# Talk:Survivor: Borneo

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).

  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.

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)

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)

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)

The old charts failed accessibility requirements and WP:MOS. --Masem (t) 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
It looked perfectly fine before, but go off ig 110.174.21.178 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
Sounds false but ok UnbornCletus (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That answer doesn't work for colorblind readers. --Masem (t) 02:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@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)
Yes, too kuch color reuse. --Masem (t) 21:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
A well done compromise. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)