Talk:Survivor: Panama/Archive 1

message: In the voting history chart, eliminated contestants have a black bar for the period after they are eliminated, however the merge tribe color appears to be either black (Like Balboa), or Gold (Like Chuay Jai). The double black could get confusing. FireSpike 23:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider Changing "Voted Out" Color

message: Jtrost is selectively removing external links. On multiple occasions he has removed links to external sites and left survivor fever.com this behavior is unusual and suspicious. See Jan 21,2006, January 11th 2006, January 8th 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  206.148.28.168 (talk • contribs) January 21, 2006
:Please consult WP:EL to see what external links fit this criteria.  One example of a website that should not be linked to is: any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.  The reason I leave Survivor Fever up is because they provide unique information about the contestants that I have not seen at any other website.  Additionally, Survivor Fever is being used as a source for information, which you removed.  Please see WP:CITE for more information on why it is important to cite sources.  It's generally acceptable to link to one "fansite" that seems to be ahead of the rest of the pack, and I think for Survivor that fansite is Survivor Fever.  If you wish to disagree we can discuss it here. Jtrost 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, please do not remove Survivor Fever as it is being used as a reference.  I was not the one who referenced it; someone else did.  Before you choose to revert my edits again I highly suggest you read up on WP:3RR. Jtrost 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please talk about this in the "Protected" topic below. Jtrost 03:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I have reverted the addition of the tribe names due to the fact that, you are a non-logged in user and I am unable to independantly verify that these names have even been floated as possilbities let alone are they actually verified. If you can provide some kind of info as to where you got this info from we can put it back. AdamJacobMuller 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribe Names 

message: Just a reference for the tribe colors  I remember looking at Survivor Fever to get the tribe colors so i'm not quite sure how I screwed that one up. Now, i'm off to read about how to get this page setup as a semi-protected article. AdamJacobMuller 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribe Colors 

message: The formatting on this page is wildly different from what appears to be a rather standard format in all the other Survivor pages.  Would anyone mind if I went through and made it look like the other pages? Mo0[talk] 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Jtrost 13:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if your talking about the listing of RC/IC/Exiled/Air Date in the box in the center, i think that it would be far more worthwile to modifiy all of the other boxes on the other pages to include this information AdamJacobMuller 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's refering to the the contestant section.  It's very different than the other pages. Jtrost 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to make sure he didn't "fix" the table, I think it's quite superior to the table on the other seasons and I do want to convert the other seasons to use this. I already added the air dates to Guatemala. AdamJacobMuller 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a question, anyone running on a smaller resolution, like 1024x768? how does this look, I have a widescreen powerbook so it looks good here, i'm concerned with the 3 tribes winning IC/RC it's too wide AdamJacobMuller 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: realized I could just set my monitor to 1024x768, the wider table looks OK at the smaller resolutions AdamJacobMuller 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a 20" cinema display (I highly recomend it BTW), and a 12" Powerbook w/ 1024 resolution.  When I maximized the window on the PB's screen it looked fine.  The tribe names appear one on a line, so there's three lines.  However, there's not much excess room. Jtrost 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To Adam: I was not going to fix your table.  I like your table.  I was just looking at the contestant section, which looks kind of tacky compared to the nice organized list we usually have.  The one thing I worry about is overlap between your table and the contestant table I want to use, since it generally reflects all tribal shifts. Mo0[talk] 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look at it, the last two columns in your table are duplicated in mine.  I'm not going to go and remove it from there without asking you if that's okay.  Your table is cool, but we don't need the same info in two places. >_> Mo0[talk] 08:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: it probably makes a lot more sense to merge the two tables they both follow the same general structure and would merge well AdamJacobMuller 09:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... now that I think about it, it might be a better idea to just chop off the last two columns on your table.  Think about it, all the other pages have a quick summary up above, followed by a more detailed synopsis below.  Mo0[talk] 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding the format of this page 

