Talk:Survivor (American TV series)

Cleaning up Survivor seasons articles

I've been thinking lately about ways to clean up the Survivor seasons articles. They've always seemed a bit messy and excessive in length to me. I'm interested in cleaning these 27 articles up, and if anyone is interested in helping, it would be much appreciated!

So to start, I worked out a bit of a draft in a sandbox of mine with some (not to sound too dramatic) big changes. I'll get right into it. The example I used is Survivor: Borneo -- my sandbox with the draft is located here: User:Gloss/Survivor

The changes are as follows:

• The biggest and most obvious, I've combined all of the "episodes" sections into an episode table, similar to any other regular TV show. Granted this show is much different, so the table incorporates a lot of different things. For example, the episode description is of course in there (for the record, they still need to be cleaned up.. I mostly copy and pasted the pre-existing episode descriptions).

But, in this table I've removed the reward/immunity challenge descriptions. Personally I feel like the challenge descriptions aren't too important to the episode's summary. It's like if we were summarizing an episode of a regular 30-minute sitcom and made a list of every scene in the show. Just my opinion though, and the challenges can be added into the episode summaries if it's felt that the information is important enough.

• Table includes the winner(s) for the reward and immunity challenge, as well as the castaway eliminated. Also includes the episode's ratings (both U.S. viewers and Ratings/Share columns are there.) And it includes the episode's air date and episode's title.

• By including this information in the episode tables, it eliminates the need for this table - it includes everything in that table except for the "Vote" column... information that you can find in the "voting history" section.
• It also eliminated the need for the "ratings" section - as all four columns (title/date/u.s. viewers/ratings) are incorporated into the episodes table.

• In case you're wondering where the color came from (green) - I used the same color as the merged tribe's buff. I feel like thats a simple way to choose the color for each season's table.

My goal is to clean these articles up format-wise, before getting into the details (sourcing, copyediting, etc.) So if you followed all of that, or you simply want to take a look for yourself and see what you think, please reply and help me get this discussion going. I'm just looking for any feedback. Do you like it? Hate it? Have suggestions to improve it? Or do you think the articles work the way they currently are? Either way, any comments would be helpful, thank you! Gloss • talk 22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I like it. The only major issue I can see is in regards to episodes with more than one reward/immunity challenge and/or elimination. For instance, in the box for the last episode, I'm not sure "Kelly, Kelly" to signify her two immunity wins in the episode is clear enough, especially in contrast to times where multiple people or tribes win. Also, I think it's still useful to have the tribe colors in the boxes for challenge wins and eliminations. Finally, how will the rows be accommodated for Exile and Redemption Islands seasons? Jedzz (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

All good points. Perhaps for situations like "Kelly, Kelly," we'd have to put a footnote in there for an explanation of what happened on the show. I completely agree about having the tribe colors in the boxes but unfortunately every time I went to include the template into those spots (Template:Stribe) it didn't work. I have no idea why, though I've been working on figuring that out. As for exile/redemption island, I hadn't thought that far ahead so thank you for bringing it up! I'll have to draft up a table for a season like that to see how it would look. Although I'm sure we could create another spot (likely between Immunity and Eliminated) for the contestants who were exiled. Gloss • talk 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that the articles are fine the way they currently are. I've never really had an issue with the lengthy descriptions of the episodes and I think that they probably should remain. After all, some other popular TV shows, like The Simpsons have an individual article for each and every one of their episodes and nothing is said about that. Many of the articles on The Simpsons episodes are good articles and a few are even featured articles, so evidently readers are interested in more than just short season summaries. Considering that Survivor is even more popular than The Simpsons, I really see no reason why anyone would say the Survivor episode descriptions are too long. As for the descriptions of the challenges, I don't really see a problem with them either. Articles related to The Amazing Race seasons are the same way: they have descriptions of every challenge in which the teams participate. This could be especially helpful for someone looking for an individual episode. With that being said, however, there is one significant thing that could be done to improve the season articles. The other day, my friend User:Musdan77 and I had a conversation regarding whether or not the episode summaries should be cited and I think it would be worth considering (see User talk:Musdan77#Survivor). Based on what he said, if anything should be done to these articles, it could be making sure they are verifiable in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. After all, the articles about the contestants and the summaries of their gameplay must be sourced for verification, so why shouldn't the season articles be too? This in itself would be a significant help to advancing these articles. But of course, all of this is just my opinion and I'm open to any other suggestions. Please comment! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the lengthy descriptions for any other reason besides the fact that they currently all look very messy. But even if we want to keep the descriptions as long as they currently are (perhaps longer, if we wanted to really dive into each episode) - we can put these descriptions in the episodes table. As for sourcing the articles, I believe each description can use the episode as it's source. No other sources should be needed. If it's written from a neutral POV and contains only things that happened in that episode or that were talked about in that episode, sourcing the actual episode should provide enough of a reliable source. Overall though, my reasoning for this proposal is basically that with the articles we currently have, we repeat a lot of the same information 2 or 3 times in the same article. You can find out that a castaway was voted out in the "Contestants" section, in the "The game" section, in the description of the episode where they were voted out, and again in the "voting history" section. So the purpose of the episodes table is to combine all of the necessary information into one key spot on the page. Gloss • talk 06:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else out there have any input? Gloss • talk 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a good first draft, but I think the simplification went a little too far with integrating The Game table into the episode template. While integration is fairly simple in the early seasons of effectively one episode/one vote/one elimination, it gets messy as Redemption Island, Outcasts, or double eliminations come into play during later seasons. While The Game table is ridiculously complex at times, the season forces that complexity and I think trying to compact it down into a few cells per episode is going to be messy even if you try to footnote things. For example, if you were to put Blood vs. Water into the episode template, you could run into trouble explaining R.I. or episode 9's double elimination. I suggest leaving The Game table in the article and integrating just the obviously static items like the air date and the ratings into the episode template. That eliminates one column from The Game table and the whole ratings section.

