweak those colors to make it better. It would still be red or blue or green, but a more vision-friendly red, blue, or green. I don't think anyone has a big issue with that, or at least I hope not. We want to be helpful but not to the point of elimination of vital colors to discern the tribes names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Declaration of conflict of interest first: I am the person who spent ages making sure that the tribe colors that we have documented on Template:Stribe/color for American and Australian Survivor were as accurate as possible.

I admit that I was not aware that many of the tribe colors that I arrived at were unsuitable to be used as cell background colors as per MOS:COLORS. I have every intention to help work out a way to render these tables that better reconciles with the MOS.

That said, I sympathize with one reader, who wrote about their habit of referring to, and remembering, the tribes by their colors instead of their names. I imagine that this habit will only grow more widespread among viewers now that the show is stuck in Fiji and new tribe names grow less and less unique. And this is why I believe that these articles should ideally still feature tribe colors to some degree.

A large component of a Survivor tribe's identity is its color. I don't think anyone can even argue against that in good conscience. When a tribe's name shows up as on-screen text, it's always in its tribe color. When a contestant's name shows up, it's always in the color of the tribe they are affiliated with at the time (unless temporarily tribeless). The name and the color go hand-in-hand. These current edits, however, carry an implication that is completely at odds with this fact: that tribe names alone do an adequate job at conveying all relevant information while tribe colors are at best a "garish" distraction that do not matter.

In reality, we have had a dyslexic reader testify that having tribe colors in cell backgrounds used to make it so much easier for them to tell, at a glance, the shifts in tribal statuses and affiliations over the course of a season, and now that the colors are gone this has become significantly less accessible for them.

In addition, I strongly disagree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survivor:_Cook_Islands#Why_the_changes? Lee's assessment from February] that no one can even understand what these "garish" colors are supposed to mean when there's no key—I would wager that the significance of the colors were always intuitively obvious and trivially understandable in the old format (in fact, we even used to have keys for the tribes' names and colors in the infobox of each season many years ago, and it was decided by consensus that they were redundant).

Seeing the patterns of differing/changing colors on a season's voting chart made a lot of information immediately and transparently obtainable: the point at which the tribal phase turned into the individual, which tribe went to Tribal Council each episode, the tribal affiliation history of each contestant, which tribe a contestant belonged to at any given vote, etc. And this is a type of information that color is uniquely well-suited as a means to convey effectively whereas text just can't do so as elegantly no matter how hard you try to make it work. As it happens, a large part of these articles' reader base find this information relevant if not essential. Under the new format, this information will either now require additional back-and-forth glances at the edges of the tables or become completely opaque. This, I take it, is why one colorblind reader opined that making the entire tables uniformly grey will actually be a step in the direction of decreased, not increased, accessibility on the aggregate: taking a format that a minority of readers might not be able to parse well, and turning it into a format that is difficult to parse for everyone.

I get that the MOS stipulates unambiguously that color must never be used as the sole conveyor of information in any instance, but why must we so intransigently refuse to just put color to good use in this case when it genuinely is the optimal candidate medium for conveying these types of information? It seems like this is an edge case of the MOS not being conducive toward the purposes for which it was formulated, as evidenced by all the aforementioned reader feedback citing genuine accessibility concerns and adverse effects of the edits.

Also, just what would be the consequences here if these tables didn't conform to the MOS, anyway? As I understand, this series of edits came about as part of a larger endeavor to get these articles to pass GA reviews. Well, to hell with them becoming Good Articles! The majority of readers would be perfectly happy if they remained as simply "articles" if it means they got to keep their colors.

As for the particular tribe colors that currently violate text-background contrast guidelines, however, I am open to doing some tweaks on those in the near future.

So let's make something work.

Best,

—<font face="Minion Pro" color="#6c6f70">Авария·витиевА <font face="Minion Pro" size="2.75" color="#872434">тая 06:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to tweak colors as needed and for pointing out the some vision impaired readers benefit from color. And remember, these colors aren't always used as the sole conveyer of info... the tribe name does that for some tables (like the very first table). What you need for the ones that don't conform is a tiny symbol next to the player name in conjunction with the color and key above the table that tells us so. It's pretty easy and we have done that in many tennis articles. So color and a superscript symbol or number. And of course some tables may not need the tribe colored every time. Working as a team we can get this done as opposed to using draconian 1950s black and white for everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This was an extremely helpful comment.
 * Here to say that I do NOT agree with the unilateral edits on this by one user. There is NOT consensus for this in our readerbase or among editors. Secarctangent (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am going to make a response here, as someone who set this off in reviewing a page for our good article standards, a process called good article nomination (GAN). I hope those who come here from elsewhere read this and understand where other editors (and myself) are coming from.