message: Can I now remove the upcoming show tag? After all, it is on and there's no more need for that tag. - 上村七美 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an upcoming show tag, it's an in-progress show tag.  Basically, because the show is still airing, lots of the information really is subject to change, so that tag does make sense to be there, I think. Mo0[talk] 08:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the upcoming show tag

message: Was she really seen as a threat in challenges?  I gathered it was mostly about her constant alone time rather than her being a challenge threat -- especially at this stage in the game, where strength in challenges, especially in a tribe such as theirs full of less athletic people, is NEEDED.  I can see it as a logical boot reason later on, but right now I don't see how that factored into the decision at all.  Mo0[talk] 08:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the main reason she was voted out because of a comment she made during tribal council, in which she implied that the other team members were lazy and weren't pulling their weight. --Revolución (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's keep all elimination notes limited to what is said at tribal council, because when each person goes to vote they state the exact reason they are voting a person out. Jtrost 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that, but I'd rather leave it to just what was stated in the episode, since occasionally people say things in confessional that they don't say during Tribal Council.  The main issue is that we can't speculate on other reasons besides the ones presented to us, because there's no way to verify if they're true or not.  Anything actually stated in the episode is verifiable; just watch the tape. Mo0[talk] 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would say include anything that's canon, if the bootee on the early show the next morning or on survivor live or something indicates that there was another reason that didn't make the show for some reason that might be something that should be included even if like "however the next morning on the early show Lex said that he told kathy not to give him the immunity neclace" (and wtf was up with the editing on that one, assuming you believe lex and kathy). you know, I fell asleep tonight and missed the entire episode (hence no edits during) TGFT AdamJacobMuller 08:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tina's elimination 

message: Why was this page moved to include "Exile Island"?  Each season is named after where it is located (i.e. Africa, Thailand, etc...).  Usually, "themes" are not included in the article name.  For example, Vanuatu does not include "Isles of Fire", and Guatemala doesn't include "The Maya Empire".  I'd like to move the page back, however, I'd like others to chip in on this. Jtrost 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice this until now, thanks to inattentiveness on my part.  I've moved the page back, like you said, the precedent has been to ignore all subtitles and just use the actual LOCATION.  The only thing that could get in the way is that it appears that during production they may have not intended to mention Panama at all, because I've never heard Jeff say "Survivor: Panama".  That could also just be an attempt to make people forget this is the third time this location has been used, though. Mo0[talk] 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved it because at least two other Survivors have been located in Panama, Survivor: Pearl Islands, and Survivor: All-Stars. --Revolución (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of THIS season is "Panama".  See the title of the official website here. Jtrost 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is Panama: Exile Island, with emphasis on Exile Island. --Revolución (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, It's Survivor: Panama - Exile Island, hence Exile Island is a subtitle, like "Islands of Fire" was to Vanuatu and "The Mayan Empire" was to Guatemala, the norm here on Wikipeida is to use the main title of the season. In This case, that's "Panama" Hence, the title of the article should be "Survivor: Panama", if you have any further doubts, look at the title of the cbs page that JTrost posted. AdamJacobMuller 06:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I'm not quite clear on if you actually think that Survivor 12 isn't actually in the Pearl Islands in Panama. In any event, the fact that they are back in the same location has been well documented. 
* Filmed in the Pearl Islands off the coast of Panama 
* Survivor: Panama — Exile Island heads for the third time to the Pearl Islands off Panama in Central America 
* Although it was titled Survivor: Pearl Islands, CBS' seventh Survivor edition, broadcast in Fall 2003, was filmed on the same islands, as was the subsequent spring's Survivor: All-Stars eighth edition of the long-running reality series. 
* Survivor to Return To The Pearl Islands, Panama for Twelfth Edition 
* For the third time in 12 seasons, Survivor is back in Panama's Pearl Islands 
* We are back in the same area that the Pearl Islands and the All-Star seasons were filmed 
* "Survivor" is back in Panama and the Pearl Islands. 
Should be sufficent AdamJacobMuller 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is the same location, just different islands. If I remember the map of the Pearl Islands very well (when it was still Survivor Pearl Islands/All-Stars), Casaya and Bayoneta are also part of the Archipelago, along with Chapera, Mogo Mogo, and Saboga. I remember those two islands very well. - 上村七美 12:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: take a look at  if you have google earth, that will pretty much answer your questions AdamJacobMuller 05:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Would anybody object if I added the names of the challanges to the game graph? --400lb.Gorilla 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of each challenge isn't that notable.  It would just increase the size of the table. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is already pretty big... I didn't even know they *had* names. Can you cite official sources for those names?AdamJacobMuller 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Survivor CBS Website lists the challange names in the recaps for the episodes as well as on the Survivor Insder Videos(i think, but i'm sure about during the recaps). It doesn't even have to be in the graph, i wouldn't mind seeing something like the "game" section that is on the Survivor: Guatemala page.--400lb.Gorilla 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Reward/Immunity challange titles to Graph 