I don't have much of an opinion on the removal of the challenge/reward descriptions. I can see the point of leaving them in or taking them out. However, as the person who has written most of the descriptions for the past years, you would need to be careful as sometimes I wrote in references to particular points of the challenge or reward in the descriptions. Just removing them might leave a part of the description without sufficient context.

You might also see my proposal to remove Total Votes. Removing that single column removes a lot of complexity, footnotes, and arguments over how to count votes. While I did get some consensus for the removal of the column, I was hoping for a more solid consensus, though I might be bold on just do it anyways. I'd rather get a good solid consensus for the removal so that when the inevitable IP user changes it back, I can point to a solid consensus.

I'm going to put my "been here for ages, seen it happen before" hat on and make a suggestion on any large changes: get a solid consensus to point to when the IP users revert your changes. Over the years, I've seen too many IP users ignore consensus and drag back things that have been agreed upon a long time ago (like Elimination Notes or porting over TAR's episode title quotes trivia). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to leaving the The Game table there. Your argument has extremely valid points, which I can't come up with simple obvious answers to, leading to the conclusion we probably need to leave that table there. The footnotes would get rather messy and I still can't figure out how to get the color of the tribe into the table. I'm convinced it's impossible.

I also see both sides of the coin with challenges. As Masem says below, the challenges are the most factual description we can offer in these summaries. However the show has clearly taken a turn from the challenges being a major focus point... to the drama and conflict being the editing team's top priority. Perhaps we can figure out a way to incorporate the challenge descriptions into the episode summaries rather than having the descriptions sit above and separated from the rest of the episode's information.

I'd have to fully agree with your proposal to remove Total Votes. For Blood vs. Water, 10 footnotes exist to explain why certain votes didn't count or why they did.. it all seems a bit trivial. It's unfortunate that the conversation you began didn't receive much attention but your idea of boldly doing it sounds like a good one to me. There doesn't appear to be an overload of editors on the Survivor seasons articles; so suppose we get a firm consensus here on some topics such as that, we can get the ball rolling and make some bold moves (maybe a bit of a !vote eventually to show those IP's exactly where the consensus is laid out... even if there are only 5-10 people answering in said polls). Gloss • talk 07:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I had another thought though, about "the game" table - suppose we combine the two problems here into one easy fix. Right now, "the game" table is about who wins the challenges AND who is voted out. There are two other tables that cover who was voted out. So if we remove that from "the game" table - it's only about the challenges. And instead of cluttering up the episode summaries with the challenges, why not make "the game" section into a "challenges" section. I'll provide an example in my sandbox's table. Gloss • talk 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Gloss/Survivor - updated, includes what I just rambled on about in the past few comments. Gloss • talk 19:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've personally feel that the episode descriptions should be less about the interplayer goings-on - which are always going to be subject to opinion - and more of anything factual (specifically the challenges and the like). I'm not saying about removing the player positioning and the like, but to cover it broadly as more likely than not, this all play into the overall "story" for the season. I realize the show in more recent seasons have definitely put the challenges in the back seat in favor of conflict but this still remains sections that are difficult to write without introducing bias. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's hard to describe their actions from a completely neutral standpoint. For example, the edit on the last three episodes made it seem like Monica was willing to flip on her alliance, so according to those episodes, that's what our summaries would cover. But listening to her exit interviews on various sites, she claims she was never actually considering flipping, but gave some hope for the sake of television entertainment (and to give attention to her soon-to-be-jury-member cast mates). So if we want to look these summaries over, we'll have to definitely find a way to describe the situations without saying things like "Monica considered flipping on her alliance." Gloss • talk 07:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And I should say, these still can be written fine, but for anything not "obvious" to a random viewer (eg the mechanics of the game challenge, who was voted off, etc.) there should be sources including CBS's own recaps that can help (if places like EW or the like don't help). But the thing that I've seen more recent seasons is how big some of these episode summaries are, trying to document every covert maneuver that someone is doing in playing the game. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to move forward

