Talk:Survivor: Winners at War

DO NOT ADD A WINNER IN THE INFOBOX UNTIL THE SEASON CONCLUDES

This should be every unregistered user's ONLY warning. As a Survivor fan, I like to watch how the season plays out without any potential spoilers (regardless of the validity), and I would think I'm not the only one with that point of view. I'm an unregistered user myself, but I strive to make only constructive edits. One unregistered user has already vandalized this article three times by adding a winner, and quite frankly, I'm tired of this BS happening before the season begins! If a winner is added in the infobox at any point before the finale has finished airing, whatever user does so ought to have their editing privileges revoked, and I think it may also be a good idea to semi-protect the article or have unregistered edits reviewed. I'm sorry, but it has gotten out of hand for far too long, and some measures need to be taken to ensure this doesn't continue to occur. 50.232.92.83 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

50.232.92.83, I feel the same way. Similar edits happened early on with Island of the Idols. Funny, though, when I looked back at the article history, those early "spoiler" additions were wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that the season is over, we can do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.240.46 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Fire Tokens table

@ApprenticeFan and VietPride10: Recently, 2001:44b8:1108:9200:849b:2b80:59c6:4e84 made a table for the new currency "fire tokens" which can be given, stolen, taken away, or used to buy an advantage. I wanted to start a discussion on whether or not we should use this new table as it's never been done before and I just want consensus on the issue. Jayab314 01:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a table for fire tokens to keep track of it, as they can use them to buy advantages, which would be helpful to have summarized in a table.VietPride10 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see how they play out in the game, their impact, whether reliable sources give them any notice, so we can make a knowledgeable decision on whether they should be mentioned at all, and (if so) how much weight should be given. Schazjmd (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

beyond just mentioning fire tokens exist in the trailer, beyond Inside Survivor (which I don't think this is a "reliable" source), there isn't any published mentioned on what they actually do in the game. Shouldn't we remove this until it's actually released in a press release or in-game? User:VikingDevil53 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Noting that the table was deleted in this edit by 82.23.197.204 with the reason that "this is an arbitrary category which collates accrued currency for a twist that is not revealed properly. Stick to facts, fire tokens can be easily put into the episode descriptions just like hidden immunity idols." Jayab314 00:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan, VietPride10, Jayab314, Schazjmd, and VikingDevil53: since it was revealed how the fire tokens work at https://ew.com/tv/2020/01/15/survivor-winners-at-war-season-40-jeff-probst-twist/ I've drafted a possible fire tokens table that could be added to the article. The table shows how many tokens each player has at the end of each episode. This is how the table would look if Yul, Wendell, Tyson, and Tony were the first four boots respectively; Yul wills his token to Amber, Wendell wills his to Kim, Tyson wills his to Sarah, and Tony wills his to Nick. The episode 4 column shows how my proposed table would look if Yul sold an advantage to Kim for 2 fire tokens. A legend could be added beneath the table to explain the colour coding and how the players in the main game have their number of tokens in bold and the players on Edge of Extinction have their number of tokens in non-bold font. Thoughts? OctoMocto (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@OctoMocto: I think the table is good, the only thing I would add are notes in the colored boxes to explain it, as having only colored boxes may confused some readers even with a legend.VietPride10 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Episode #	1	2	3	4
Adam	1	1	1	1
Amber	2	2	2	2
Ben	1	1	1	1
Danni	1	1	1	1
Denise	1	1	1	1
Ethan	1	1	1	1
Jeremy	1	1	1	1
Kim	1	2	2	0
Michelle	1	1	1	1
Natalie	1	1	1	1
Nick	1	1	1	2
Parvati	1	1	1	1
Rob	1	1	1	1
Sandra	1	1	1	1
Sarah	1	1	2	2
Sophie	1	1	1	1
Tony	1	1	1	0
Tyson	1	1	0	0
Wendell	1	0	0	0
Yul	0	0	0	2

