Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What does this mean?

This season has the first-reward only challenge on Episode 4, the longest ever to not have a reward only challenge shown on Survivor. -- 3bay_sam

I just dont understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.113.190 (talk • contribs)

I agree it could be worded better, but it says that the first challenge that was solely for a reward was held in episode 4. This is the first season that held the first reward only challenge that late into the season. -- Scorpion0422 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave a shot at rephrasing it even though this is one of those weird trivia things that I don't particularly like. -- Gogo Dodo 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks, it looks so much better now. -- 3bay_sam

Voting History table

The reason I split the Voting History table into separate columns with Episode 6 and 9, is that it is easier to read, especially Episode 9. With the votes stacked upon each other, I find it difficult to read who voted for whom. Additionally, with the columns split, the font sizes of the votes are consistent and it also is easier to understand why Rebecca only voted once. She was out when the Jenny vote was done, so she didn't get to vote. With the columns merged, it looks more like an error where somebody forgot to put her vote in on the Jenny vote. My goal was readability. Yes, it sacrificed width, but the table is going to be really wide anyways along and it's not unprecedented because all of the previous season's are nearly as wide. So what is consensus? Maybe we need to draw rocks. =) -- Gogo Dodo 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes more sense to have them in single columns, because then its easier to know that there were several people voted out. Check out the Palau table. In one episode there was a revote and the table looks fine with it in one column. The bottom line is that when the table gets filled up, it will become cramped and those extra two columns would make it look better. -- Scorpion0422 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The amount saved in minimal for a table that is already going to be 19 columns wide. While I agree that the Episode 6 column split is not as important since the colors help distinguish what happened, I still contend that Episode 9's column is difficult to read. Panana & Guatemala has 17 columns, Palau & Vanuatu has 18, All Stars has 19. The tables are just plain wide. -- Gogo Dodo 18:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fine, split the episode 9 part. But I think the episode 6 column should remain grouped.

Done. Glad that we could come to a compromise. =) I left the first row ("Mutiny") not covering Episode 10 because while a merge appears to be on according to TV Guide's episode description, with this season who knows if the merge will happen before or after the vote. -- Gogo Dodo 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Bastards

U changed what i did

I had

A
I
T
U
T
O
N
G
A

Why did it get changed back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bay sam (talk • contribs)

Because its pointless and it didn't look that good. -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it did look good. However, please don't become mad at a little revert. You can always revert back if you think it should be there. I'm going to do it for you because I agree with you. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not look good. Because it is somewhat hard to read and what is the point of listing it like that? It doesn't save any room, it doesn't look any better than it previously did. It's really pointless. -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put it back once again. Lets wait until either, someone else states their opinion, or someone else takes the formatting out. A decision of 3 people isn't really good. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the vertical format looks ugly and inconsistant from the rest of the table. Lets go back to the same format as all the other boxes. --Maelwys 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears Scorpion0422 reverted the article a 2nd time. I hope we can clear this out instead of this becoming a lame edit war. - Tutmosis 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine the way it is. Having it vertically on the page makes it harder to read plus none of the other Survivor charts do it that way. -- Scorpion0422 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for the vertical lettering. It's inconsistent with previous seasons and with other columns in the same table. Also, it makes it hard to search the page for the word "Aitutonga", because that word doesn't exist in that table anywhere. --Psiphiorg 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I said I'll wait for more opinions. I got them. Most people think it looks bad. However, the table now has Aitutonga written a million times, where previous seasons only had it once for the big merged block of color. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The vertical style looked bad, so I agree that wasn't the solution. As for the row-spanned version versus the separate boxes, my opinion is neutral, but I'm leaning towards separate boxes. -- Gogo Dodo 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious i re-read what i wrote i sound pissed off, im not lol was just wondering, and yeh i just think the rows should be spanned if you wanna keep consistency Scorpian,
I'll do
T
A
N
N
A
to the merged tribe of Celebrity Survivor n see if people like it.

