Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Survivor: Cook Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: TeckWiz

Contents 1 Spoiler 2 Revert 3 Contestants list 4 TRIBE NAMES 5 Order of contestants 6 Request To Protect Article Page 7 Controversy 8 Sorry I am the person who reverts the Survivor Cook Islands page 9 Furthermore 10 My finalized changes please dont change it 11 Survivor Policy 12 Why do you guys keep doing this 13 Caucasian-American 14 Azn sam8 15 I predict... 16 Uhhh 17 Consensus Agrees? 18 I Can Forgive Her... 19 Sterotypes 20 "The game" table condense? 21 Council Dates 22 Removal of Not Aired Info 23 Use of Impartial Language 24 Listing the contestants home, age, last name, etc 25 Episode numbering 26 Last Episode 27 Jury 28 Episode updates 29 What does this mean? 30 Voting History table 31 Dirty Bastards 32 Reduce Size 33 Vandalism or Verified Info 34 Voting table format 35 Page in Spanish 36 Tribe names in color 37 Aitutonga 38 Final Jury count 39 Who gets their own article? 40 Need Help 41 Contestant occupations 42 Record? 43 First challenges... 44 J.P. Calderon 45 It's Flica not Flicka... 46 external link to survivor.com

[edit] Spoiler

Can we take off the spoiler warning, or does mentioning the return of Exile Island count as a spoiler? --Maxamegalon2000 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We can definatly take it off. The name and location has been revealed, and the Exile Island returning part has been revealed, both by the actual show, so it is no longer a spoiler. I'll do that right now TeckWiz 11:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I have reverted back to revision 66660856 by Hotwiki because the two anons who put/changed info gave no sources. Also, the list of possible contestants is risky, as it hasn't been confirmed at all. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 10:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contestants list

The articles for the previous series have not had the contestants age and home towns in the table. I'm not sure that information brings any particular value to the table. Any opinions on leaving that information in or removing it? My opinion is to remove it. The bolding seems a little excessive, too. I've also have doubts about the seemingly random choice of tribe colors. I'd rather see no color until the series actually airs since tribe color tends to be important in the game. -- Gogo Dodo 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The tribe colors aren't random - the buffs were on display this morning on the Early Show. HeyNow10029 01:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was not aware of that. -- Gogo Dodo 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRIBE NAMES

Havent seen any spoiler sites with these names yet.

and the person who put it up is not a Wiki user nor did they verify (or put in) their source.

Are the tribe names correct?

Removing it until it can be verified click me

<d3345>l4V78> 08:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of contestants

Why in that order?

It appeared to be orginally random then someone changed it alpabetically by tribes and contestants, then it was back.

It may not be the case, but the "white" tribe always appear to be on top.

Plus - there should be a consensus over what language to use.

<d3345>l4V78> 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say to order the contestants alphabetical by last name since that is the order used in previous series. Everything will sort out as the survivors are voted out, but until voted out, it should be alphabetical by last name. -- Gogo Dodo 06:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ill change it to alphabetical by last name and see what happens... If it changes back to Rarotonga on top then we'll know something's up...
<d3345>l4V78> 08:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This series of Survivor has sparked a good deal of attention and controversy even outside the United States.[1][2][3] Should the controversy be mentioned somewhere or is that inappropriate?(Note this is not a show I watch, I heard about it because of the controversy not interest in it)--T. Anthony 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is already mentioned on the Survivor front page. If you would like, I would say stick it in =)
<d3345>l4V78> 08:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be, probably in it's own subsection, but I don't think the order of the contestants should be driven by hows the tribes are split. -- Gogo Dodo 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request To Protect Article Page

Not sure if it is significant enough, but if possible, could someone protect the page from vandalism and constant reversions?