message: There's a spoiler tag below "The Game" section as it mentions the boot order, however this same boot order appears in the "Contestants" section, which appears before "The Game" section, but no mention is made of the potential spoilers. Perhaps a spoiler tag should be added here, instead of "The Game" section? 144.135.255.103 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: I'm deleting the page temporarily to remove spoilers from edit summaries. NSLE (T+C) at 01:54 UTC (2006-02-24)
:Done and restored. NSLE (T+C) at 02:01 UTC (2006-02-24)
What was the point of this?  There's a spoiler warning. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The spoilers were in the *edit history* of the page. That means that people looking at the page history, or their watchlist, or the recent changes or in any other place (many other places) where page change summaries are displayed would inadvertenly see it. Even though wikipedia doesn't censor spoilers putting them in the edit history is just a bad idea, and also completely useless. Updating a page with an edit summary of "added RC challenge winners" is no less informative than "Ulong wins Immunity!" (ok, stop laughing, it's not *that* funny) , and the former doesn't contain information that's going to make someone who is TiVo'ing Survivor, go, ah, shit! It's basically just a courtesy thing. I do wish that there was a better way of removing problematic edit summaries. AdamJacobMuller 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporarily deleting 

message: Can you believe someone felt like vanalizing the page by just puting a sub-topic that said "Sole Survivor" and under it just two words, "Bruce won" Also, everyone knows that even if Bruce made it to the final 2 the voted are revealed live on tv so this person doesn't know. And of course, the vandalism is by an unregistered user. Can you use their IP address to tell a moderator to block them from editing, or is that just for users? TeckWiz 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically there are about 4-or-so people who actually look at the votes ahead of time. The ones we know about are Mark Burnett, Jeff Probst and Les Moonves. Now, I highly doubt that they are going to say anything. In general, bans are only placed in cases of repeated vanalism, however you can, and should, put a warning message on their talk page, look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace AdamJacobMuller 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hardly an improvement to repeat the (potential) spoiler here, is it? Claudia 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sole Survivor

message: The rationale given for adding this is that it is important for ties.  However, breaking ties based on the number of previous votes votes has not been used since Africa.  Is this information really useful?  We do have the voting history table after all. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably overkill IMO, I have several issues though at the moment that relate to these two tables that will be unable to sort out until the season is over. My instrinct is to leave this stuff alone until the season is over at which time we can start working out what we need to do to make the page work better without having to worry about the fact that the season is in-progress. AdamJacobMuller 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total votes 