It may surprise you to learn that the gal that put all of this in motion is a lifelong Survivor watcher. But I'm also a Wikipedia editor since 2005 and have been intensively involved for the last three years. Most of my work is in radio and television stations, which like Survivor has a fairly small group of dedicated editors. Prior to a little over two years ago, there were no GAs on active television stations in the United States. Now, there are 17 and more on the way—including a few CBS affiliates that air Survivor. When I bring pages to GA, I wind up learning things, and standards end up changing in the entire subject area. I'm familiar with this dynamic.

Some of what I've learned—and have brought to bear elsewhere—is in accessibility. Historically, I don't think Wikipedia has been that good at promoting a culture of proactive accessibility among its editors. However, in recent years, standards have improved. A lot of pages don't meet them as written because of their recency and because of "local area" conventions that have come into direct conflict with the MOS.

Our accessibility standards exist to help people read pages, and in the field of tables the colorblind and users of screen readers (the visually impaired) are the groups needing to be served properly. Text needs to be readable, there needs to be metadata to help screen readers parse the templates, and color should not be the only means of conveying information. However, color can for some readers be very useful.

I've taken this table and done a demonstration using Color sample in addition to the passed-at-GA version of the table. I used this instead of Color box as that template does not support a description for screen readers. The description screen readers see is a color (yellow, red, etc.), so a Hiki cell in the table below would be described as "Yellow / Hiki".

This could be adopted with some minor changes to the stribe infrastructure (to allow a template call to stribe/color to produce just a hex value) and deployed fairly quickly. I'm not sure if this would go down well, but it at least maintains the accessibility concerns that came into the limelight at GAN. I would love to hear your comments. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sammi,
 * Thank you for contributing to this discussion and thank you for the work you have done thus far bringing pages to GA status! I believe that something like what you've shown here is a direction that we can go in.
 * Ideally, we should be able to tinker with the template infrastructure to someday devise a optimized template specifically for this purpose that displays the color samples in a visually cleaner manner (less heavy or just simply nonexistent black borders, color icons more in line with the text rather than appearing slightly elevated by a few pts like it does here)—basically combining the visual versatilities of Color_box with the screen reader support of Color_sample plus integrated with the current hex value database in Stribe/color.
 * The good thing with this approach is that, since the tribe colors are no longer going to be the cells' background colors on which text will be written, I won't need to tweak any of the colors as contrast won't be an issue after all! I will, however, now need to compile a list of the color terms that each tribe has canonically been described by for the benefit of the screen reader descriptions. I look forward to getting to plead my case for why Mana should be described as orange as per the show…
 * Actually, speaking of Game Changers, what's a good way to convey in the Voting History table that time Mana and Nuku went to Tribal Council together to vote out one person and were allowed to vote for members of each other? I consider the old format to have captured the nature of the scenario pretty elegantly with a color play but am blanking at what would be an adequate way to do it under the new format.
 * 08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC) —<font face="Minion Pro" color="#6c6f70">Авария·витиевА <font face="Minion Pro" size="2.75" color="#872434">тая 08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Avaria vitievA: Yeah, there's a real good case here for having Color box take on screen reader support so I can set a custom screen description. I'd have used it here if it had it. I'm testing it in the sandbox and asking for some input. As for the Game Changers issue, maybe Diagonal split color box or Color box striped? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 08:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You see, now this is something very constructive rather than color elimination. This might work as a compromise. One thing I don't like is that as a column, the fact the tribe names are all centered, when your eyes scroll down the column it looks bad since the colors don't line up. I would wish that we would left align the color box. I think that would look better and more professional. One thing about three columns for the first three item... name, age, from. Isn't it still sortable by player name if all three items are in the same box? We have no need of sortable ages and froms! That would be extremely trivial for anyone to want to sort those categories. There are time we want sortable columns and times we don't. In tennis articles we never sort the score column. Even the placement and day columns. How would really ever sort those any other way except chronologically? I might add a key at the top of all the tables that shows these color boxes with the tribe name. But thanks for this suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fyunck(click), that change probably has to stay for accessibility purposes. Izno, the user I consulted with on the accessibility side of things and who did the original cleanup, said to me, If that information is important to include it should be in a separate cell entirely. That said, changing these to unsortable if so desired is trivial to do (Help:Sorting). Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 08:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a tweak of the tribe column and it looks much better aligned left. In fact, why is this whole table aligned center? Especially the first names? Most tennis data tables we use would align everything left and this entire table should as well. Could we take a look at everything aligned left? I hate changing your sandbox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral about that for those columns. I was mostly trying to demonstrate the color squares. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 08:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So something more like this...