I'd oppose the table, much like Pirate Master where they had currency there was no definitive accurate amount as money regularly changed hands but was never acknowledged. Propose that any earned/won/given are outlined in the episode description. 135.196.1.74 (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent until we see how it plays out in the season. If we do end up including a table, I agree with VietPride10 about a note column or notes in the boxes. However, I'm leaning toward 135.196.1.74's proposal of mentions in episode descriptions for now. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan, VietPride10, Octomocto, Schazjmd, VikingDevil53, and Masem: I want to bring up a discussion about the table again. It appears that over the course of last night, several IP's took it upon themselves to start the Fire tokens section again, including a table. My personal stance on it is what I said in my deletion of the section: Fire tokens and how they work are already explained in the article. A table tracking how many fire tokens each players has is extremely unnecessary as it can simply be explained in a sentence or two in the episode summaries (as discussed on the talk page). However, I would like to have a consensus. It should be mentioned that the separate section and table should not be re-added until an agreement is reached. Jayab314 14:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the descriptions in the episode summary are sufficient. The article already has several long tables, another would not be an improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I also am in support of just the descriptions in the episode summary for now. VietPride10 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think a fire token table is definitely necessary because the descriptions in each of the episodes are usually ambiguous for a reader that has not actually watched the episodes. For instance, the first episode describes Sandra getting an idol "which she accepted under the impression that Natalie had made the offer from the Edge". If you have seen the episode you know that Sandra is correct. Natalie DID make the offer and that Natalie now has one fire token and Sandra has zero fire tokens. But if you are just a reader of this article you are not sure since it's described as an "impression". What about Jeremy? Did he accept Natalies offer for another idol? Does he have zero idols and Natalie now has two? Again. Not sure. Also, I think it is obvious that as the season progresses more and more fire tokens will come into play and what you are advocating is that in order to keep track of them our "reader not viewer" will have to revisit the episode descriptions and most likely have to create their own RL table or graph or whatever (as I have done) to keep track of them as they start to fly here and there between the two islands and the two teams. This article should be a running explanation of a TV show with all the pertinent information about that show for someone that is not watching the TV show. The episode summary descriptions don't do the job.―Buster7 ☎ 07:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Having watched the first episodes, I would like to see the fire token stats and it shows the movement of the tokens. It's easier to see actually via a table but instead of through the per-episode description.

I am going to edit this article and propose a format - please let me know your thoughts.

Episode #	1			2
Day #	1	2	3	4	6
Denise	1	1	1	1	2
Natalie	1	0	1	2	2
Rob	1	1	2	2	2
Adam	1	1	1	1	1
Ben	1	1	1	1	1
Ethan	1	1	1	1	1
Jeremy	1	2	2	1	1
Kim	1	1	1	1	1
Michele	1	1	1	1	1
Nick	1	1	1	1	1
Parvati	1	1	1	1	1
Sarah	1	1	1	1	1
Sophie	1	1	1	1	1
Tony	1	1	1	1	1
Tyson	1	1	1	1	1
Wendell	1	1	1	1	1
Yul	1	1	1	1	1
Danni	1	1	1	1	0
Sandra	1	1	0	0	0
Amber	1	1	0	0	0

where something like grey indicates the player bequeathed their fire token to someone, and light green indicates they inherited a token; green indicates gained a token via a barter / trade; and light red to indicate they used tokens to buy / barter something. Thoughts?

Tagofabic (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tagofabic: The table design is not what is in question, it is whether or not we are going to add yet another space-consuming table to an already table cluttered article. Survivor articles in general has just become a list of tables with no actual content except for the episode summaries and the occasional Production sections at the beginning. Just because a new twist is introduced doesn't mean we need to give it yet another table. If we can find a way to not have a table, then we should use that. But that is just my opinion, which is why I opened a discussion. So far, Schazjmd and VietPride10 have agreed with my opinion, and Buster7 and Tagofabic have disagreed. Jayab314 13:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the information is sufficiently covered in the episode summaries, however here's another possible option that would be somewhat of a compromise between adding a new table and only including the information in the episode summaries:

