Talk:Survivor: Kaôh Rōng

Tribes

I saw a preview for the upcoming 32nd season called Kaôh Rōng will be in three tribes: Totang (brawn, tribe color red), Chanloh (brains, tribe color blue) and Gondol (beauty, tribe color dark gold). ApprenticeFan ^work 11:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't the table sorting?

It's listed as Wikitable sortable. What is going on? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC) It's working normally on other devices. I am guessing on my desktop NoScript is blocking something needed for it to work Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Merged Tribe - Black?

@ApprenticeFan: Are their any sources that show the merged tribe will be wearing black buffs? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC) @VegasCasionKid: - the CBS press photos have revealed the tribe name and colors [1] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Source for final 2?

I noticed that ApprenticeFan setup the page for a Final 2, but they provided no source indicating it is a Final 2. Does anyone have a source? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly: Wait for the official press release from CBS whether there would be a final 2. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan, I am waiting for the official press release. You, however, had setup the page for a Final 2 yesterday, so I wanted to know why you did that and if you had a source confirming it is a final 2. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, I was right about the final two. There will be three tribal councils for the finale with the final two castaways playing for a million dollars. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan, I never said you were factually wrong, but your conduct was wrong. When you make edits to articles, you need to have reliable sources. When you first made the change, you had no sources. As there is a TV commercial confirming the final 2, nothing more is needed, but in the future please only make sourced edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: @ApprenticeFan: @CCamp2013: Does anyone have a link to this commercial online that confirms there will be a final two? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGHkaXUXNIk - It will only word in the US, I believe. Three tribals = Final 2. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymPfjMjWthE - Kirhoffer says it is a Final 3 and the Final 4 immunity challenge is the final immunity. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: No, he didn't actually say that it is a final 3. John Kirhoffer said "The winner, immunity, and a guaranteed shot at the final three". If it was the final 5 immunity challenge Kirhoffer would have said a guaranteed shot at the final 4. The fact that he said "a guaranteed shot at the final three" and not "a guaranteed shot at the final tribal council" makes it look more like a final two. The fact that he said that four players would compete in the final immunity challenge doesn't necessarily mean that it's a final 3. It's more likely that it's a final two with no immunity challenge at the final 3 especially considering the other video that said there are three tribal councils left. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Debbie's vote.

How do you know Debbie voted for Aubry? It was not revealed. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I've heard that it was Nick instead of Debbie, but unfortunately I can't find any reliable source that can confirm it. 90.47.16.6 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tribal transitions and Day 38 vote?

Technically, Julia was the sole member of To Tang in Episode Five, and this was even mentioned on-air in the lower-thirds during scene transitions as well as her confessionals. So shouldn't all the tables reflect this? For example, the vote table should look something like this:

(Table removed because it held incorrect information)

Note that in the fifth episode, they switched tribe members around; then in Episode Six, the one-person To Tang tribe was absorbed into Gondol.

Also, shouldn't there be a table for the Day 38 vote where Michele booted Neal from the jury? It is, after all, part of the voting history. Greggens (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really buying either of these to be honest. The show presented Julia as a member of To Tang, but the note above in the placement table covers that as well as the note in the voting history table. It was essentially a tribe switch-induced Exile last seen in Gabon. And the note in the jury vote table covers the Day 38 TC. Michele cast a vote, but it didn't involve the players left in the game, which is what the voting chart reflects. BlueDevil54 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of the chart above is to reduce the number of notes needed. It would be simpler to have a chart with all three tribe transitions than to explain in words what happened between Episodes Five and Six. Besides, it wasn't an Exile per se that Julia experienced, as she wasn't actually tribeless; she was merely part of a tribe of one while waiting for a spot on another tribe to open up.

As for the Day 38 vote, you may have a point. After all, there have been times in the past when votes took place that didn't involve eliminating, reinstating, or "crowning" someone in the game (i.e. voting to give a person on an opposing tribe immunity), and in those cases, the votes weren't charted, either. Greggens (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Julia was tribeless during episode 5. Otherwise, if there was really three tribes, why didn't she compete in the Immunity Challenge as a third part? It is exactly the same situation as in Panama, Fiji and Gabon, the only difference is that she was on a former tribe's beach instead of Exile Island. The red buff and To Tang subtitle were only for visual purposes, but in fact, Julia wasn't part of any tribe, and To Tang ceased to exist right after the switch, that's all. 2A01:CB0C:1F2:D000:1447:A814:2FA3:FBE6 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Julia did not sit out that Immunity Challenge because she was "exiled;" rather, she sat out because whomever got switched to To Tang was to be granted automatic immunity. Plus, if it were truly an exile of a tribeless castaway, the producers would have had no reason to list her as a member of the To Tang Tribe. They would have just shown her name on screen without a tribal designation at that point. Granted, all this may be just a technicality, but indeed she was briefly on To Tang for part of the game. Even though this designation was, by design, only temporary, it still happened; so the record should show that she was on four different tribes during the game (Gondol, To Tang, New Gondol, and Dara). Greggens (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

including Mark the Chicken

I took another crack at Mark the Chicken. Rather than writing about Mark directly (earlier removed as trivia, and perhaps rightly so) I've written about the fan, production, and critical response to Mark. I think this could be a subsection of Reception. The following is a simplified version:

This season had considerable reaction to a chicken named after series developer Mark Burnett. Fans created a Twitter account and Facebook pages for Mark the Chicken, and in recognition of his growing popularity producers altered the opening montage to incorporate Mark. Josh Wigler of Parade called Mark the "breakout star" of the season and frequently asked contestants questions about him in exit interviews. Daniel Fienberg of The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Mark was "indispensible" to the tribe with unquestionably better game play than some contestants, and wanted Mark to get votes at the final tribal council. Jeff Probst joked to Entertainment Weekly's Dalton Ross that Mark would be "eligible to take a spot at the final Tribal Council and plead his case" if the chicken made it to the end. Following the broadcast of an episode in which she attempted to conspire to eat Mark, Julia Sokolowski received an overwhelmingly adverse reaction on social media. Jeff Probst justified the media attention on the Mark story, stating, "One man (Tai) has convinced a group of starving people to not eat a chicken because it's become his friend. That's pretty powerful." After surviving all 39 days and attending the final tribal council, Mark the Chicken was donated to a Cambodian family.