 * Having it aligned with your color boxes. Fixing some spacing issues and some accessibility issues since html is not supposed to use exclamation point headers in the middle of a table unless accompanied by the scope command. Bolding should be done differently if we really even need it at all. But that's what's great about your suggestion... you brought us another way to use color, and someone else may find another way. Not sure which will fly as we will have to see someone elses version of colored cells using html5 compliant colors. But at least ideas are being thrown around instead of eliminating vital info and using 1960 xerox machine black and white. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, this is also now at WT:TELEVISION. I don't much care, so long as we meet our manual of style. What I don't like is a series of personal attacks and meatpuppetry from a series of fans of a show that think their subseries of articles are somehow beyond our rules. The information above is an awful lot of words over one table, that isn't even the one being reverted constantly. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because it was also being removed and de-colored. It is hideous that the discussion got posted elsewhere on the net... that happens with canvassing on tennis rfc's also. I glanced at the reddit posts though and they have good points as I had just run into this with capitalization of tennis articles. Wikipedia does try to fix things that aren't broken because they look at MOS as some third rail you can't touch that is always correct. It sometimes is at the expense of our readers. I am trying to work out some alternatives but none will be as good, simple, and to the point as the original chart. Everything will likely be a compromise between what works best for our readers and MOS. For me that shouldn't be that case and more flexibility should happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Accessibility for all types of readers is more important than aesthetic preferences of one group of readers. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the changes are not really accessibility issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs)
 * Agreed, I don't believe that that the Wikipedia administrator realises that symbolisation is easier to recognise than overcomplicated rowspan tables. For Survivor 42 are we purposely merging rowspans based on contestant then should the table not look like this? Short answer, no. It creates MORE WORK. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Vice President and the next cell leader_name = Tweededum Tweedledee Your other example is everyone is going to think it means he was medically evacuated on the third day. We aren't stupid. These changes are being done to appease MOS and make it harder for everyone, sight issues or not, to read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC) tags. Small text has been deprecated for a while. I'm fully aware of the subject matter, but you all seem to be under the assumption that we write articles for fans, which we don't. These aren't "arbitrary standards", they are the rules around how all articles should look. Basically what the arguments against fixing these tables to meet MOS are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that these articles should be written in a way only fans would want to read. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has literally all of the issues we are talking about. WP:DTAB means we use rowscopes, we don't use "br" or "small" tags. The reason for the additional row at the top (which is what I assume everyone is having issues with) is to provide context to the user. What does "medically evacuated, day 3" mean to someone who doesn't have context for this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you really look at the dtab section you pointed at? It says nothing of the sort under tables. It either leads you accessibility infoboxes where this doesn't apply or talks about text readers reading in order of how it is written. It's going to read Jackson Fox, 48, Houston Texas... in that order. With an infobox it gives a clear example of not doing leader_title = President
 * @ Lee: Medically evacuated is an elimination from the game outside of being voted out or quitting, or are you not familiar with those terms as well? I'm of the belief that you're not familiar with the show and as such, why are you implementing these new changes when you have no experience of, or familiarity to, the subject matter? I stay away from cleaning up/editing articles of which I have no reason to clean up for the sake of cleaning up. I appreciate the sentiment of meeting some arbitrary standards, but in the long run it's creating more work for a greater pushback. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Scope of headers ( scope="col" and scope="row")" is commented about, we should always scope rows, especially when there is an obvious rowheader like there is in this case, it also specifically says not to use
 * The article is written for the reader to understand the subject matter, it has remained unchanged for years because it's worked but now there's an overhaul of some 42 articles and you're of the belief that the standard is changed because it falls under the non-descript reality television tag (not limited to scripted drama, competitive shows etc.) Whilst change is good, and I appreciate that and the angle you're coming from, however, the format switch doesn't suit the page. Oversaturated tables, color removal, unneccesary table adjusting ad nauseum... it's more work for what is a straight-forward show. These new changes open the gates for confusion for the sake of some presumably outdated policy by those who (again) hold no knowledge of what they're overseeing. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I must be missing the "small" tag in the above chart. Row headers usually have an "!" and if they do in the middle of a table they must use the "scope" command. This chart does not have that. You keep saying fans and no one else does. These charts are created for readers of wikipedia. If it is worse for our readers I tend to be against it. MOS or not. I write these articles for ease of use and information for our readers. You have thrown around some terms with their links that MOS says nothing about or something that is not etched in stone. MOS also tells us to use common sense. The table should do the best it can to conform to MOS but many of the changes are POV rather than MOS related. And many MOS items are flexible rather than jet-black wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the other problem is that these tables are starting from being far far too detailed for what Wikipedia, a tertiary site, should be covering. We are not a Survivor fan site, so there should be no expectation that if we have contestant or elimination tables that they will be for ease of reading by fans. They should be utilitarian to follow to a sufficient degree, and to that end, they must comply with accessibility requirements. And that's the point being missed by those complaining about the changes. They may have been "okay" for a decade, but they were never really right for that long in the first place. --M asem  (t) 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now been linked to an RfC on this topic that is less than a year old specifically stating all elimination charts should abide by accessibility guides. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem on the "undoing" edits made by User:Sportsfan 1234 to understand and rely with the new table format to follow in other seasons to avoid color blindness against bright settings. Things that would make really understand and they get really fucked up right now with the new changes.