Challenge winners and eliminations by episodes

Episode			Extinction departures	Challenge winner(s)		Eliminated	Status	Fire tokens
No.	Title	Original air date		Reward	Immunity			Item(s) purchased	Seller	Buyer	Bequeathed token recepient
1	"Greatest of the Greats"	February 12, 2020		Dakal		Natalie	1st voted out Day 2	None			Jeremy
			None	None	Sele	Amber	2nd voted out Day 3	Hidden immunity idol	Natalie	Sandra	Rob
2	"It's Like a Survivor Economy"	February 19, 2020	None	Dakal		Danni	3rd voted out Day 6	Safety without power	Natalie	Jeremy	Denise
3	"Out for Blood"	February 26, 2020
4	"I Like Revenge"	March 4, 2020

Thoughts? OctoMocto (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thought #1--Here is a challenge for those that support that the episode summaries are sufficient. Have someone that is not a fan and is not watching the show...read the summaries and report back to you the current distribution of fire tokens. I'm convinced it can't be done. Thought #2-- If a graph is decided on, each change should include a note as to when and from/to who. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buster7: My problem isn't with the length of the article, it's with the excessive use of tables over the equally viable option of just writing what happened in sentence form. For now, I still support the episode summaries, and if we have to, I would not be opposed to putting it in the Season summary section like OctoMocto recommended. If a fan was so inclined to know who held the fire tokens in which episode, they should just watch the episode and keep track of it themselves. This isn't a Survivor fansite, it's an encyclopedia. Jayab314 22:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree. I'm not worried about fans. Fans know whats going on and have a general, if not specific, idea of the game. One of the purposes of this encyclopedia is to provide a history of something (in this case a popular reality TV show) by collecting knowledge about it and transmitting it to those readers who will come after us. In my estimation the added factor of fire tokens will become an important effect on the intricacies and gameplay as the season progresses. It only makes sense to delineate their transfer and distribution somewhere other the episode summaries. It needn't happen now. It's still early. But, as we can see, some minds are considering how that should look. I support their efforts. ―Buster7 ☎ 03:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#PLOT our articles on reality TV show should not be trying to document every facet of the show, but relative importance of the show overall and long-term events. At this point, we have no idea how fire tokens will impact this specific season or the show in the future, so there is no need to have detailed documentation like a table, though explaining how they are being used in episode prose is fine. --Masem (t) 04:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok why do people keep deleting the fire tokens table!? It is a great idea and it being there is not hurting anyone! This is a very important part of this season and needs to be properly included with its own separate table. This is not a discussion on whether you like it or not, this is a part of this season so whoever keeps deleting it get over yourself!! Lavachello (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fire Tokens and how they're implemented in-game are outlined in the episodes, huge amounts of boxes with 1 in them is just cluttering up the page and is more trivial. Is it justified that there's a reference for Tyson buying peanut butter? 135.196.1.74 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I continue to support some type of table to monitor the distribution of fire tokens. Early on they may have been just a frivolous "add" to the game that was of no consequence. But I think this most recent episode proved that they are and will continue to be an important tool in each contestants bag of tricks. To ask the reader to figure out who has 4 and who has none is unreasonable when we have editors that are happy to provide that information in easy to read form. In No way would a table be clutter. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So far, they have yet to make any significant type of impact on the game. The summary within the episode summaries are sufficient. This is not a fan wiki, and the table is excessive. --Masem (t) 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Apologies there for the latest attempt at a Fire Token table. Had not seen the talk page going at length about this. The most recent episode showed some impact that the tokens were causing with contestants bartering items and votes for tokens. There should be some form of documentation, whether its about the sales made, or who has what at which time or episode? I know its not a fan wiki, but clearly from the edit we are watching means that they're becoming more impactful the less people are in the active game, right? --RavenDreamer (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So far, they (fire tokens) have yet to make any significant type of impact on the game I think Sandra may have a different opinion!―Buster7 ☎ 14:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We do need a fire token table. Lincoln Mapping (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Production and Casting sections

IMO, these sections are excessively detailed and are verbatim from interviews. Can these be scaled way down to include just the relevant parts? 135.196.1.74 (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

For any entertainment work, WP wants to cover the details of production and casting of a show or season alongside reception as key factors in the notability of a show - the events of the show or the game, in this case, are the less valuable facets for WP and if anything, that's the first stuff that should go to a fandom site. As long as the information is sourced to a reliable work, then the details provided are fully appropriate and desired for inclusion. This season is more unique than several of the past Survivor ones in that we're actually getting into the process used for cast selection, game design, etc. --Masem (t) 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing Weekly Rank section from Episodes table