message: There are some edits to this article that are seriously concerning me because I think that some editors (especially the annonymous ones) are treating Wikipedia more like a fansite than an encyclopedia.  For starters, it'd be a good idea for everyone to review these policies: what Wikipedia is not, verifiability of information and sources, and no original research.  I will point out some specific edits that are violating these policies, and often refer to the Lost article on how these can be improved upon because I believe that Lost is a model article for how TV show articles should be treated.
# Future episodes I am not sure where this information is coming from, but the official site gives no mention of future episode titles.  If there was a press release somewhere that mentioned the next episode title then it would be a good idea to cite it.  Information from fansites typically are not verifiable unless they have information from an official source that would otherwise be difficult to cite (such as a promotional commercial). Lost had quite an extensive disccusion and straw poll on how to handle future episode information, which you can read about here. I would like to adopt a similar guideline for this article because it had worked flawlessly for Lost for several months now.
#Trivia Again, Lost had an extensive discussion and straw poll on this that can be reviewed here, and I would like to adopt a similar guideline.  I would suggest only including trivia that is not pure cruft.  Examples of cruft are: this is the first season with no one's name who begins with J (the deletion of this has been upheld), Bobby was the second person in Survivor history not to be voted out by a majority (this has been deleted and undeleted a number of times), and this is the first season where the first four castoffs were female (which has also been deleted and added again).  Basically, saying that you find this trivia "interesting" is not a good reason to add it because anybody could use that excuse.  You need to have a good reason.  An example is the trivia about the shortened opening.  This is notable because one, it has never happened before, two, it affects the rest of the show in that we get about an extra 30-40 seconds of the actual show instead of a theme song, and third, it is a source of ongoing controversy (there is a long thread about it in the Sucks forum, although that is nothing we can cite because of verifiability reasons).  I am up to suggestions on how we can more accurately define "notable trivia", but at the rate it is going right now it is going to end up as an exhaustive, crufty list of non notable events.
I am bringing these issues up because I care a lot about the article.  I think that if we let non notable information run rampant then this article will quickly end up like South Park, which is filled with a lot of useless fan information that is not at all encyclopedic (read the episode guides for that show, they're an embarrassment to both Wikipedia and the authors who wrote them).  My main concern is that we cannot keep adding information because we find it "interesting" because interesting is a completely subjective term that anyone can use to add endless amounts of cruft to an otherwise great article.  So please reply with your opinions and suggestions on guidelines we can enforce to prevent this article from becoming a fansite. Jtrost (T | C | #) 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns and improvements 

message: Somebody keeps putting the incorrect Tribal Council days on the chart.  I keep correcting them, but somebody messes them up.
RobertCMWV1974 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn I saw Day 8 and Day 11 back a few episodes ago when they were at Tribal Council. They may have sped things up for an unknown reason this season. tv316 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now checked the episodes and those tribal councils did indeed take place on Day 8, Day 11, and Day 14. tv316 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They probably will have the finale with three castaways only instead of 4.RobertCMWV1974 17:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council Dates 

message: Off topic: what a depressing vote...I love Dan.
On topic: page is coming along, I'm glad to see that there's still devotion to survivor. Deckiller 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intersting vote

message: Quite frankly, both images are horrible, and look bad, i'm not even going to attempt to discern which one looks worse but how about we simply find a better one than what's up there right now and ditch both images AdamJacobMuller 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panama Logo 

message: Can I add the this fact to the trivia section?
*This season's tribe merger on Day 16 is the earliest merge to occur in any season of Survivor. Normally, merges between tribes occur between Days 19 and 21, but in some seasons, the merge occurs later.
Or can you rephrase this? - 上村七美 16:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting Trivia Note?

message: How can the winner be leaked if the finale results are announced live on tv? TeckWiz 10:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner Leak 

message: I've created the Survivors 13+14 pages since both had an application form, meaning they are going to happen. I added the pages to the seasons table also. Anyone have anything to add to the pages? Also, I plan to change the page title of Survivor 13 when the name is revealed (probably at the Panama final). Last, I plan to change Survivor 14 to it's real name when it is revealed probably at the Survivor 13 finale (which is a very long time from now)TeckWiz 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survivors 13+14