Here's the example from Survivor: Winners at War:


 * Before


 * After


 * I really hate my account getting blocked to avoid and be careful with editing privileges. I am ashamed that I am really a trusted user and be polite with edits. ApprenticeWiki  <font color="#919191">work 00:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Lee I freely admit I found out about these changes from the reddit thread. I think that has sent some vitriol your way and I can understand being frustrated with that. I hope not to add to that frustration, but to be candid I also find your comments in this thread unhelpful in contrast to virtually all others even those I disagree with. There is no need to summarize disagreements as "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" or to reply to thoughtful comments with "an awful lot of words over one table".
 * On those tables, the elimination table is IMO as an outsider the single most useful thing about wikipedia pages on Survivor articles. They give the entirety of a season quickly and visually. They are why I've used these articles for reference in the past (including when I just started watching the show and not yet a fan) and they're worth some debate and careful consideration over. I also think the versions you've implemented are (and as consensus seems to show) now harder to read.
 * I'll take your word for it that the MOR must be applied here and changes are required. However surely there are other options other than the one you've chosen, some of which might improve readability while following accessibility guides. I'm not sure why this link to a RfC on elimination charts is deemed as ending the conversation. What does seem to be ending the conversation is that there doesn't seem like there's other options nor arguments to which you're open, which is a shame. 98.226.137.34 (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion for the contestants table:

OctoMocto (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm confused why the edits haven't been reverted. Although there are some helpful edits made to the jury table (using checkmarks is a good idea), I'm very confused as to who gets to decide what rules are in place for the voting tables and contestant tables. I find them disruptive, hard to understand, and honestly disrespectful to casuals and fans alike. Wikipedia's "rules" for tables have been disrupting several types of pages I have interest in, and I don't know why all of these rules are being put in place all of a sudden— and it's only degrading the quality of the articles in my opinion. To me, it feels like only Lee's opinions are being followed based on the rules put in place (and put in place by who, out of curiosity?). It should rather fit what the editors believe is best. Sorry if it seems like a rant, but I'm tired of seeing my communities of interest get uglier daily. 72.240.131.143 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, reverting back to the old tables that weren't MOS compliant is tantamount to vandalism. The manual of style is a side-wide consensus on how things should look. It's not a case of how I want it to look - if there is a MOs complaint option that looks different, feel free to suggest it. It looks like the current tables have been appropriately pushed onto most of the articles now.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * INapproriately pushed, by you, against the consensus. The new tables are extremely unaccessable, and MOS is a guideline, not a rule that can't be broken when following it makes things worse. Jhn31 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From my perspective Lee there's more of a requirement that you, not others, suggest some alternatives than you let on. You made this change to begin with and did so unilaterally. The consensus when people found out seems against you. Work with us here to put in the initial legwork for something that fulfills the MOR that is more readable. 2601:245:C100:F9A:FDD4:56F2:A22:ED0D (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a new format of design you should discuss about it with other Wikipedia editors. It's clear that a lot of us aren't happy about it, the old format was not only easier to understand, but easier on the eyes. You said that there's an issue with the old charts, but none of us seen it. If everyone against it, why to insist of keeping it? What about our voices in this? SeosiWrestling (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Warnings in my talk page
A couple of days ago, User:Sportsfan 1234 warned my message through my talk page and he said:

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Survivor 41. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And that user also warned and responded through the latter's talk page as well:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Please stop your disruptive editing on Survivor articles. There is no consensus for your edits.'' Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