• Wikipedia policy is to avoid usage of capitals which were removed, but user 74.12.145.196 reverts back
• Survivor pages dictate contestants to be listed alphabetically by surname pre-show but user 74.12.145.196 reverts back
• Caucasian-American tribe continually returned to top of the table (racist behaviour?)
• vandalism

<d3345>l4V78> 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We should get semi-protecion for a day of two, which would also give us time to get these accounts blocked. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While the thought of semi-protection is a good one, I think it might be a bit early. I've seen worse reverting where the page is not semi-protected. We would need to request the semi-protection at WP:RPP. -- Gogo Dodo 16:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving the white people to the top is not racist. The white people in the game are clearly on the chopping block, and hence they are put on the top Thegreyanomaly 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Can we have some information on the controversy surrounding this? More than a couple of people have voiced their displeasure with the premise of this particular "Survivor," for obvious reasons.SolrosorSolrosor

A section on the controversy was there, but certain anonymous editors keep removing it. I restored the section in question. -- Gogo Dodo 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry I am the person who reverts the Survivor Cook Islands page

Hey Gogo Dodo [and possibly others],

I've finally caught up to the person that has been constantly editting the paragraph that I personally put in. Prior to any of your changes, my original contribution and work to wikipedia was as follows:

"On a September 4th issue of TV Guide, the names of the 4 tribes were revealed: Aitutaki (Hispanics-RED), Rarotonga (Caucasians-BLUE), Manihiki (Africans-YELLOW) and Puka Puka (Asians-GREEN). All four tribes are named after the many islands in the nation .[1]"

After your editing to my original work, it became as follows:

"On the September 4 issue of TV Guide, the names of the four tribes were revealed: Aitutaki (Hispanic-Americans - red), Rarotonga (Caucasian-Americans - blue), Manihiki (African-Americans - yellow) and Puka Puka (Asian-Americans - green). All four tribes are named after the many islands in the nation .[4]"

Also I've read your message: "Users: 74.12.145.196 (Azn sam8 ?) keep reverting the Survivor: Cook Islands article in ways that appear to be racist (the Rarotonga - Caucasian American tribe are always changed back to being on top) and inserting capitals that have been changed to lower case more than once. Could you block the offending user or protect the page please?"

I personally take a huge offense to you blaming me of something that I did not or did not intend to do. First of all I do not understand what you are talking about when you say the Caucasians are always being on top. Secondly, I am Asian so why would I be racist to my own people by putting the Asians below the Caucasians? Thirdly, if your going to make something so little become a huge issue then I find that very very immature.

My final complaint is you refering the Caucasians as "Caucasian Americans". Caucasians are already Americans so refering them as "Caucasian Americans" is entirely unnessary

And please feel free to discuss with me through hotmail as well because I'm not quite familiar with the messaging system on Wikipedia.

My hotmail is: azn_sam8@hotmail.com. You may talk to me through MSN Messenger as well.

Seriously we better settle this because I know your starting to get annoyed by me reverting my work. All I'm asking you is to stop editing that ONE PARAGRAPH that I've put up on wikipedia

Please remember that Wikipedia is an online and open encyclopedia, where everyone is allowed to edit the exisiting information. While you can have your own input, please note that Wikipedians work together to create a consensus on how articles should be edited and presented. These rules and policies are put into place for Wikipedia entries to promote consistency in presentation, meaning, and information.

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed fairly by others, do not submit it.

See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more information on editing.

<d3345>l4V78> 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are addressing me directly, you need to look at the revision history a little more carefully. I did not make the changes that you claim that I did. I did not call you racist. However, I do agree with the other editors about the changes. As for your specific points: On your revision [4], the caucasian tribe is listed first. The sort order that you have is not apparent to me. It is not sorted by last name, first name, or tribe name. If you review the other seasons of Survivor (and the discussion above), you will see that the default sort order is by last name. The sort order will eventually change to how the contestants are voted out, but for the contestants who are still in the game, the order is by last name. About your reverts, you are reverting more than just your one paragraph. You are also removing any other changes between your last revision on your revert. For example, I made some stylistic changes other other fixes [5], which you promptly removed. As others have pointed out Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and your additions will get edited and/or thrown out. It happens to everybody. That's the nature of the place. Wikipedia is also a place of consensus. When making large changes, getting consensus is best. And the consensus here appears to be to leave the sort order and changes as they are, not your revision. -- Gogo Dodo 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furthermore

I dont get how you and another user TeckWiz see organizing the tribes by their race as "racist". If you think it is racist dont watch the show. Please give me a clear forward straight answer how this is racist. First and foremost I was not the orginal person who organized them that way so do not rant on me for something that I did not do. Secondly, how can you say that "I" or someone else organized them purely based on their race?? There are other factors that they could've been intended to be grouped: Tribe colour, Tribe name, etc...