Since TV by the Numbers has shut down I don’t think there’s another place to receive weekly ratings ranks so I’m proposing to removing the section from this season and for future season. What does everyone think? Brianis19 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brianis19: Yeah, I agree. I noticed halfway through last season that, even though TV by the Numbers was still running, they just stopped posting weekly rankings for Survivor's timeslot. Jayab314 22:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

Sandra has removed herself from a Facebook group due to backlash over repeatedly sitting out challenges. Might wanna add this to the article. There are sources, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.42.194 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's not a controversy. Jayab314 01:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be a "wait and see" type thing. --Masem (t) 01:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nick, Parv, and Yul on New Sele?

We know from that preview that Michele and Wendell are now on Sele, but where did it show that Nick, Parvati, and Yul are also on Sele now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.42.194 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No idea. I did some searching around online especially in press photos and never saw anything of the sort. I have removed it for now. To the person who changed it to begin with: please provide evidence. NintendoGeek (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Parvati/Sandra Vote-Outs

Parvati commented on her Instagram that Sandra was voted out before she was, but the show edited it to have Parvati's vote-out happen first owing to the nature of Sandra's vote-out. I feel like we should make a note of it in the article.

Here's a Reddit link to the comic she posted, confirming it: https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/comments/fmcar8/from_parvatis_insta_account/

We base vote outs on the way they are presented through the edit. Jeff even said after Parvati and Sandra were eliminated that they were the 7th and 8th person voted out, respectively. NintendoGeek (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We can make a footnote to Parvati's claim but yes, we're not going to change the order from as-shown on the show itself. --Masem (t) 15:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

While it was presented that way, we didn't see Jeff himself when he said "7th/8th" person while holding up their vote. The shot was of the Survivors themselves, as the audio was swapped from the opposing tribal. A footnote specifying that the edit swapped their placements would work, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:56DE:BC00:1C3C:3BC7:C555:835E (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is untrue. In the show, after Parvati is voted out, she is able to bequeath her tokens to Sandra as Sandra's box is still there. However once Sandra is voted out, Parvati's box isn't there. All the proof you need. ;)

Contestant chart is inaccurate

Just because Sandra raised her flag, why would we change the vote-out order in the main game column? The fact we have a "raised flag" listed in the column should be good enough since most people want to see the voting out order. It looks unnatural with Sandra first on the chart. If you want a "leave the game" order then it should be in a column with that name. I looked at it and thought she was out of the game in the first vote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, according to Wardog, Jeff Probst has said that losing EoE challenge or quitting EoE doesn't affect your final standing, sources: [1] and [2]. This is also relevant for S38 contestants table, I guess. Miijon (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd considered the same factor from any season in the past where voted out players had some chance to return - Pearl Islands, Redemption Island, etc. The order is always how they were voted out, save for the player(s) brought back into the game. At least up to 2010, it was always by "order of elimination" [3], and I see no reason these twists would change that, nor why we'd change our tables. --Masem (t) 17:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Then the wording needs a drastic change. It should not be "1st voted out", it should be "1st voted to Edge of Extinction". It is very confusing to readers otherwise. Season 38's chart is so confusing I gave up trying to understand it, and that is bad news for readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The table header should include that footnote for this purpose to avoid being too wordy. And given that there will likely be one (or more) players that will come back and be voted back, we need to include another footnote for that purpose. But the order should still be based on the final vote out order which is the order of eliminate and thus the cash prize allocation. --Masem (t) 19:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And I compromised on that issue with the last edit, but it should be crystal clear that Sandra left the show first and that the rest are not voted off the show. The are being voted to EoE. That was reverted, so it is very unclear, and I tagged it with an inaccuracy dispute until settled here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no issue showing who's still on EoE, but that order should not be presented as the default order as, at the end of the game, that order doesn't matter, its the vote out that does. --Masem (t) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The order players leave the game does matter to readers here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is defined by the game's rules as the order they are voted out. The fact that one (or more) of them have a chance to come back is irrelevant to that order. --Masem (t) 20:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It is simply your opinion that it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to me and I think other readers will be just as confused. If we can make it less confusing by changing some wording I feel we should do it. I was hoping to find some compromising rather than going to a full rfc where we would ask for help from projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, or even Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Can't we tweak the wording as in my compromise so that readers understand the order better? Otherwise she should be after Rob on the chart in the order she was voted out. As it stands right now it is confusing as heck. And I don't even want to get into the mess that is the order between Parvati and Sandra. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, we can footnotes, that's not an issue. The table is also sortable so that if someone wants to see who is off the show first, they can see it that way. But the critical order that is based on the game's rules is the vote -out, not who quit, and that is how the table needs to be presented first and foremost. --Masem (t) 00:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Right this second, the order of the chart is who quit first, not the vote-out order. So I'm confused what you want. Are you saying you don't like the chart the way it is... quitting goes first? And as I pointed out, if that is the case, we need to tweak the wording in the boxes to something like what I did. That makes it clear to our readers and I'm not sure why you wouldn't want that. You seem to be the only one of four people in this conversation that doesn't think something is wrong with the chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on your "vote -out, not who quit" order, and your (a) footnote, I moved Sandra down to 8th on the list. We'll see if it sticks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And it was reverted by an anon ip with no edit summary. Suggestions? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Editors (particularly IP) making chances without comments or the like can be reverted and pointed to the talk page. It can be infered we've gotten consensus here on that. --Masem (t) 13:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's unaesthetic and confusing. Right now it implies that she placed 20th, but despite leaving first, her final standing is still 13th place (with possibility of falling down to 15th if both EoE returnees are contestants voted out after her elimination). As I said above, EoE does not affect your standing according to Probst himself, and it's the final standing that should take priority over time of leaving the game. Miijon (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