Reduce Size

"This page is 41 kilobytes long"-This is too long for a single season article. Things that should be cut down are:

• Episode Summaries
• Elimination and Exile Notes

editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The too long message is on many different pages, so it really doesn't mean that much. There are some pages that are close to 100 kilobytes. -- Scorpion0422 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is going to be easy to cut down the size of the article. Splitting out the sections into their own articles would probably not be a good idea. Some of the parts of "Diversity and controversy" could probably be cut back. For example, is the MADtv paragraph really necessary? The Survivor Strikes Back blog notes don't seem particularly helpful either. -- Gogo Dodo 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. editor review me!-TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah other than that i don't think anything can really be edited, I've looked at the earlier seasons, they are all desperate to be update, i'll get on to that once im finished with celebrity survivor, it took me a few hours just to do a voting history table, the sad part is i knew how everyone voted in 13 tribal councils off the top of my head, and i want to put in elimination and episode notes, then when ive done that i wanna do voting history tables for the earlier survivors, its just a shame cbs has removed the website for survivor: borneo. -- 3bay sam 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism or Verified Info

"Also for the first time in Survivor, there will be a Final 3 facing a jury of 9, instead of a Final 2 facing a jury of 7. This implies that a 2 or 3-way tie to decide the winner of the game is possible, though the method to resolve this tie is unknown at this time."

I will check the history to see if it was a verified use who added this. Last i knew was that this was assumed, it wasn't definite, so if someone could she a little light on this subject it'd be helpful. 3bay sam 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay i just checked. It was put in by Masem, so it should be safe. -- 3bay sam 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it's the print version of TV Guide (so a link should be on their site shortly). The place I saw it listed (a chat board, so not the best reference for the future) is from TWOP. For reference, that quoted part is:

Fresh is a good word to describe what's coming up in the finale of Survivor: Cook Islands. In an exclusive sneak peek, Burnett tells TV Guide that he'll upend a hallowed Survivor tribal council finale by increasing the number of finalists to three (from the usual two). And with the size of the jury raised to nine (from seven), the possibility exists of a three-way tie in the competition for the $1 million prize. Not to mention a bigger dose of rancor, bile, and wacko questions from the Cook Islands castoffs who make up the newly expanded jury.

I had a html comment in the article to this extent. --Masem 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting table format

A couple of days ago I changed the format of the voting table, adding a column with the names of the voters at the far right so you wouldn't have to scroll back and forth or memorize which row is who. I also put the table in a div of its own, so you wouldn't have to scroll the whole page to get from one side to the other. Scorpion reverted, but these still seem like improvements to me. That table's going to get a lot wider by the end. Anyone else have an opinion?
—wwoods 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good idea, but i think you should leave it the way it is until the show ends, because its kind of confusing when there are still 7 castaways there. 3bay sam 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Page in Spanish

I just created a Survivor Cook Islands page for es.wikipedia.org. I copied most of the stuff that I thought was important from the English page, including the table with the contestants, however, I'm sort of new to this stuff and couldn't get the pics to load. Anyone can fix it? It'd also be nice if another Spanish-speaking person could give me a hand and continue to translate the rest of the stuff.

That's a good idea, but i cant help considering i only speak english 3bay sam 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tribe names in color

I just noticed that this is the only season whose infobox has the tribe names in the tribe's color. Other seasons list them as Koror (Brown), for example. This needs to be standardized, and I think it looks better to have the tribe names in color. --WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All taken care of Survivorfan101 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Aitutonga

I think the merged tribe needs to be rowspanning for consistency.
I need some opinions.
3bay sam 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a nice touch ScottAHudson 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Jury count

What is the source that says that Sundra voted for Ozzy in the final? I heard her on "Survivor Live" today and it seemed like she voted for Yul. I can't be sure because I started watching in the middle... but it seems like the table in this article might be wrong. Could someone be confusing Sundra with Rebecca? Yul said in an interview(with EW) he thought Sundra voted for him and Rebecca for Ozzy. - 12/18/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.77.102.10 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, Sundra voted for Yul, because she did state that on Survivor Live. I was also going to mention that. Eggos 03:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, Sundra did vote for Yul and Rebecca voted for Ozzy. I think everything else is correct. CrossingGuard 06:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who gets their own article?