As there aren't many users participating in this discussion, I'm considering being very bold and slowly implementing some of these changes (starting with the episode table conversions, removal of the "total votes" column, etc). If anybody has an opposition to this please feel free to note your concerns and discuss this with me before I go into action. We all (hopefully) have the same goal here, in improving these articles. So to say the least, implementing some of these changes should improve the articles and eliminate some of the repetition throughout the many tables the articles offer. I know many of you are busy in real life and haven't had the time to give this discussion more than 10 minutes of focused thought, so if you have an opinion but haven't found the time to share or discuss it, leave a comment here and let me know I'm not talking to an empty room. Regards, Gloss • talk 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not talking to an empty room. I've been busy as you guessed and I haven't had time to review the draft again. Though one quick note is that I would not remove the total votes for seasons where the total vote actually mattered (see the comments on my proposal on the removal of the Total Votes). I take it that you were going to convert the first season first? You might do one season, pause for a bit to see how people like it once it is really out there, and then move on to the following seasons. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: I'm not too familiar on which seasons the total vote actually mattered, so it would probably be best I don't touch those until I gain some more information. I do know you've been busy but I appreciate the response, again.

You'd be correct, my plan is to start with Borneo and implement those changes. We'll see how it goes. Give some time for it to settle in, let some learn to love it or grow to hate it... but without much discussion here I'd have to think the best way to test the changes are to implement them and await the response (if any). Perhaps it will also open more eyes, and lead to more collaboration on getting some clean up going. Gloss • talk 05:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Total Votes tiebreaker was in effect during the first three seasons as noted in the article here and the three season's articles. The Total Votes went away with Marquesas' purple rock, which changed into a white rock in Blood vs. Water. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Gloss • talk 08:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Episode count (again)

Tallying the amount of Survivor episodes seems to be quite the challenge, and I thought we had it correct, but the press release for the latest renewal, it states, "After 27 seasons, 413 episodes and 406 castaways..." Also, the premiere episode of Blood vs. Water was supposedly the 400th episode. Should we simply update the episode count to reflect this? Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Rearranging contestant photos on Cook Islands and South Pacific

Normally the images of contestants would be placed in a vertical stack to the right of the contestants chart, as they are on this article. However, they won't fit that way on these two articles due to the width of the charts, so I wanted to reposition them horizontally like this. However, I've encountered some opposition about it, so I wanted to see if anybody else had an opinion. What do you think of my idea? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Survivorfan1995: If there is no way to fix the problem on your screen then I suppose horizontally should be okay. I'm sure you're not the only one with this problem, although I do not see the same issues on my screen. Nobody has commented here, but if anyone has any opinions on the matter please feel free to offer suggestions. Gloss • talk 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Survivor contestants and "Political movements" in their infoboxes

Is there a reason we put the contestants' tribe names in their infoboxes? It seems very trivial and irrelevant to their biography as a whole. I agree with putting their season(s) names in the infobox because it's usually what they are known for, but listing all of their tribes seems like something that should be left to the Survivor wikia... especially when the tribes are listed as "political movements." Gloss • talk 18:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded on bio infoboxes, as the average reader is going to have no idea what the tribe alliance means. Which versions of Survivor they appeared on, that's fine (and if they won), but that's about it to pull into the infobox. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Take them all out per WP:NOR. It's confusing for readers new to the topic. More importantly, it is a misuse of the political party parameter. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not alone on this. I'll go ahead and remove them all - thanks for the input! Gloss • talk 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help out. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Season infoboxes

While examining our seasons' infoboxes, (they're just a little too long) I started questioning if some information we have in those things are a bit too WP:FANCRUFT. For example, the tribes and future seasons that contestants have appeared on.. are those really needed? If you look at something like Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 17), they only list the essentials to the television show. They don't list the scores, dances, and seasons 1-14 don't list every celebrity who was featured on their all star season (season 15).

There is a paragraph in the lead of every season's article that tells us when contestants have returned for future seasons, it isn't needed in the infobox too. Rob Mariano being on All Stars, HvW, and Redemption Island has absolutely no meaning to the Marquesas season, and the infobox for the Marquesas season should only feature essential information to that season.

The tribe names and colors are fully a FANCRUFT violation. The tribe names and colors and listed in the contestants table and usually (or should be) written in prose form at least once in each article.

One thing we should add to the infoboxes that has somehow been left out, however, is a "host" row. Of course, it's been Jeff Probst every season, but an essential part of a reality TV show and it seems silly to not list his name in a host "row" for each season.