Please see my sandbox for a more complete version with headers and references. It could unquestionably use improvement. Before I put any more work into this I'd like to know if it'd be welcome to the article or if it's something that would be deleted outright. All comments are welcome. Reidgreg (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I do not oppose this. CCamp2013 (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and added it to the bottom of Reception. Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I have removed the section per per WP:FANCRUFT. As stated in my edit summary, "most of the section focuses on fan jokes that received little-to-no notability outside of Survivor fan communities." Creating fan pages is a common fan practice, as is (unfortunately) negative reactions to cast members on Twitter. Cast members receive "overwhelming negative reaction" to events all the time (e.g. Dawn voting Brenda out in Caramoan and Joe's elimination in Cambodia) but since these occurrences never break out of Survivor-specific media, it doesn't meet notability here. - Katanin (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to wonder why you waited until I added it to the article before stating an opinion. I respectfully disagree with you. If we removed all material in this article which is only of interest to Survivor fans, it would become a very short article indeed. But if you do feel that way why not trim the parts you find "fancruft" and keep the rest? I had a lot in there for context and in an attempt to demonstrate "notability" from multiple RS for the express purpose that it not be unilaterally undone. Reidgreg (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I wish I had seen this section before you posted on the article; I had not until I checked the talk after you added the section, having not been alerted to this discussion while it was happening. The "Reception" section is used to orient a work within a larger cultural context; ratings are notable as it expresses how well a series/season is doing in comparison to other programs, and critical reception showcases the media attention that shows how well the program is doing. There are pages for these seasons because they are notable as seasons of prominent cultural works, by virtue of airing on a major American television network. The information included within (such as the summaries and tables) are to provide references as to what happened within the game that makes the show so notable. The Mark section, as it stood, was a hyper-specific cherry-picking of select moments and elements that did not garner outside attention. This recalls (in broad concept, not in content) the heavily-debated Worlds Apart "Controversy" section, in which some users believed that a certain series of interactions within the episodes (in Worlds Apart, the treatment of women by men as exemplified by comments made against Shirin) deserved extra notability in the reception section. The argument was ultimately settled with the idea that "Controversy" sections are only merited if it attracts attention outside of the season, such as legal battles (as exists in all remaining "Controversy" sections, and is often a litmus test for the notability). I see a similar pattern here in that the section that you submitted fails to orient Mark as being especially notable outside of the show, which is what the "Reception" section exists to identify. - Katanin (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Katanin: Do you not consider publication like People and EW writing an article about it, "outside attention"? CCamp2013 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: No, because they're writing about the show as a whole. Their coverage isn't "this chicken on Survivor is noteworthy," it's "here is our Survivor article, and we are mentioning the chicken." Articles about the aforementioned "Controversies" have received press coverage about the incident in a larger context, see this article about Denise from China or this one about the Stacey Stillman lawsuit. Not saying that it doesn't exist, or that I'm opposed to a Mark mention at all, but nothing that has been provided here has permeated that boundary. - Katanin (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Katanin: The People [2] article is exclusively about Mark the Chicken, as is this one: [3]. CCamp2013 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: The People article is very much about Survivor and nothing else. The Mashable article is the closest thing to noteworthiness I've seen thus far here, but even still I'd hesitate to go for it yet, as its ultimate impact as of right now — Tai's treatment of animals prompted Sia to show up to the reunion and donate money — is already in the article. I agree that Mark was a fun part of the season, but I don't believe that there's any special recognition beyond the one sentence about Tai's treatment of animals throughout the game. - Katanin (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Katanin: I put another version on my sandbox which cuts the material which you found objectionable. (Mention of fan pages, "overwhelming negative reaction" and Probst's joke -- which, incidentally, I did not include for humour but rather to make a point of how seriously people were taking it.) Now I see your notability complaint doesn't only refer to those points but to the whole section. You say you're not opposed but I'm reading an awful lot of opposition. I could try rewriting it to fit under Production but I have every expectation you'll give me a third undo. - Reidgreg (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: and @Katanin:; I think your new version in your sandbox is still not to she is a editor for Wikipedia. standards. I think the only way Mark the Chicken will be able to be incorporated is in production noting the inclusion of him into the credits and something short like this:

"This season had considerable reaction to a chicken named after series developer Mark Burnett. In recognition of his growing popularity on social media, producers altered the opening montage to incorporate Mark. Jeff Probst justified the media attention on the Mark story to Entertainment Weekly's Dalton Ross, stating, "One man [Tai Trang] has convinced a group of starving people to not eat a chicken because it's become his friend. That's pretty powerful." After surviving all 39 days and attending the final tribal council, Mark the Chicken was donated to a Cambodian family.

It gets rid of all the jokes that you keep incorporating into the article. CCamp2013 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: and @CCamp2013: I have added two sentences about the external impact of Tai's animal rights on the show. Thoughts? - Katanin (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Two sentences is good enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidgreg (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception outside of white page

The reception section is somewhat outside the white part of the page, where it is supposed to be. How can you fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.136.143 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Survivor jury vote table 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) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Survivor: Borneo which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)