Currently, the following contestants from this season have their own articles:

• Yul
• Ozzy
• Becky
• Sundra
• Jonathan
• Candice
• Rebecca

The Ozzy article was nominated for deletion, but most people voted to keep it. Now the Candice article is up for deletion too. I think we need to talk about who should and should not have their own page.

I think all the people who have individual pages deserve them. They were either in the final four, or they did something notable on the show, or they did something notable before the show. Some articles just need improvement.

As for the people who don't have articles, I'd say don't make articles for anyone who wasn't on the jury (that rules out Sekou, Billy, Cecilia, JP, Stephannie, Cao Boi, Cristina, and Jessica) unless a good case can be made for doing so. I think Adam and Parvati should have article. I think anyone who stays until at least Day 30 or 33 or so is notable in his/her own right. --The President of Cool 01:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

From the list above I only see Yul as notable for winning, and Sundra and Jonathan for their acting background. We don't need articles for every contestant on a reality tv show. - Tutmosis 01:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes a contestant notable or non-notable? Sure, they didn't win, but they are still more famous than many of the animals, towns and historical figures that have articles in Wikipedia. People just seem to be going overboard with nominating various pages for deletion. If this were Amazing Race or the Apprentice, then I would agree that only winners deserve articles, but Survivor is an immensely popular show, so I think that some of the more notabl finallists deserve pages. -- Scorpion 01:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I redirected Rebecca's article. She is definitely non-notable, and her page was a single line, so I figured it wasn't even worth going through the deletion process. -- Scorpion 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

This is related to Survivor in general and not just Cook Islands. I created a template for survivor contestants that can be found here and I've been adding it to various pages, and I would like some help in adding it to all the contestants who have pages. You can find out which pages have the template already here. Thanks!

I'm also currently trying to figure out who all has non-redirecting pages (and make a few more for some, such as Kathy and Alicia, who are the only All Stars without pages) so that I can make a template for the bottom of pages that lists every Survivor contestant who has a wikipedia page. Any help is appreciated. -- Scorpion 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Contestant occupations

There seems to be an edit war occurring right now about whether or not including the contestants' occupations in the table of contestants is appropriate and/or aesthetic. Why don't we discuss? Personally, I feel that occupation is one of the major identifiers, along with age and residency, of contestants on reality TV shows, including Survivor. I like the idea of listing occupation in the table, and find the information useful, relevant, and not at all cluttering. Thoughts? --Maxamegalon2000 06:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the major problem is that right now, there's no consistency across the Survivor seasons in wiki - most do not include occupation info and thus it shouldn't be added here, but there's the problem that some pages don't have a nice contestant table to start with and so on. If there isn't, there may be need for a Survivor season project as to coordiate the page layout and features across the seasons and then to decide there if contestant info (re: occupation) in addition to ages and residents are needed. Until then, I say keep the occupations off and be consistent with most of the pages, simply because that info should be on the individual bio pages for the contestants and doesn't really aid in stating who voted out whom when. --Masem 06:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the minimalist listing where it's just the name because I don't think the occupation or the home town location is relevant to the game. For example, was Ozzy being a waiter brought up in the game? Did it factor in? Probably not. Home town has zero to do with the game. Age was a factor in Survivor: Panama, of course, but hasn't been relevant in any of the other seasons. All the extra information just makes the table look cluttered. I will admit that the producers of the show do put the home town and occupation (but not the age) in the show with the captions, so they must feel it's important. -- Gogo Dodo 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maxamegalon2000! I disagree with Gogo Dodo The occupations are appropiate to add in the contestants table. There's nothing wrong about it. If only if that Gogo Dodo and Masem stop changing it, we'll be fine. Besides, the later series of Survivor have been watched more and more and paid even more attention to. Keep them because it's important to put information about it. -- Willbender 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's by majority decided to keep them, I won't touch them - I just think that there needs to be consistancy across all Survivor seasons for this then. --Masem 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both points. If consensus is to put the occupations in, then I'm not going to remove them. I just don't think there is a consensus. -- Gogo Dodo 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should list occupations. It really is pointless and it has no effect on the game whatsoever. It also clutters the chart. -- 06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was an agreement that it would be kept. The table wouldn't clutter the graph at all. I'm going to add it so please don't remove it.