To these warnings that they don't want us to send a report at WP:ANI to make it understand. That is totally fucking useless with the editing privileges as no shit. ApprenticeWiki <font color="#919191">work 10:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on the new voting/contestant tables?
Can someone please explain to me where the consensus was reached to keep the contestant/voting tables in the new format as they currently are? Every discussion I've seen (S42's talk page, Survivor Africa's talk page, here etc), it appears the overwhelming consensus aside from Lee is to keep them the way they've been agreed on by the community at large for over a decade and a half with minor tweaks here and there. But Lee seems to have made a unilateral change alongside whoever oversaw the GA review and despite many people positing valid arguments why the new tables do not meet the standards he supposedly cited, the minority has prevailed. Any insight?Greenday61892 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A conversation on the matter is in progress in the section on this page.  Schazjmd   (talk)  21:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See I did see that but I thought the conversation was dead as there has been no additions in 9 days and all 42 season articles still have the new format. So I figured there may have been something I "missed" where a consensus to keep the articles the way they are had been agreed upon. Greenday61892 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because there's not much more to say after Lee linked to the recent RfC that found consensus for tables in elimination-style reality TV shows meeting accessibility guidelines. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The RfC is already consensus that we need to follow the MOS, for accessibility, but also generally. But, it's also not something we even needed, as the MOS always applies. Something being in place for a long time doesn't mean it should always continue to be so. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a consensus exists on following the MOS, which is just a guideline and not an ironclad rule when the table is more accessible and understandable with the color. This is really a case of one single editor trying to strong-arm everyone else into doing what he says. Jhn31 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Accessibility is not optional, and required to help our readers with vision issues. --M asem (t) 01:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, accessibility is not as rigid as that. It says right at the top "We aim to adhere to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 on which the following suggestions are based." "Suggestions" mind you. We should do our best to meet them but occasionally that isn't feasible if it also means hammering those without accessibility issues. We sometimes have to strike a balance that's good for all users but perfect for none. We should always strive to help those with vision issues but we also don't want to make an article or table mostly useless for those without vision issues. And conversely, if we can make a tweak to a column or two in a longstanding useful table, that doesn't make it too wide or busy nor remove essential data, yet it helps those with vision problems access the info, why shouldn't we want to adapt to that? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem that has been for any of these reality show tables is excess use of color as a means to convey information. Its not a survivor table but one example someone found had *17* different colors in the table. This is far too much in being fan-driven material. No sports-based article uses colors to any of this degree and those tables are quite understandable. Yes, Survivor and the mutability of the tribes are key elements, but color is not essential to convey that. --M asem (t) 15:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't support anything about 17 colors, but no Survivor table should have more than 4-5 with just the tribes in it. We can put in a hard cap that only tribal colors can be used in the voter history tables. Jhn31 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, colors are NOT required because we have unique tribe names. Colors are useful but their excessive use is the problem attached to every time a tribe name was mentioned in a table. That's not needed and that's hitting the reader on the head with the tribe/color association. --M asem (t) 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many things in wikipedia that aren't "required." However, many many readers know the tribes only by the colors because it is an essential part of the tribe's persona. Every table has to be handled differently, and things can get out of hand to be sure, but in table one it is vital that tribes be shown in color since it is a major aspect to their being that tribe. They don't sell grey headbands at the stores with the tribe's name. Readers identify tribes by their color probably more than by name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Having watched every season since the start (and many more than once), I don't agree that readers can't understand the tables without the buff colors. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everybody views things differently, and I'm not saying that 100% will struggle with these, but it's pretty clear that these are much harder to understand. For example, this Reddit thread has over 100 comments, almost all of which are negative to stripping the colors out of the voting history table and talking about how unreadable they are. Jhn31 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The show rarely mentions the buff/tribe colors outside of what the players may say at the time of a swap or merge, and while the color is used on the text chevrons as they progress between scenes, I very much doubt any claim that viewers more strongly associate the tribes by color than by names. We don't say that Richard Hatch was on the "red tribe" in Borneo, we say he was on the Tavi tribe. --M asem (t) 18:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all it's "Tagi," and if you think it's "Tavi," you really aren't the Survivor expert you claim to be. And what you're saying about tribe names was definitely true in the early seasons, but in modern ones they're just as often called by their colors. Either way though, the key issue is the voting history tables, which are very hard to follow without the shading. It's not clear who went to tribal council when without them, and in recent seasons you see things like multiple tribes going to tribal council together, making the shading even more important. Jhn31 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very clear who went to tribal council because there is a vote in their box if they did, and an empty box if they didn’t. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See my example about season 39, episode 6, below. It is extremely unclear what happened there without the colors. Was there a twist that merged two tribes? Did two tribes go to tribal council? And what tribe is a contestant on who doesn't go to tribal council? Jhn31 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? I just looked at the table. Survivor: Island of the Idols, episode 6… Jason from Vokai was voted out, the vote was 4-3, the players who voted have their votes listed, and Jason didn’t get to vote. A note explains why. Seems pretty simple to me. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I got the episode wrong. It actually happened in season 38. Too bad the voting history tables aren't color-coded anymore, so I couldn't look it up and had to rely on memory... Jhn31 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, Survivor: Edge of Extinction, episode 5, yes? Before the changes, that column was extremely confusing. You had some boxes that were green with a blue name, and some that were blue with a green name. All that matters is who voted for whom, and who was voted out. Victoria first voted for Lauren, and then voted for Wendy on the revote. There is a note explaining that two tribes voted together at tribal council. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been rewatching nearly all the survivor seasons from S20 onward in the last couple months. The only time that Jeff calls out colors is when they are in random/selected teams during the reward challenges of the individual phases, and he might say at the start of the season "You are on the X tribe, you'll be wearing Y color buffs", same at merges, but never outside those points. The colors are not as strongly used in a verbal means as much as you think they are. --M asem (t) 19:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm only talking about the voting history tables, which are unreadable without the colors (both according to me and the consensus). I am fine stripping out colors in other tables where they aren't necessary. Jhn31 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The voting history table is perfectly readable as it is now. It identifies who was eliminated, what tribe they were on (with a row along the top that gives the tribe name and color), and who voted for whom. There is no reason why every box in each column has to be color-coded to match. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's equally readable to you now, and that's fine, but to most people, it's not. For example, in season 39, episode 6, it's very unclear that 2 tribes went to tribal council together and voted 1 person out, but with shading for tribes, it would be extremely clear.Jhn31 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That situation is very rare, but ultimately all that matters is who was voted out, and who voted for whom. The cells with two colors (background in one color, name is another) were extremely confusing. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point "cells with two colors (background in one color, name is another) were extremely confusing" is fair. I don't disagree with it. But that's not a reason to throw out all of the background shading altogether and make the tables much more confusing. Jhn31 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That didn't happen at all in season 39. Now as an example of "two tribes both go to vote one person off", Survivor: Edge of Extinction, second tribal of episode 5 does have that and the table does show that clearly. --M asem (t) 19:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unclearly. Who can tell from that table who is on what tribe? Jhn31 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The new tables aren't accessible to anyone. Someone with vision issues isn't going to have any easier of a time with the new, unilaterally-changed version. I'm all about helping people as needed, but there is a very clear preference, a consensus in fact, that the old tables were more appropriate. Jhn31 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest improvements that will work as well for readers who use screen-reading tools as for those without. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to restore the voter history tables to their old format and stop trying to "fix" non-existent problems. Jhn31 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously that isn't going to happen, so what are your ideas for improving the accessible tables? Schazjmd   (talk)  16:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing though...the contestant table. My understanding is that screen readers did just fine with the old first column containing three sets of info: name, age, residence. That was not changed for those with vision problems. That was changed because people who write MOS want it to change even though it's harder to read now. They wanted sortability for age. I have gone along with it for compromise sake but the table is a bit tougher to read and wider on cell phones now for everybody. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have two suggestions with regards to the contestants table:
 * 1) There is an argument to be made that the hometown is not really important information in the grand scheme. Eliminating that column would reduce the overall width.
 * 2) The notation “1st jury member”, “2nd jury member”, etc. should be simplified to just “Jury”. It doesn’t really matter what order players entered the jury. Their placement is already identified by “8th voted out”, etc. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those are good with me. I'm only on a crusade for the voting history tables. The rest probably do need some cleaning up. Jhn31 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those are both good suggestions, . Schazjmd   (talk)  19:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked and thought about those suggestions. One person's flat tire is another person's new car. I could see where some might really like knowing the home town... they tend to root for and remember that info. "I like the Louisiana dude, or I'm not rooting for anyone from California. It could be important enough and it's likely why it was placed in the table to begin with. I do like your jury suggestion. “2nd jury member” is 15 characters wide while “8th voted out” is only 13... it would shorten the column width a bit. Might I suggest an alternative so we don't alienate those who do like the longstanding info of jury member number by using "juror 1, juror 2, juror 3", etc. It's much shorter, maintains the numbering, and it to the point in only 7 characters. I tried an example right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I really think the hometown information is largely irrelevant, and we would be hard-pressed to identify most of the contestants’ hometowns based on what we’re shown on the show. But, ultimately, that’s not a matter of accessibility, but style, and I don’t feel empowered to unilaterally remove those columns on my own. As for the jury, I would just stick with “Jury” because there’s no difference between Juror 1 and Juror 7, and the order of elimination is already noted via “voted out”. I would also capitalize it. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I guess I tend to lean towards the side of compromise. We have a lot of editors already upset with the huge changes and this Juror 1, Juror 2, etc... seems like the friendlier fix that all could live with. Capitalization I don't really care about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that "obvious" ? There is a clear consensus that the voting history tables should be restored, with side against doing that just being couple of people clinging to the idea that a style recommendation is an ironclad rule that we can't go against, even when following the suggestion makes things worse. Jhn31 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility
The new voting chart layout is completely inaccessible. The voting chart has been made to be low contrast and I struggled to differentiate between the rows. It seems the administrators here are more concerned with their arbitrary interpretation of the rules than the accessibility of articles. The color needs to be restored so users with vision impairments can read more easily. I agree that the tribe swap colors on the far left didn't make much sense, but this rush to judgment is negatively impacting people with disabilities and the survivor community as a whole. Ugla&#39;a (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most editors here agree with you, just a couple who have taken it upon themselves to force their will on everyone. It's sad how the pages have become unreadable. Jhn31 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As an outsider looking in, it really does seem to be a disadvantage of the way wikipedia works. There's really only one person arguing for the current setup, but because they're an admin and they didn't get any response on this talk page before making the changes (citing WP:Silence, though since this talk page was dead for years beforehand what a gigantic surprise) they have a hell of an incumbency advantage.
 * Short of continuous and strong pushback and/or another admin weighing in, it seems like they win this one just from that incumbency advantage. Really it seems like there's plenty of room for a middle ground, but they're not open to that (they reject proposals from others, and don't propose their own).
 * (There do seem to be some other editors who want(ed) to change the tables too, but they seem open to a compromise whereas the admin does not) 2601:245:C100:365:E8EE:3B33:F5EA:B75C (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A draft list of finalists, including winners and runners-up
I'm still working on Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–20), which may need an interested helping hand. I have also considered merging into the lists less notable winners, runners-up, and others who appeared as one of top/remaining four or five members of the merged tribe in season finales. The matter was originally discussed at Talk:Survivor (American TV series). George Ho (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Colours in tables
Hi! I'm really worried that we turned a corner and made the tables WP:ACCESS compliant, even had an WP:RfC above and have simply had them all reverted to be massively covered by colours and not MOS compliant. I'm just going to remind everyone that there is absolutely no reason to ignore consensus by changing the design of the tables, without gaining a new sitewide consensus. I can see that, despite taking several articles to good article status, we've simply reverted to a completely unreadable and unaccessible table design, such as at Survivor:Cook Islands. Please can we change this back to the accessible version that has both a local and sitewide consensus per the RfC above ( et al)?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with the table you cited? Bgsu98   (Talk)  20:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this was the version that is actually MOS compliant, and was agreed. Special:Diff/1085525859.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And the ensuing discussion established that the use of colors in cells that also identify the tribe is compliant since color is not being used as the only means of conveying information. Bgsu98   (Talk)  20:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly true. In the case that you have just reverted, there is no identification of the colours meaning anything at all. Outside of you knowing from the show that a colour means something, they are purely decorative.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Add a key then. Bgsu98   (Talk)  21:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? This is clearly cosmetic. You can just as easily show the information through words. It was very clear that our tables need to be MOS compliant. I did that. We've just gone ahead and shoehorned in a lot of colour because it mimicks the show.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