“Quit” vs. “Raised Mast”

This has been covered in Survivor: Edge of Extinction before, but Sandra raising the mast means she quit. In this case, there’s even a source explicitly saying she quit; check the most recent episode recap on Entertainment Weekly. I’d like to keep this consistent with the Edge of Extinction season’s article. 96.231.250.80 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to consider that raising the flag is a means for the player to leave the game on their own terms if they were voted off and feel they do not want to play any more. Compared this to Osten's "quit" from Pearl Islands, which was he wanted out, period, and while they gave him that, it by no means was a respected quit. So I would not say we should call it a quit in the table, though in discussing the rules of the season, can explain that a player can opt to quit the game from EoE by raising the flag. --Masem (t) 21:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

All raising the flag does is give a player a more formalized way to quit. Sandra quit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

She was already voted out, with a 1 in X shot to get back in depending on the challenge to bring a player back into the game. She realized that her chances were extremely slim and opted not to compete anymore and used a method all other players had been also provided to leave the game early. In contrast to previous use of EoE where they could have "quit" right after being voted off but before being shipping to the island, this is just delaying that step. --Masem (t) 23:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't understand her reasons. She had no chance at winning a challenge so she would just be wasting her time. But she could have been part of the jury and therefore part of the game. She quit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Other quits, like Bi from David vs. Goliath or Dana from Philippines, were due to medical issues, and instead of "quit due to injury or illness", the table simply lists them as "quit." If those are to be classified the same way as, say, Osten or NaOnka or Purple Kelly, Sandra should be classified as a quit on this season. Raising the mast literally means quitting the game on an Edge of Extinction season. 96.231.250.80 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a good article that explains where I'm trying to come from (though Reality Blurred is not an RS that we can really use [4] ITs point is - as soon as you are voted out, you are out of the game. EoE provide a possible chance to get back in, but even when it was first introduced you weren't required to take the EoE and could leave; your game was over at that point regardless. I do point out that this is not necessary an issue in terms of BLP and "shaming" Sandra, as she's fine with being called a quitter [5], it's just accuracy of the terms -when is a survivor's "game" over with? Given how prize money is awarded and all that, it all is based on the vote, nothing else, so anything post-vote is outside the game. --Masem (t) 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, for two reasons: first, I'm not trying to "shame" Sandra; I'm trying to do my part to keep Wikipedia as factual as I can given the circumstances of the season. Here's an article saying the opposite [6]...heck, Sandra even said it herself that she "quit". Second, this is literally the premise of the Edge; going there means you still have a chance to get back in the game, so while your time at the tribe's camp may be over (until you do win that challenge), your "game" isn't technically over. Edge of Extinction is a crazy variant to an already complicated game; a variant I personally despise, but that's outside the point. I will say, if Reality Blurred isn't a good RS to use, I don't see why EW would be any better. Just trying to give my two cents on this matter. 96.231.250.80 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a consensus could be made. With reference to the EoE page talk, I prefer "Quit" over an open-ended, vague "Raised mast" in a wikipedia article. However, I also agree that quitting EoE is not the same as leaving for medical reasons or outright quitting. Maybe a solution is a third option? To clarify that Sandra "Quit from the Edge of Extinction", if that's not too wordy. Miijon (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Or simply "Quit by raising mast." Or perhaps "Raised mast (quit)". Quit, people understand but it doesn't really give the context. Raised mast, gives the context but many won't know what the heck that means. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the most recent addition before this one (mine here) is descriptive enough and unbiased enough. 96.231.250.80 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this here... https://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/2020/03/sandra-did-not-quit-survivor/?fbclid=IwAR34YsKQWHB9KowUI06JTlYdYReDwLJ27WZjxlAq9EXZxvzf97G3psWMaaI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelldavis1998 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

