Wikipedia

Talk:Survivor: Borneo

Latest comment: 1 month ago by TheDoctorWho in topic Requested move 25 October 2024
Learn more about this page
Good articleSurvivor: Borneo has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 29, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 2000, the season finale of television series Survivor: Borneo had more viewers than the World Series, NBA finals, NCAA men's basketball finals, and Grammy Awards of that year?
Current status: Good article

Total Votes

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it really necessary for there to be a column in the contestants section for total vote count? I think that all the tables should just be tribe placements and finishes. Total Vote Count is unnecessary Pokemon315066 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC).Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Survivor: Borneo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Season progress

edit
Castaways Episodes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Finale
Richard SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN LOW SAFE LOW WIN SAFE SAFE LOW LOW Winner
Kelly SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE WIN WIN WIN WIN Runner-up
Rudy SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN LOW SAFE WIN SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE OUT
Susan SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN LOW SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE LOW OUT
Sean SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE SAFE LOW LOW LOW OUT
Colleen WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE LOW SAFE SAFE SAFE OUT
Gervase WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE LOW WIN SAFE OUT
Jenna WIN SAFE WIN LOW WIN LOW LOW LOW OUT
Greg WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN OUT
Gretchen WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN SAFE OUT
Joel WIN SAFE WIN SAFE WIN OUT
Drik SAFE WIN SAFE WIN OUT
Ramona WIN LOW WIN OUT
Stacey LOW WIN OUT
B.B. WIN OUT
Sonja OUT
  The castaway won Survivor: Borneo.
  The castaway was a runner-up.
  The castaway(s) won the immunity challenge and was safe from Tribal Council.
  The castaway(s) lost the immunity challenge but was safe at Tribal Council.
  The castaway(s) received votes or was at risk at being voted out at Tribal Council.
  The contestant was voted out.

Survivor jury vote table discussion

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#Jury vote tables to list the vote totals in the same order as the names in the finalist row immediately above the vote totals. All interested editors are invited to join that discussion. Since the Survivor task force appears to be inactive, I'm notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force and the talk pages for each Survivor season in order to reach interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

New Table Layout

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone else agree that the new table layout for contestants, season summary, and voting history are very unpleasing to the eye? The way that they were previously looked way better. Thoughts? NintendoGeek (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The new Voting History charts are terrible.

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

The charts were completely fine before. Nothing needed to be changed AT ALL. Who decided this was a good idea? 78.152.207.254 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The old charts failed accessibility requirements and WP:MOS. --Masem (t) 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
It looked perfectly fine before, but go off ig 110.174.21.178 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
May I ask which requirement(s) failed, and which part(s) of the Manual of Style failed? I would have to agree that, not only did the old charts look better, they also were much more readable. These changes (as well as changing from the logo to the DVD slipcase cover) feel unnecessary, and detrimental to the overall quality of the Survivor articles. Coloradohusky (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sounds false but ok UnbornCletus (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree, this is very uncomfortable to read the updated charts and are very confusing to understand. SeosiWrestling (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well remember... no charts are etched in stone. Some features of the old charts were not accessible to screen readers and some had color issues that couldn't be read by those who are colorblind. Other parts needed updated html so they would work best with the latest browsers. These seemed the best compromise but if editors can fix the problems and do better try it in your sandbox and let us see. Maybe yours would be more universally liked. Some of the early charts changes used no color at all to get around it but I pointed out how important color is and gave them one chart that fixed things and kept tribe color. It's not ideal but it was a compromise where being sighted I could give up little so those with issues could also access our data without getting confused. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I serious content that "tribe color" is what viewers remember long after a season ended. In the middle of a ongoing season, sure, but not 3-4 years later. But as long as in each table area it is relatively clear once color associated with tribe name, that should be sufficient. What a problem was overexcessive repetition of the tribe name/color connection. Once is all that needed, per table. --Masem (t) 04:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
But that is personal opinion.... not MOS related. There could be a lot more color and it would work for MOS. I understand some like less color... that's the same in tennis articles too. We work out the best compromises regardless of personal views. Tribe color is massively important. I'll bet tribe names are forgotten 3-4 years later too so I guess all we need to show is tribe A, B, and C and what players were on those different tribes? That's too inflexible for the encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
No, MOS specifically spells out that color should not be used to carry information, which is what the past tables were doing (eg the old voting tables). There is judicious use of color that still helps to associate color to tribe where it is appropriate, but doesn't replicate that again and again on the same table. We don't treat our readers as unable to track that within the same table/section. --Masem (t) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
No. That's not what I said nor what others have said and you should know that by now. MOS states that color cannot be the only means of carrying information, not that it can't be used. As long as that is followed MOS is fine. Whether too much color is used is simple content dispute, not MOS related. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The MOS addresses color overuse, as well as the past RFC on reality show tables. Remember that unless colors are specifically picked for accessibility, colors can make things unreadable to colorblind people too. --Masem (t) 01:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes they can, but there are plenty that work just fine. And overuse is quite often in the eye of the beholder... or in wikipedia's case in the eye of article consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
That answer doesn't work for colorblind readers. --Masem (t) 02:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Masem, can I assume that the voting history table at Survivor 41 that someone recently changed is still not MOS compliant? Bgsu98 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, too kuch color reuse. --Masem (t) 21:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Deleting color from tables

