Template talk:Survivor

External links

Why is it necessary to link to the CBS pages in this template when those links already exists in each article? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I like the cleaner look without the external links. -- Gogo Dodo 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Old vs New Template

I have noticed some users converting the old template into a new one, and personally i think the old template is easier to read and access and looks much better. I do not wish to start an edit war, so i brought the issue to the talk page. What does everyone else think, new or old template? Survivorfan101 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no strong opinion one way or another. On one hand, the old table was easier to read because the font was bigger. On the other hand, I do like the idea of standardization with {{Navbox}}. I know, not exactly a helpful opinion, but I didn't want you to think you weren't noticed. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it got changed and reverted back again and here hasn't been any discussion about it, I thought I would start one by proposing a change to Navbox. See User:Gogo Dodo/Survivor Template Test. I still like the standardization with {{Navbox}}. Outright conversion to Navbox doesn't look right, so how about a fixed version? Remove the line breaks and ditch the italics? While removing the italics makes it easier to read, it does go again WP:MOS-T. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, discussion! OK, Gogo Dodo, I do like your lack of italics. I thought them really unneccessary, but neglected to revert them as they seemed to have been there for a while when I noticed them. I am aware that it goes against the MOS... but it is a heck of a lot easier to read. The view/discussion/edit links also make it more functional for easy access to these pages. I like that too. Now, Survivorfan, when you say a new template, do you mean this one we have now with the italics and five seasons across? Or should I go and check the history? I may do that anyway. Anyway, I support Gogo Dodo's Navbox template. It is practical and aesthetically pleasing, and I see no disadvantages. Well, excpept for those old faces around the Survivor pages that don't like change =) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the old version is the non-Navbox version per this revision. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like Gogo's version too. I even tried it with italics and it looked fine to me, though I'm neutral to whether italics are used or not. -- BullWikiWinkle 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have actually changed my mind and like both versions now. Sorry trombonator, the "old one" i was referring to back then was the one Gogo has linked to. I do think that the non-Navbox one will continue to get cluttered as more seasons are released so it may be worth changing to the Navbox version, but i'm still torn on which one i think looks better Survivorfan101 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Winners

*is extremely new to Wikipedia but will try his best to not screw everything up* Um, yeah. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to merge the Winners template with this one - I can do it if you want, I'm not completely Wiki challenged, just Wikipedia... Anyways. Veego laberge (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly viable with the longer template now... then there's always the option to put every contestant on it as well... it could get really huge really fast. And it's kind of like the "Seasons" template, not a contestant template. I'll leave it open for someone else to think about. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Hatch links to the actor born 1945, not the Survivor winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.37.211 (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

do you think it is ok to put "other (international) versions section"???

just Like in the tempLate of the amazing race..

there is an amazing race asia and braziL section there..

Yeah, definitely! I was meaning to bring this up for a while but I haven't had any internet access :( The only suggestions I would make is to rename group3 to "international", and find some Frenchy or French-speaking dude to give us a translation of Koh-Lanta so we don't have the light blue interwiki link. But I would definitely support this change. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"list of contestants" under "people" category

I feel like it would make more sense to have the "list of contestants" wiki-link be placed under the "people" heading as opposed to under the misc. heading. However, I don't feel like it's my place to make the change. Allanlw 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Survivor 22

Since Survivor 22 now redirects to the Survivor page, I'm removing the link. 120.151.54.162 (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Extreme US centric template

The show is not originally a US show, but a show originally from Sweden. Nevertheless this templates puts the original show in a hidden subcategory. Either this template is intended for use at only the US version in which case it should be removed from all non US articles, or the template should be better balanced as the topic is not primarily on the US show. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the change?

I personally think that the former template was better and looked nicer. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about my edit in that diff specifically or this version of the template? Gloss • talk 03:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm saying that that version of the template looked better than the current one so I'm wondering about the sudden change. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll ping @ApprenticeFan: as they are the user who made the change and I'm not sure what the reasoning was. However I'll add that I do like the change, myself. Putting the two extra headers is a simple and effective way to separate the U.S and international versions. Gloss • talk 04:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps try reaching out on their talk page. Gloss • talk 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a pretty quick reply haha. Sent a message, awaiting a response. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be quicker next time :P Gloss • talk 03:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

He's not answering even though he's actively editing. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's odd. Well if you'd like, I'm not opposed to the older format either so I don't mind seeing it put back (except the change I made with the year's.. "2013: Caramoan Blood vs. Water" instead of "Caramoan (2013) Blood vs. Water (2013)") - I'd like to see that stick. By the way, sorry I didn't answer as fast! haha Gloss • talk 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I can live with that. And 5 minutes isn't too bad haha ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of! Gloss • talk 22:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! One more thing though – wouldn't it be better if the years that only included one year stay as Season (year)? For example, Borneo (2000) • The Australian Outback • ... • 2013: Caramoan • Blood vs. Water. I also think Africa would be better if it only counted as an '01 season because that's when it started. Sorry for the high maintenance haha ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well for the sake of consistency I'd have it all one way or the other. Two different formats will look pretty messy. But since Africa aired in both years, it's probably best to leave it as is, though I can see why only counting it as 01 would make sense too. Mehh Gloss • talk 00:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Repetitious?

So there are links to the seasons in the Winners section. Can the two be merged? Have the heading be "Seasons (winners)" and then have each season name be followed, in small print and parentheses, by the name of its winner? Simple_butpowerful 19:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is the U.S. given prominence

Why is the U.S. section broken out with seasons, winners and related articles, while international versions are not. Survivor didn't originate in America, and if the template is going to be for Survivor the franchise, the American version should not be dominant - if it was a Survivor U.S. template than sure, but its not - it is headed Survivor linking to the franchise page -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Bumping this. Anyone else concerned that the US version has such prominence for a non-US original format? -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this should be split, a general franchise one and a US-only one. There is no reason why two completely different templates are forced together. --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)