That's just one source. Sandra herself said she quit right here. Lot's of sources say she flat out quit. She'd at least have been part of the jury if they did it like last time, and that's an important part of the game too. We aren't saying she simply "quit." There's quitting for no reason, there's quitting by raising the flag, there could be quitting because you hate a player, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not to bring it up again, but we have this issue that when we have it at "Quit by raising flag" IP editors have come by to just change it to "Quit" (There's a very vocal group of fans that do not like Sandra). It is necessary to say something that she quit or left by "raising the mast" to indicate she took the out the show provided for all players that ended up at EoE (as was the case at the original season). I know everyone tied to show is saying "quit" but I don't think they are aware of how fans are taking that or affecting it on WP and our BLP policy here as this is tied loosely to it. I'd rather prefer we say "Left game by raising flag", which maintains the same facts, she forfeiting any further involvement in the game, like jury, but otherwise kept her voted-out position. --Masem (t) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am actually one who never liked Sandra and her attitude. But that should have no bearing on writing a good article. I can certainly leave "game" attitude behind. I do see it as she quit the game... no one forced her out and she didn't get injured or anything. The difference here is 1) she did it after the vote-off and 2) the producers actually gave the players a procedure to "raise a sail/flag" to leave the game if they were voted out. The reason they quit/left shouldn't make any difference. If Tyson said he was po'd that he was voted off and ran over to the sail to raise it in his fury or Sandra decided she had zero chance of winning any challenge... no difference in our chart. I had originally thought it a good idea to say "quit by raising mast" or better "quit by raising sail." It gives more information than just "quit" or "raised mast." But we have editor Masem's suggestion of "left game by raising sail" (or flag) and I think that is a reasonable compromise that conveys what we want to our many readers. Our readers and their comprehension is our priority. In prose we can be more specific about the nature of her raising the sail, but for the chart I can get behind his compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Okay I’m just now seeing this. I personally don’t love or hate Sandra, and I don’t care who would raise the sail, but by definition that is quitting. Not bias or anything, just calling a spade a spade here. One suggestion doesn’t exactly qualify as consensus, just throwing that out there. I still think it should say “quit”; adding “by raising sail” was a compromise I was willing to agree to if registered users thought it best to include in the chart. 96.231.250.80 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, when I first noticed this it was going back and forth between "Quit" and "Raised mast." Over and over and over. There is no question that Sandra's quitting is different than Colton Cumbie's or someone like NaOnka Mixon. Sandra was already voted off. The producers even built in a method to leave the island. However, like Mixen, Sandra was simply done with competing. Whether we use "Quit by raising sail" or "Left by raising sail" at least they both convey the situation better than either alone. While I also prefer "Quit by raising sail", the alternative "Left" seems a little more palatable to some in gaining consensus we all can live with. We can always do a RfC to see where editors stand but it will include many wikipedians who don't regularly watch the show. Maybe a straw poll for the wording to see if we need to go the RfC route? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