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hi Bgsu98. In regards to this revert, may I suggest that if you are going to delete colors that convey information, that it is your responsibility to add that information as a column in these tables. Simply deleting the colors is disruptive. Also have you achieved consensus for your mass changes affecting multiple pages? You just reverted my revert, which seems to go against WP:BRD and a WP:SILENT consensus that has stood for many years. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per our MOS and ACCESS, color should not be used to convey information. And it's rather clear that if a one tribe won immunity, the other tribe was going to tribal council and thus there's no need to reiterate that tribe. --Masem (t) 05:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I added a tribe column to the elimination column. We will eventually get to seasons where there are three tribes, so it won't be a simple matter of "the tribe that didn't win immunity obviously voted someone out". So while the identification of the tribe eliminating a player may not be as important in this season as in later seasons, I think we want these tables to be consistent every season. I do want to note, however, that the eliminations are reflected (with tribe identification & color) on both the table above and the table below this one. There seems to be a lot of redundancy, but this section was labeled "season summary", and a season summary should include who won the challenges, and who was eliminated. Plus certain unique situations that will arise in the future, like Edge of Extinction, Redemption Island, Ghost Island, Exile Island. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
A well done compromise. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Novem Linguae:Colors can certainly be used, but colors cannot be the only means of expressing information. You could always add the tribe name into the Eliminated cell and re-add the color or not. The tribe could also be noted with a symbol and have a key that showed this. There are multiple ways it could be done, but using only color is not one of them. Those with colorblind issues would have no way of knowing what data you were trying to convey. However you make a good point that with the change we just lost vital information. We used to know what tribe just went home... now we don't by looking at this chart. We need words or a symbol so we don't lose that vital info, and it really should not have been removed without making sure that info was retained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Novem Linguae - just a note, this has been discussed at length at WP:TV, the survivor WikiProject and even a recent RfC. This isn't an undiscussed change, and even if it was, you wouldn't need a consensus to follow MOS:COLOUR. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
But, if that color was showing vital information, when it is removed we would be required to show that info in a different way. We don't just remove the data along with the color. Or we add something to the color to make sure color isn't the only descriptor for the data. That was also discussed in those locations. In the case of Borneo, I guess if one tribe has immunity then it follows the person being voted out is from the other tribe. I might still want to show the tribe name but it isn't do or die vital. That isn't always clear in Survivor though... such as when there are three tribes. We have to make sure readers know the tribe that was voted off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The tribe membership of the person voted out, when the table lists the tribe that did not go to TC, is not vital since that can be worked out from the fact there were only two tribes before the merge. This is also available in the voting table. Tribe membership is essential information, but not by color. --Masem (t) 12:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
That's not entirely true. Many readers only know the tribes by color and not by name. Buff-color has always been vital info on Survivor. Heck I have relatives myself who know the tribes by yellow tribe, blue tribe, etc... and wouldn't know the tribe name from a hole in the wall. Tribe color is important information. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware. I participated in that RFC. I would like to see a little more effort to preserve useful knowledge when fixing these tables. And not just a reflexive deletion of all colors. There is a middle ground here where we don't delete useful knowledge AND we make the tables more accessible. I'd like us to avoid repeating the nightmare that took place over at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2), where anti-color enthusiasts were way too heavy handed and upset a bunch of people. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where are the "mixed reactions from the media"?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Mixed reactions" usually means some positive reviews, some negative, but I don't see anything in the Critical Reception section that indicates anything less than a neutral response. PETA was negative but I don't really count them as critics. The rest of the critics are either positive or commenting on the popularity. --Somarain (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Remove episode summaries?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Episode summaries were removed from Survivor: Africa per its GA nomination. I wonder whether the same can be done to Borneo's episode summaries. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the outright removal is appropriate. A summary of the clear, obvious events of the game (what the challenges were, any special events like swap) should be in the episode summaries, but I do agree that all the attempts to document strategizing (outside of the season summary) is way too much and involves interpretation of events and motives. --Masem (t) 12:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Future appearances

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section refers only to castaways who make future appearances on Survivor, not other media. No one reading this article cares if a player from this season was later seen on The Apprentice, The Amazing Race, Judge Alex, a Rob Schneider movie, etc. This article is about Survivor, so please, make sure you stick to Survivor. Greggens (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply


Requested move 25 October 2024

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Seeing how the general consensus on this has gone so far, I have decided to withdraw this request. (non-admin closure) TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

– Per WP:NCTV "a consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages." While this hasn't always been the case for Survivor, the series has used numbers rather than subtitles to refer to its seasons since 2021. Since there are multiple versions of survivor, all 47 seasons need include the country disambiguator even though this is the only one that has 47 seasons. I suppose a case could also be made for something like Survivor 41 (American season), Survivor 42 (American season), etc. This format is also used for American Big Brother seasons. However, while the latter seasons are discussed in some reliable sources this way (seemed like a mix between "Survivor #" and "Survivor season #" from a quick glance), there are very few if any reliable sources referring to the earlier seasons as "Survivor #" so I'd prefer my first suggestion so that a uniform titling scheme can be used. Depending on how this move goes, there are also a few other countries that may need moves based on the same naming conventions. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Survivor:_Borneo&oldid=1256746535"
  NODES
HOME 2
Idea 2
idea 2
Intern 2
languages 2
Note 6
os 41
text 3
web 2