Record?

Someone seems to think that the Rarotonga losing streak was significant. The streak was no worse than Samburu (Africa), Chuay Gahn (Thailand), Drake (Pearl Islands) and was not as bad as Ulong (Palau), or Marquesas. Agrippina Minor

(Moved the above part to the bottom of the page per usual WP discussions). There's a lot of excess trivia that people are putting into not only CI but other Survivor seasons as well. I think, like the above thing with occupation names, we need to get a Survivor wiki guide group made to be able to make all these pages consistent with each other, and that includes determining what is really worthwhile trivia and records, and what is cruft. (There's already a page for Survivor records, surprisingly). --Masem 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First challenges...

Under "The Game", since Puka Puka won Reward and Immunity in episode 1, and Puka Puka and Rarotonga won Reward and Immunity in episode 2. Wouldn't it appropiate to put Puka Puka winning Reward and Puka Puka, Aitutaki and Rarotonga winning Immunity in episode 1. Also put Puka Puka and Rarotonga winning Reward and Puka Puka, Rarotonga and Manihiki winning Immunity in episode 2. It's quite confusing that three tribes won reward and immunity which isn't true at all.

Can somebody do that since I don't know how to do tables like that.Willbender 12:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The table is correct for episode 1. The three tribes all won immunity and reward, though, as noted, Puka Puka won an extra bonus reward for coming in first.

I've fixed the table for episode 2 and the relevant notes. It's a little ugly due to the limitations of HTML tables, but I think it's going to have to do. -- Gogo Dodo 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

lol i just went to respond to that post, you beat me to it by about 5 minutes 3bay sam 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

J.P. Calderon

Somebody has made a JP Calderon page and if I can;t convince them to redirect it, I'm going to nominate it for afd. JP is hardly notable for Survivor and the page creator seems to be saying that signing a modelling contract and playing college voleyball is enough for a page. See the talk page for more. -- Scorpion 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be an article on that person. The only ones that should have an article are anyone who was in the Aitutonga tribe, if not anyone from the jury. Someone delete this article. Willbender 01:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion twice in the past month, with decisions of no consensus and keep. --Maxamegalon2000 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it should remain. Not only was JP a contestant on Survivor but he is currently starring on the Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency and was featured on the cover of Instinct magazine for admitting he was gay. That's a big deal. -Kara

It's Flica not Flicka...

From the Survivor Reunion, when Flica's image was shown, it says "Jessica "Flica" Smith". I understand that people like Ozzy and Jonathan who voted for her wrote "Flicka" or "Flicka Flame". Officially, it says "Flica" from the Reunion. I even watched it and changed it so many times that the occupations are also removed from it. So please, don't add that 'k" and stop removing the occupations. Willbender 05:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

external link to survivor.com

I want to add an external link to survivor.com. It was deleted as spam, but I don't think it's spam at all. It's got a ton of articles and screen captures. I was told to suggest that here. Is that the correct way to approach this? Yes, it is my own site, but I've been doing this for years. It's also linked on the home page for the Survivor TV show. This link is for the Cook Islands articles only.

http://www.survivor.com/category/survivor-13-cook-islands/ -- C331673 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Indiividual Pages

Does anyone else agree Rebecca and Becky should get their own pages as well? Becky is a runner-up, and Rebecca is an Emmy winner from The View —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Small5th (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Hispanic vs Caucasian and African American

This is a serious error. Hispanic, a group of people based on original language should not be put beside Caucasian American (in which many Hispanics are), Asian Americans, and African Americans. This error can lead to common misconceptions and stereotpyes. In the opening paragraphs it should say something along the lines "Contestants were divided upon three groups, the first three based upon race and the fourth based upon ethnic language or ethnic background. Casey14 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there's some political correctness in here, Mark Burnett specifically said they were separating the tribes "by race", and "hispanics" is generally the accepted collection of those people. --Masem 01:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Game Table