Opinions? Thoughts? Gloss • talk 03:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Going to ping the two of you who were involved in the previous infobox discussion. @Binksternet: @Masem:. Gloss • talk 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Host line is appropriate even if it is constant. I do agree the contents going forward to all-star/eq. seasons is unnecessary. I would argue in favor of keeping at least the tribes, as at least when I watched the show more regularly in the earlier seasons, tribe names would often stick better than contestants names, so I would at least keep those. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at Survivor: Vanuatu as an example. I would remove the tribes from the infobox, for certain. I would also remove the bit about two contestants returning to the Micronesia show, because the infobox does not explain to the reader what this entry means. The only people who understand this entry are Survivor editors on Wikipedia. At any rate, the information is found in the article text, so removing it from the infobox does not take anything away from the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, both of you. @Masem: Do you feel strongly about the tribe names being kept? As I was saying before, it seems like it's too fan-cruft, as only fans of the show would really understand what the tribes mean. But in comparison with what an infobox is supposed to tell you about the show's production and technical aspects, it just seems like fan-site information.

Also, do we think the vote tally next to the winner's name is necessary? I find it awkward how it'll say "Amber Brkich (4-3)" when, again, a non-fan likely has no idea what that (4-3) means. And overall, the final vote tally isn't as important as the straight fact of who won the show. @Binksternet: Gloss • talk 16:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Genre as well! I haven't seen any other reality TV shows that list the genre in the infobox. It's in the opening line of the lead on every page, so does it need to be repeated as the first line in the infobox too? Gloss • talk 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see the tribes kept, but it's not a tragic loss if they aren't included at end of day. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with including the tribes. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Totaldramaman. I think the tribes should be in the seasons' infoboxes because that's a major aspect of every season. I'd put them back. Other than that, I think the new changes are good. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The "this page in a nutshell" line from WP:FANCRUFT states: "Avoid subjects that are trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans." - that is my and (I'm assuming from what I've read) User:Binksternet's concern with including the tribes. It's a big deal perhaps to a fan of the show what the tribe names or colors were, but in the overall scheme of things, it's a very minor aspect of the season.

The example I used for "Dancing with the Stars" is that they don't include a list of every dance they performed on the show. It's very important to the show because it's the premise of their week-by-week episodes, but in the end, it doesn't matter what dance was done on the second episode... only the winner really matters in the end.

So back to Survivor, I feel like it doesn't matter what the tribe names were in the beginning of the game, or the middle, or the end.. when I look at the infobox I usually expect to see KEY points. Winner, host, dates, chronology, etc. Tribes information just seems trivial. Gloss • talk 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Gloss: U do have a pretty good point. But what about all the articles on The Simpsons episodes where the infobox lists the weekly chalkboard gag and couch gag? I'm not sure that'd be too important to somebody other than hardcore fans either. Are the survivor articles any different? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Simpsons at all, so I'm not sure how that works unfortunately. I was making my comparison to Dancing with the Stars as that is another reality TV competition. The Simpsons isn't one, and I'm not sure how that would work. Gloss • talk 01:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it Hidden Immunity Idol or hidden immunity idol? Tribal Council or tribal council? And finally, Immunity/Reward Challenge or immunity/reward challenge? And why? Gloss • talk 19:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinging some regulars.. @Masem: @Survivorfan1995: @Gogo Dodo: @Binksternet: Gloss • talk 20:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally feel they should be lower case. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, but I lean towards that opinion as well. Gloss • talk 22:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that all these terms should be written in lower case, as within the context of the show, they are common — not proper — nouns.Jedzz (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think they should all be written in lowercase except for Tribal Council. Tribal Council is a proper noun because it names a specific place. The others r fine in lowercase because "hidden immunity idol" and "immunity challenge" aren't proper names. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A place is a state or a country, things like that. Tribal council is as much of a place as house, building, food court... and we don't capitalize those as House, Building, and Food Court. Gloss • talk 20:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's a specific house (i.e. Hearst Castle, Buckingham Palace) or building (i.e. Space Needle, MGM Grand Las Vegas, Moscow Kremlin), then it would be capitalized. Tribal Council is the name of a specific structure, so it seems like a proper noun to me. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. And after seeing how CBS uses the capitalization you're suggesting ([1]) I'll have to agree with you. Gloss • talk 12:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Voted out" decapitalization? Day numbers on tables?