Lastly, why are you and TeckWiz making such a huge issue with the Caucasians being on the top? How is that racist towards the other contestants? Keep in mind that I am Asian so why would I demean my own race? And if you view that as racism why don't you organize them by alphabetical order?

Please do email me or even add me on MSN Messenger so we could furthur discuss this because I am really getting annoyed of having to revert the edited articles back into the pre-vandalised ones.

My email is: azn_sam8@hotmail.com

Please remember that Wikipedia is an online and open encyclopedia, where everyone is allowed to edit the exisiting information. While you can have your own input, please note that Wikipedians work together to create a consensus on how articles should be edited and presented. These rules and policies are put into place for Wikipedia entries to promote consistency in presentation, meaning, and information.

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed fairly by others, do not submit it.

See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more information on editing.

<d3345>l4V78> 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The concept has been deemed racist for reasons that seem fairly obvious to me. You are segregating contestants by race and then "pitting" one race against the other. Did you ever see the movie The Great White Hype? If they had separate them into "Team Catholic, Team Protestant, Team Judaism, and Team Islam" this could have also been seen as divisive. Age and gender, despite CBS's protestations, are not at all similar. For one thing age and gender have affects on health or social skills relating to survival that are less debated. For another there's never been much or any history of "Gender riots", "Age riots", "Gender Segregation", or "Age segregation" in North America.--T. Anthony 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn't call the sort order racist. I do not think you sorted them for racist reasons. However, I do not agree with your sort order. Your sort order does not make any sense and seems arbitrary to me. It's not by tribe color, tribe name, contestant first or last name, or even alphabetical by the tribe's race. As for why, other editors did not change the order, we did... we changed it to alphabetical by last name as per precedent of previous seasons. -- Gogo Dodo 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My finalized changes please dont change it

I revised (once again) Caucasian-Americans into Caucasians only; -Americans does not need to be there because it is unneccessary (much like how CBS referred to them as the "White Tribe" instead of the "White-American Tribe".

Anf finally because some of you who keep on claiming that organizing the tribes by their tribe colour is racist, I decided to reorganize them into the way how the official website does it, which is by their first name instead of last. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs).

If you would kindly read the previous discussion, you will see that it is correct Wikipedia Survivor article policy to have the contestants listed alphabetically by surname. This consensus was reached by a number of your fellow Wikipedians and it is common courtesy to follow these rules to promote consistency within the Survivor Wiki pages.
The Survivor Wikipedia entries are not your sole ownership, rather, it is the property of the Wikipedian community. Please do not disrespect your community.
Please remember that Wikipedia is an online and open encyclopedia, where everyone is allowed to edit the exisiting information. While you can have your own input, please note that Wikipedians work together to create a consensus on how articles should be edited and presented. These rules and policies are put into place for Wikipedia entries to promote consistency in presentation, meaning, and information.
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed fairly by others, do not submit it. See Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more information on editing.
<d3345>l4V78> 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I kind of liked the division by tribe because then we could get rid of the explicit racial labeling of tribes in the text since it was more obvious from the picture groupings. But I agree with the following of precedent of previous survivor pages. I also think it is funny people are getting so worked up about this. I am sure it is just what the producers intended, to get some exposure. I don't think the race thing will be that big of a deal in the show. The age groupings last season only lasted what, two episodes? Nowimnthing 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU Nowimnthing - atleast I know that there are ppl out there that understands that ppl are getting too worked up about how the tribes were previously organized on the table. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Survivor Policy

I never knew there was a Survivor policy. I only knew there was a BIg Brother one. Where can I find the Survivor policy? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 13:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you guys keep doing this

I organized the table by Alphabetical order by first name, which is how the CBS website does it. People dont know the contestants (let alone everyday ppl) by their last name so leave it the way it was before and stop changing the table please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs).