Could somebody please center the names in the eliminated area of the table? User:ScottAHudson

Jury votes in contestant table

I hate reverting things again and again and again. That is one way - in fact, the only way - to break WP:3RR. This is why I seek consensus on an issue that has recently sprung up. User:3bay sam has added the number of Jury votes the final three recieved in this article and Fiji. I reverted, as I did not deem it necessary. After all, its not on any other pages and is mentioned later in a more relevant section of the article. An IP address reverted me, saying that having only two lines of text for Yul, Beckie and Ozzy looked "annoying", and "the other castaways rows are huge compared to the final three". With the greatest respect to the parties involved, I actually measured the rows belonging to the final three and those who did not make jury: it turns out that they are actually the same size: 1.3cm (yes, I use metric!). I do not believe there is justification for this addition, but wanted to seek support from the wider community before I end up breaking 3RR. Happy holidays! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

The exile island concept returned with a "picture of a sunken ship as shelter" instead of a skull? I think they confused the picture on the logo with the actual ship on the island, but I don't remember clearly enough. Anyone wanna correct that for me? TheHYPO (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cecilia voted out on DAY 8 not 9

Some random IP address keeps adding that cecilia was voted out on Day 9, when she was clearly voted out on Day 8. Since i have reverted him three times, i ask other users to please correct this mistake. If you are unsure, rewatch the episode once more (as i have already done) or go here: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor13/show/ep04/ where it says Candice returns from exile island on DAY 9! Candice was on exile island when Cecilia was voted out Survivorfan101 (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tribe colors

I am proposing a change in the tribe colors for the season. The colors that are listed in the tables are, in my opinion, better representations of the buff fabric, even though any computer-drawn color is an estimate. In reality, buffs aren't made of RGB pixels, so "rounded" colors are not similar—thus, I believe we should use these colors. The differences in colors is placed in the tables below. Thanks! —Untitledmind72 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Current Colors
Contestant	Original Tribe	Dissolved Tribe	Merged Tribe
Anh-Tuan "Cao Boi" Bui 42, Christiansburg, VA	Puka Puka	Aitutaki
Nathan "Nate" Gonzalez 26, Los Angeles, CA	Manihiki	Rarotonga	Aitutonga
Candice Woodcock 23, Fayetteville, NC	Rarotonga	Aitutaki
Oscar "Ozzy" Lusth 25, Venice, CA	Aitutaki	Aitutaki

Proposed Colors
Contestant	Original Tribe	Dissolved Tribe	Merged Tribe
Anh-Tuan "Cao Boi" Bui 42, Christiansburg, VA	Puka Puka	Aitutaki
Nathan "Nate" Gonzalez 26, Los Angeles, CA	Manihiki	Rarotonga	Aitutonga
Candice Woodcock 23, Fayetteville, NC	Rarotonga	Aitutaki
Oscar "Ozzy" Lusth 25, Venice, CA	Aitutaki	Aitutaki

Proposing a change here and then making the change here less than an hour later is not a good idea. Please wait at least 48 hours, and preferably 7 days before making changes. In addition, it then makes it difficult to see what you are proposing, since the two colours in your example are then exactly the same. I have reverted your changes to the template until there is consensus (or lack of objection) to the change. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to the new colours, however I'd rather keep the black text for the Puka Puka Green. The white-on-lightgreen is somewhat hard to read. --Meaghan ^:) ≈ 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism???????

I just found a comment that seems a bit racist "While Jonathan was happy at Yul's anonymous good deed, Jeff Probst decided to A) let everyone know that Yul brought back the hat and B) editorialize on how this was an example of Yul's politicking and efforts to sway the jury to his side" Opinions wanted.MrInhibitor (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Tribe Names

While tribe names were derived from the islands of the Cooks, the official names of the starting tribes were: AITU, RARO, HIKI, and PUKA; not the whole names Aitutaki, Rarotonga, Manihiki, and Puka Puka. I STRONGLY suggest this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.26.220 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)