I've noticed that there have been some drastic changes made by @Gloss: on several pages, most notably the inclusion of the days on the Voting History tables and the decapitalization of "Voted out" in the Contestants and Season summary tables. I oppose both those changes; the day of elimination is already revealed on previous tables and is a confusing-looking addition. This choice is trivial and I'm not sure how that inclusion will make the table more complete or understandable. Regarding the decapitalization of "voted out," I see it as a title in that specific context and therefore it should be capitalized. If there are any major reasons for these changes to remain, I'm all eyes, but I believe they should be reverted. Apologies for the pings but I figure that since you three are quite prevalent on these pages, you should at least be alerted to this discussion: @Masem: @Survivorfan1995: @Gogo Dodo: - Katanin (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There's really no reason to capitalize "voted out" in my opinion. If I wrote the sentence, "Barack Obama was voted into office in 2008", I wouldn't capitalize the word "voted" because there's nothing about it that constitutes capitalization. I don't even know why this should be an issue. It's first grade English, guys! :) Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, I wouldn't say drastic. Let's not be too overdramatic please :) Thank you Survivorfan, that's a very good way to put it! The capitalization errors I've been fixing are all errors that comply with common English capitalization rules. In regards to the days I added to the voting history table... this game is measured in days. In the game of Survivor, you're "voted out 1st on day 3." They don't go by episodes and say "I was voted out 1st on episode 1." I'd argue that the episode number isn't even important for the voting history table, that only the day # is, but I can see reasons for including both. But in the "finish" column of the contestants table and season summary table, we list their finishes as "1st voted out.. Day 3" so it's only keeping things more consistent by adding the day's into the voting table as well. Gloss • talk 12:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand the capitalization thing, but I still attest that it looks sloppy and the grammatical rules of capitalization do not adhere to titles. With the days on the voting table, I still don't understand why that information is relevant to the voting table. The game may be measured in days, but this is for the TV series based on the game and comes off as trivial in that area, not to mention visually confusing right below the number of the episode. These pages are supposed to be for easy information access for the barest essential whatever the needs of the viewers may be, and these additions have only made things more confusing and came out of the blue. - Katanin (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, can we please not be dramatic and claim that adding in the days has in any way made it "confusing"... come on. If the article is about the TV show and not the game.. then why don't we list "1st voted out Episode 1" in the contestants and season summary table? It should be consistent throughout the article. The articles are about the game and the season and everything that is involved with each individual season. And each season is measured by days, not episodes. I'm sorry everything confuses you so much, but the rows are clearly labeled with a header saying "Day #" and "Episode #" so there is no reason you should be so confused. Gloss • talk 17:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A solution to make this any "less confusing" would be to remove the episode number from the table... because I'm not particularly convinced that's too important. But the episode number when the contestant goes out seems to me very irrelevant to the voting history in a game with a slogan "39 days, 18 people, 1 survivor". Gloss • talk 17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The players that returned to the game

I've noticed that in the "Contestants" charts of Pearl Islands, Redemption Island, South Pacific, and Blood vs. Water , the contestants that were voted out and returned are listed more than once. Seems to me that everybody should only be listed once in this chart because it's supposed to be a list of contestants, not a voting history chart. @Gloss: @Katanin: @ApprenticeFan: @Gogo Dodo: @Totaldramaman: @Kiwi Jaden: @Masem: @Thegreyanomaly: u guys got any thoughts? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a voting history chart, that is what the Voting History chart is. It is, in addition to a list of contestants, a table that shows tribal affiliations and their standings in the game. I oppose any removal of the subsequent listing of returning players as it will make tracking their movements throughout the game more difficult. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a necessary evil of having those tables be also sortable. Without duplicating returning-to-game players, the sort would leave obvious problems (eg Lil in PI, removing her first voting-out would leave her "2nd player voted out" empty.) --MASEM (t) 05:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. If we remove the extra boxes then it'd be a little confusing with most of the placings not being included. My opinion doesn't matter but I say keep it. ~ Totaldramaman ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Seasons

Just a suggestion, I understand from reading the article that Survivor calls each of its competitions a "season", however this isn't in accordance with general industry practice in US Television, where a "season" refers to a series of episodes during a yearly period (the start and end dates of that period may differ). Therefore, someone who simply looks at the infobox and sees Survivor has been on for 28 seasons, might get the wrong impression and think the show began in the 1980s. I would suggest that you list the seasons as 15, with a second entry showing their have been 28 competitions.Onel5969 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is misguided, 28 seasons is correct as they're individual from each other. You can just look at the article itself or anything online about Survivor that the season count is correct. Here's an article with CBS stating it renewed for seasons 29 and 30. Side note, someone wouldn't get confused, because the premiere date is right in the infobox anyway. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DVD information

It recently became a topic of discussion on whether or not DVD information should be allowed on TV show articles. It seems like the end result of that discussion was that it's up to preference and relevancy. What does everyone think of our inclusion of DVD info on Survivor pages? On one hand, it is information about the season. But on another hand, Wikipedia isn't for promotion of DVD sales and information. See [2] for more information. Gloss 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Giving this a little bump. Any opinions? Seems like this information is more on the unnecessary side of things. Gloss 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Home media information is acceptable (and encouraged) per MOS:TV (here). The link you're using is for List of episodes articles and that discussion referring to DVD info is regarding the inclusion of such information in series overview tables, not articles themselves. Regardless, neither discourages that DVD information isn't acceptable within the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that might make a little more sense. Gloss 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Survivor seasons currently available on iTunes.