May 6 2020

Yesterday's episode was two separate episodes and should be reflected like that in this article. Even the ratings article [7] says two episodes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

May 13 2020 episode

The episode title for next week is "It All Boils Down to This", confirmed by CBS. Source: per CBS website. Unlike previous Survivor season finales, the reunion won't take place as it will be a single episode three hours long. ApprenticeFan work 03:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We know there will be some "post-game" event with Jeff and all the contestants chatting via Zoom or the same instead of the live event. --Masem (t) 04:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect names

There are incorrect names of people throughout this page. Who are Audrey, Sanches, etc.? Arsvita734 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized throughout & needs more edits/corrections than I have time to make. Very disappointing. Arsvita734 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Active Vandalism on this page!

They are changing my corrections, so this page probably needs to be locked. Here's what I discovered, where correct name=incorrect name: Ethan=Evan Parvati=Noah Yul=Cole Tyson=Trey Kim=Beth Jeremy=Zack Tony=Sanchas Denise=Audrey The vandal/s may be using different incorrect names, and it's likely I didn't catch all the name exchanges. Arsvita734 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, Ben=Sanchas Arsvita734 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The vandalism seems limited to Voting History & explanatory notes. The person changing the names to incorrect ones has repeatedly reverted my corrections to the incorrect ones they put in. This doesn't seem to be a good faith error, but rather a series of malicious acts. Arsvita734 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony=James, I think. Arsvita734 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect voting

In episode 11, Ben voted for Jeremy, not Sophie. I can't fix that. Thanks, vandalizer.

Incorrectly sorted names

The jury voting chart is in this order:

Natalie, Tony, Michele

It should be:

Michele, Natalie, Tony

I can't change it, no thanks to whoever decided it would be okay to change names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.136.143 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Finale summary and reception

So, I got blocked for no reason. Now that I'm back, I want to let you know that you should add the finale summary and add the reception of this season.

Oh, and I think I might change the summary when it is unprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.136.143 (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to sign. And my changed summary is:

Twenty former winners were divided into two tribes: Sele and Dakal. On both tribes, the players voted out Rob's allies and close connections until the tribe swap where they voted out Rob himself. Ultimately, every winner from the first half of Survivor's run was voted out before the merge.

At the merge, Tyson returned but was sent back to the Edge not long after. Tony, who had been aligning with threats (which he called "lions") to eliminate under-the-radar players (which he called "hyenas"), formed a final four alliance with Sarah, Ben, and Denise and they worked to eliminate everyone else except for Michele.

When there were five castaways remaining, Natalie, who was the first to be sent to the Edge, returned to the game and exposed Tony's threat status. She aligned with Michele and successfully voted out Denise and Ben, and Natalie won the final four challenge, bringing Michele to the end in hopes to eliminate Tony, but he defeated Sarah in the ensuing fire-making challenge. At the Final Tribal Council, Tony was lauded for his gameplay as opposed to Natalie's long run on the Edge and Michele being on the wrong side of several votes, and the jury awarded him his second victory in a 12-4-0 vote.

I may change that because Sandra was responsible for Amber's vote out.

Thanks for adding the reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.136.143 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem in the sorting of "Main Game" and "EOE" on table

In the table of "List of Survivor WAW contestant" with the final results, when one clicks on the "Main game" arrows to shift the order, it for some reason goes out of order and brings "2nd runner up" between "1st voted out" and "2nd voted out", which is NOT CORRECT. Also when clicking on the arrows to shift the order of "EOE status", it should be SANDRA (who left first) on top, but it instead puts the final 6 on top thus effectively presenting the entire order of exit INCORRECTLY. If you look at the season 38 page, this problem does not occur and the exit status of all the players are ordered in the correct day of departure. THE SAME SHOULD APPLY HERE. I do not know how to fix it but hopefully I have described the problem well enough that someone could. 98.113.156.38 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection Expire

The protection of this article has gone past its expiration date. What happened? Was there another act of vandalism? (I don't know how to sign my comments) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:8400:1D57:84A8:3DE3:1693:E60F (talk) 12:09, 10 June 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) 16:51, 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)