American Survivor winners being deleted
Two down, three more up for nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

New article (Survivor winners) nominated for deletion
Brand-new article, List of Survivor (American TV series) winners, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Schazjmd  (talk)  13:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Maryanne Oketch nominated for deletion
Maryanne Oketch has been nominated for deletion. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Keeping MOS in international editions of Survivor
As the consensus of the new tables has been established, I have tried to edit international editions of Survivor with it. However, a certain user is constantly undoing my edits because that format is only "used in English-speaking Survivor" (e.g., Expeditie Robinson 2023 and Robinson Ekspeditionen 2023), which would go against the consensus. I am not trying to be disruptive; instead, I'm trying to contribute, and I currently need your support to keep the format as such. Freddy7GL (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Nintenga is incorrect. All articles on the English Wikipedia must adhere to the requirements of the Manual of Style. I recommend he read MOS:COLOR and MOS:ACCESS for more information. Bgsu98   (Talk)  14:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, the reason I have been undoing the edits is because I couldn't find a consensus anyway regarding the tables. A couple of months ago, I asked this question to another User where the question wasn't answered after a similar situation such as this one. (I don't know how to link revisions so I'll just post the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1169253979&oldid=1169236973&title=User_talk:Thecheeseistalking99). Later, when Survivor (British series 3) had it's table changed, the same user stated in his edit summary that the format was updated "to be consistent with other english-language versions of Survivor" which I presumed was the case as only the Australian, South African, British and American versions had the new tables at that time. (Again posting the URL as revisions I don't know to link directly: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor_%28British_series_3%29&diff=1180254887&oldid=1180241630). So to answer Freddy7GL, I wasn't undoing your edits because of the "support to keep the format as such". I was undoing the edits because the information I had/have (as I don't really see a concensus) was that it was only for countries in the Anglosphere, not every series of the franchise.