I just wanted to note to someone who knows how to edit Wikipedia pages (I would do it myself but I don't know how to code) that 3 seasons of Survivor have been dropped from iTunes. They are Season 9: Vanuatu - Islands of Fire, Season 10: Palau, and Season 11: Guatemala - The Maya Empire. I figured I'd let someone know and this seemed like the best place to do so. I don't know why they were removed from iTunes, however, my guess is probably because of licensing agreements. I'm glad I own these seasons and that they are in my iTunes cloud permanently. -yanks2k Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 @ 1:15 am ET.

CBS polls

Masem Katanin Are we in agreement that the CBS polls don't belong in these articles? They've been added to about every contestant's article and every season's. Gloss 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should not be included as they are simply user-generated polls, and unlike the Fan Favorite (which both has a prize associated with it and is usually part of the recap of the season by third party sources) is simply trivia. Huffington Post is not the most reliable of cites to use for saying that it is significant, as HuffPo will publish "anything". --MASEM (t) 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'm about to step out and I'm not sure when I'll have the time so if either of you would like to remove the information from the seasons and contestants articles please do. Otherwise I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually. Gloss 21:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. - Katanin (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If it doesn't belong on this page, I think it should at least stay on the contestants' and seasons' pages. It's just as noteworthy as other forms of reception, like the Hall of Fame. 169.231.57.80 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And these aren't just any "user-generated" polls - these are THE OFFICIAL polls held on CBS's website. These are the polls to end all polls as far as Survivor goes. If these aren't noteworthy, then NO reception outlet is noteworthy. 169.231.57.80 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the Xfinity Hall of Fame is considered official (and it's listed on some contestants' pages as well), then these have to be considered official as well. At least these were sanctioned by CBS, whereas the Hall of Fame isn't. 169.231.57.80 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The only parts that I would consider keeping would be information such as "In the official CBS Watch issue commemorating the 15th anniversary of Survivor, Heroes vs. Villains was voted by viewers as the #1 greatest season of the series," or the top ten players of all time on the players' Wikipedia pages provided they already have them. Stuff like which contestants were the hottest, which contestants from the season made it in the top ten, or memorable moments are pure trivia. While HuffPo may not be the most reputable, it does have images from the actual magazine itself. But none of it is relevant on this article, so that should all be removed. And IP brings up a good point: if a CBS-sanctioned poll lists season or player x as the best of all time, why not include that over Dalton Ross' rankings, or the xfinity Hall of Fame? Based on present standards, I understand the reasons why some of the material should stay. - Katanin (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Katanin. So are we in a general agreement here over a compromise? Remove the lists from the "Survivor" page, and remove all mentions of "Hottest Man/Woman," but leave "Greatest Season" and "Greatest Castaway" results on the respective pages of the seasons and contestants? Because I'm fine with that being the outcome. 169.231.57.80 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree to those terms. What do you say, Gloss and Masem? - Katanin (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversy?

"In an attempt to win a reward challenge on Survivor: Pearl Islands, contestant Jon Dalton conspired with his friend, Dan Fields, before the show even started, in what Probst has described as the greatest lie on Survivor to date. Fields told Dalton that his grandmother, Jean Cooke, had died, in order to win sympathy from his tribemates and subsequently win the reward. In reality, Cooke had not died, a fact that only emerged to his tribemates once the episode had aired. After the challenge, Dalton admitted in a confessional that his grandmother was alive and "probably watching Jerry Springer right now". When the show's producers learned of Cooke's alleged death, they called Dalton's family to offer their condolences, only to have Cooke herself answer the phone. On the "Pearl Islands" reunion show, Probst had a short interview with Cooke, who was indeed alive and well."

This isn't a controversy, it's game play. Lying is a reality television staple. It's common practice and expected.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't controversy. I'm not quite sure why it was put there in the first place. Feel Free to get rid it; if not myself or someone else will. (74thClarkBarHG (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)).

Numbers of episodes

Figuring out the exact number of episodes for the show is pretty tricky. However, after finding out that the season 27 premiere was the 400th episode ([3][4]), I went ahead and counted all the episodes from there up the last aired episode and got 462. I went by this for counting the episodes. And clearly the reunion parts of the finale are counted as separate episodes as if they weren't, it would be much less than 400. If anyone has any problems with the change, please say it here. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Survivor (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623063544/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vTbSB5Am?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/02/12/thursday-broadcast-finals-greys-anatomy-the-mentalist-tick-up-private-practice-30-rock-tick-down/41890 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/02/12/thursday-broadcast-finals-greys-anatomy-the-mentalist-tick-up-private-practice-30-rock-tick-down/41890
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515125648/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com:80/2012/02/16/wednesday-final-ratings-american-idol-whitney-adjust-up-the-middle-is-down/120174/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/16/wednesday-final-ratings-american-idol-whitney-adjust-up-the-middle-is-down/120174/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150522054915/http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/ to http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Survivor (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019182333/http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/survivor_27/2013_May_08_cagayan-seasons-27-28 to http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/survivor_27/2013_May_08_cagayan-seasons-27-28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514150640/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jan02/jan14/3_wed/news1wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jan02/jan14/3_wed/news1wednesday.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514151227/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/may02/may20/3_wed/news4wednesday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/may02/may20/3_wed/news4wednesday.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/16/wednesday-final-ratings-american-idol-whitney-adjust-up-the-middle-is-down/120174/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101014839/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/25/wednesday-final-ratings-the-middle-the-goldbergs-modern-family-law-and-order-svu-red-band-society-adjusted-up/306937 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/25/wednesday-final-ratings-the-middle-the-goldbergs-modern-family-law-and-order-svu-red-band-society-adjusted-up/306937/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Guatemala's Logo

Guatemala's logo is a fan-made logo. All official Survivor: Guatemala merchandise and even the show refers to the season as Survivor: Guatemala - The Maya Empire, not Survivor Guatemala - The Mayan Empire. Here's a Yaxhá buff with the logo, the DVD from CBS and Amazon, Yaxhá's flag from Guatemala, Nakúm's flag (while blurry, clearly only has 4 letters between "The" and "Empire"), a recap on CBS's site referring to the season as Survivor: Guatemala - The Maya Empire, and the opening credits a few seconds in flash the logo of the season, clearly showing Survivor: Guatemala - The Maya Empire.Sinjoh2015 (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Voted out definition

I've noticed on several seasons that an evacuation counts towards being voted out. Eg Survivor: One World has Kourtney evacuated (thus eliminated first) followed by Nina who is labeled as 2nd voted out but as Nina was the first person eliminated by vote she would be the first person voted out. Why is the former the precedent? 135.196.1.74 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Newly introduced "season progress" tables

Pinging @Realitycomp:, @Bsems:, @Ointhegang: (and others)

Let's discuss the new tables that Realitycomp is introducing rather than edit war over them. The tables in question are from this edit: [5].

These table mimic those used in "skill-based" elimination-driven reality TV like Project Runway (season 10) or Top Chef (season 14), but in those shows, with limited exception, everyone performs as an individual and multiple people are clearly on the potential cut in front of judges. It also works well for The Amazing Race 31 where there is actual placements for each team per episode. Whereas Survivor remains relatively unique that half the game is tribe-based before switching off to individual, and the idea of people being "safe" or not is rather fluid particularly given all the hidden immunity idols and other tools in the last few seasons. I'm not saying this table can't work, but it might be overly complex given that we have the voting history at the bottom of each page which also nearly duplicates that information.

I have no other opinion in the matter outside of avoiding editing warring.

I would recommend Realitycomp not to add their tables until a consensus is made. --Masem (t) 21:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think they are necessary to the game. I agree with the above statement that those tables work for skill-based competition shows and while I like them and they look aesthetically great I don’t think they have a place for Survivor Wikipedia. The voting history already outlines who wins and receives votes. Credit to realitycomp for the idea and effort but maybe here isn’t the place for viewing. Sorry. 😉 Survivorwonderland (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

These are redundant to the Voting History tables and add no additional information. They should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Survivor: Winners at War links

I added resources that twenty previous winners would be returning for the fortieth season, called Survivor: Winners at War. Since that article has been deleted, can you please remove those links? I would love to, but I'm currently preoccupied and there are some season pages I don't like to visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.240.95 (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2019 (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) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

DVD covers

I'm thinking about replacing most or all of season logos with available DVD covers in season articles, like Survivor: Borneo, especially for more context. --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a link to an image for comparison? Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

one DVD release and another of the same season. I may lean toward the one with contestants' faces. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The DVD images are a great idea as they include the logo but also some of notable contestants, which makes the seasons much more identifiable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Except for Survivor 41 and Survivor 42, I replaced most stand-alone logos with DVD covers. I'm still awaiting the public release of Survivor 41 in April this year. George Ho (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I really believe that for this, it should revert back to being the logos. The DVD covers spoil the winners and I think it would be good to protect the fans from that, and also the logos also represent the season perfectly. Sdp20 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS we do not hide spoilers at all. --Masem (t) 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Notabilities of winners and runners-up

I'm very concerned about the notabilities of winners and runners-up of the series, like Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)... and others names I must look up first. I'm unconvinced, if not uncertain or unsure, that appearing in at least one season of Survivor is sufficient proof of notability. I thought about creating the List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists, similar to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists. --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the first few seasons they gained notablility for coverage beyond their win, but I would suspecte t most winners should NOT be presumed notable. --Masem (t) 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Created Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (season 1–20). George Ho (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking about including eliminated contestants who appeared in season finales, like Susan Hawk and Rudy Boesch of Survivor: Borneo, but I don't know whether it is necessary. George Ho (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's been months. Now Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–10) has been rejected as "too specific and somewhat arbitrary". Does this mean individual articles about winners are automatically notable and can still remain with or without improvements? George Ho (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