 * And to answer to Bgsu98, I'll double check the MOS:COLOR and MOS:ACCESS to make sure what you're saying does apply for this matter as when I looked at it the first time, I couldn't find anything that indicates it's against the wiki protocol. I'll check it again just in case I did miss something. However, I do have this to add. The access for the previous tables were easier to understand, read, not take up as much space and not as confusing as the new tables are. The Contestants and Voting History section in general have been confusing to read at first glance and takes longer to understand, confirm, read and see who is voting for whom, which tribe/team they're from (especially in the Contestants section as tribe placements aren't individualized anymore) which for casual readers, can be daunting to look at. Also, when undoing an edit, please don't forget to add wiki links to a contestants name if they were removed (such as in Expeditie Robinson 2023) when they're prolific enough to have a wiki article made of them. In addition to Expeditie Robinson 2022 when the surnames of finalist were removed and weren't added back until another user thankfully added them back. Please try and avoid that if you are changing the tables. And please, could one of you link me to where the consensus was made so I can have a thorough read of it to ensure what you two have said is indeed accurate and if a consensus was made (with numerous backing, not just 1-3 users) so we can avoid undoing edits with information either side (or one) may not be aware of. Nintenga (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as consensus goes, there was an RfC in 2021 which addressed this issue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12. Per that RfC, "There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs... tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." Local consensus cannot override these requirements. Bgsu98   (Talk)  19:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, per MOS:COLOR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels." The pink cells, blue cells, etc. cannot be the only means of conveying information, period. Bgsu98   (Talk)  19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, a quick reminder to all that the policies in question are site wide. I also saw special:diff/1200827849 stating it was somehow only effecting American series (for some reason). The RfC on the matter (and a massive discussion higher above) is very clear that all reality shows are not immune from the policies. This is not an edit war that needs to happen, if you see it revert it and link this RfC. If it gets reverted again, report it.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 07:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Survivor România All Stars
There is another user disruptively reverting edits based on MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR for no reason whatsoever. The format they're using clearly violates the consensus. I would like some help with monitoring these pages and addressing this user, please. —Freddy7GL (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * watchlisted.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * see this thread  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! I understand you, but the other pages of Survivor Romania remained the same. Can you tell me why? Plus, Australian Survivor is back to the old format. Trooper1301 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because people vandlise. None of the articles should look like that.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of vandalizing Australian Survivor articles, this user has been reverting every table—that was following MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOR—on these pages, under the statement that the Australian editions of the pages should not be subjected to "SOCK" editing. Freddy7GL (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report users who continue to vandalize articles here. Bgsu98   (Talk)  22:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I forgot to add that said user is very active in Wikipedia and whatnot, especially in Australian articles. The problem is that there has been no incident leading to warning the user, so it seems to me that reporting him would be in vain. In fact, I have tried to reason with the user, but he is adamant that he will not follow the consensus by the Survivor task force, even after demanding that I show them which consensus I was basing my edits on. Actually, it would be better if the people in charge of this project looked into this issue, because it is affecting the pages significantly. There's not much that someone like me can do. Freddy7GL (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for tables in contestants' section
Hi! I've been reading the Manual of Style, specifically the "Tables" section, and I noticed a few things.

Add a "Contestant" column group
There is information that is not categorized, and that is "Contestant, age, from." I figured that, because those are relevant information of a contestant, it should become a column group. (See example.)

Line breaks
"Avoid using or tags in adjacent cells to emulate a visual row that isn't reflected in the HTML table structure. This is a problem for users of screen readers which read tables cell by cell, HTML row by HTML row, not visual row by visual row."

Whenever a contestant is voted out and becomes a jury member: "Xth voted out (line break) Xth jury member." I thought maybe separating the jury portion into another column would be a better solution.

Example
Freddy7GL (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)