To de-bold or not de-bold (contestants' names)

@Bgsu98: If removing ! and scope="row" violates MOS:ACCESS, then how else do I de-bold non-winning contestants' names in contestant/tribe tables? I see no need to bold the names unless, per MOS:BOLD or MOS:NOBOLD, there are special reasons to do so, like a $1 million winner. George Ho (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I would leave them as is. MOS:BOLD says that table headers are boldfaced, and the contestants’ names are the row headers. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

How about adding plainrowheaders for class? I can further bold every "Sole Survivor" or color a row about a "Sole Survivor". By the way, The Great British Bake Off season pages don't use scope=row for row headers AFAIK. Would that be an accessibility issue? George Ho (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all Wikipedia tables are expected to conform to MOS:ACCESS, and that includes scoped column and row headers. See MOS:DTAB for more information about tables. Bgsu98 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we please go back to the old Voting History Charts?

I've seen that the user @Masem previously stated that the old charts "failed accessibility requirements and WP:MOS, but I feel like the majority here didn't had a problem with the old charts? Was there any discussion about changing it or it just changed? I understand wanting to make charts accessible for color blinds, per say, but I think we should all come to an agreement of how the voting history charts should look like.

Masem, I'm not calling you out or anything, I'm sure you had your reasons, I just think it's fair for everyone else to voice their opinions on this matter. SeosiWrestling (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There was discussion but I can't point to where they were exactly. First was a general discussion at WT:TV in which nearly all reality show results tables were identified as too complex and covering far too many details for an encyclopedia. The second was more specific to Syrvivor as a result ofvtrying to make one season article a Good Article, this is more were the accessibility came from. Masem (t) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying!

In what ways the old charts weren't accessible? SeosiWrestling (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Primarily use of non-standard colors (accessibility requires using a limited color range) and providing too many details in color (color should not be used to convey information in an accessible way). There were a few other backend things too to.make the tables work better for blind readers. Masem (t) 15:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say though, that the Contestants lists do look nice. SeosiWrestling (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this talk page be notified of attempts to AfD articles of Survivor winners?

Two have already been deleted, and there are several more up for deletion, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant) (Crowley is the oldest person to win Survivor). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's one which is on its 3rd nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White (3rd nomination). I'd think that this page would have been notified as a courtesy, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Another, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Westman (2nd nomination). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Is everyone here aware that Chris Daugherty's page has already been removed at an AfD which only two (2) people participated in. Talk about a tribal council! Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Bob Crowley's page has been deleted (redirected, same thing) here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant) even though the policy used, WP:BLP1E didn't apply. Can someone who follows these pages read the discussion and its close and start a move review, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Maryanne Oketch nominated for deletion

Maryanne Oketch has been nominated for deletion. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins

Here's another in case readers of this page have an interest. Collins won the Cambodia season and appeared in two other Survivor series. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Tyson Apostol re-nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Apostol (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Contestant images on other survivor articles

On the Survivor 44 page, images of Carson Garrett were being added and deleted over the last several months. Those wishing to remove it argued he wasn't prominent enough to be included, while those for it argued that he should be included if a free image was available. I have concerns about images being added of specific contestants, unless they're truly noteworthy(such as them being a celebrity), should all be excluded.

If a contestant isn't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page, they shouldn't have images on the article; they stick out like a sore thumb and add nothing except self promotion. OnceAdream93 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think photos of the contestants in their season's article (when available) are useful to readers; I wish more contestants had free images available. When you go back to read an article on a long-ago season, visual reminders to go with the names are helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

They can be, but usually it's just one or two contestants. It is super out of place and gives them undue prominence. Also, it's almost always being used for self promotion. OnceAdream93 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

When there are photos available for more than one contestant, I like the horizontal layout that was used at Survivor: Game Changers better than the vertical layouts (such as Survivor: David vs. Goliath). The images are for the benefit of the readers. Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, the horizontal ones are good. Perhaps we should have at least a few images available to so images can both be helpful for readers as well as not hurt the article of the layout, while also ensuring that certain contestants don't get undue prominence. OnceAdream93 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Inside Survivor" website

Since when has the "Inside Survivor" website been an appropriate source for Wikipedia articles? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Survivor: Borneo § Requested move 25 October 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Survivor: Borneo § Requested move 25 October 2024. A move request regarding American Survivor articles and WP:NCTV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Survivor 49" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Survivor 49 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 6 § Survivor 49 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Survivor 50" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Survivor 50 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 6 § Survivor 50 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)