I'm just following how the previous series has the list. For example [6]. I believe the reason is because it makes the sorting unambiguous. For example, is Anh-Tuan “Cao Boi” Bui sorted by Anh-Tuan or Cao Boi? When sorted by last name, it's clear where he is sorted. I actually agree with you, but when the table has the last name, it makes more sense to sort by last name. I'd really like the see the table just have the first or common name only, removing the last name, age, and home town as I really don't think those last two pieces are relevant. But I was overruled by consensus. It happens. By the way, it's not necessary for you to duplicate your comment on both the article Talk page and my own Talk page. I'm reading both. -- Gogo Dodo 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I sorted them according to how the CBS website sorts them (in which they are sorted by their nicknames like Cao Boi, Becky, Ozzy, JP, Billy) rather than their real names (like Anh-Tuan, Rebekah, Oscar, John, Vergilio). I still dont agree with the consensus of sorting by last name but whatever now, as long as ppl dont revert Caucasians back to Caucasian-Americans because that is unnecessary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs).

If you look back in the revision history, that's the order I first inserted the table in. So I agree that if the table only had first names, that's the way it should be, but it's got last name. As for the race labels, I really don't have an opinion on that. -- Gogo Dodo 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first names only also. I think last names should be taken out, and the names sorted the way CBS has them sorted. I think we should also put all the contestants bios on one page, like List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). This would eliminate the need for all these pages that get AFD'd alot. Only the winner, the runner up, and anyone notable (such a Bruce from season 12 for being evactued) should have there own pages. This would also be good for previous seasons where contestants pages have very little. If people agree, I'll start it. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. My vote would be for first name only with preference towards their nickname (Cao Boi, Becky, Ozzy, JP, Billy). No last name, no age, no home town. I think the bio page is an excellent idea. -- Gogo Dodo 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Okay. I'm going to create it. We should also do this on past seasons. If you want to you can help me find some info on these people. Okay- the page is at List of Survivor Contestants (season 13) Please help in adding info. Consider writing what you put in in Word or something else to avoid edit conflicts. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian-American

Caucasian-American is unnecessary, much like you dont say White-Americans; please leave it as Caucasians only (CBS refers to them as the White Tribe, not the White-American tribe) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs).

Didn't I notice that one of the contestants was from Peru? How does that make her a Hispanic-American? Unless we go with the broader meanings of American and Hispanic... Nowimnthing 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think everyone forgets that Hispanic is not a racial term, being that many South Americans, all Spaniards, and some Central Americans (inclduing Mexicans), are Caucasian.

• Caucasian is a disambiguation page, and the word itself is an innaccurate, out of date and USA-centric term. I changed it to White American, but since there is opposition to the word American, I will change it to simply White. In any case, it should not be changed back to Caucasian, because Wikipedia is supposed to use accurate and universal terms. Spylab 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azn sam8

You said that people are getting worked up about it? Not really. It's just your constant reversion of the Survivor: Cook Islands is irritiating.
If you have any ideas over major changes, please place it on the discussion page; for example: if you have any ideas about the order of contestants put it on the discussion page, but dont revert the article itself. When a decision has been discussed and made, you can then go and change the table.
Something like this is already happening from your comments and you can further contribute to it here: Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands.
Little changes (as you have noted - the "Caucasian Americans" thing) could be easily fixed by going to edit this page and taking out the "-Americans" part of it. However, your reversions delete later edits, things that have been decided by group consensus and common edits to improve the page (e.g. removing unneccesary capitals). You can also partially revert.

And for the record, it was only suggested that the order of the tribes may be racist as the Rarotonga tribe always seemed to go back to the top (as you have done again by reverting). If you must revert, please give notice in the description of your edit and explain your reasons why.
Please sign your comments by inserting four tildes (~) after every comment.

<d3345>l4V78> 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I predict...

I predict the show will get shaken up when it is revealed that one of the latinos is actually a latino-looking arab... who lied during auditions and is then forced off the show for not being the right race.

Meanwhile... someone from the black tribe who was adopted will find out--on the show--that one of their real parents is asian... and subsequently become a double-agent for the other tribe.

And in the end the white tribe will win, but it well then be revealed that half of them have ties to the KKK. And then America will feel dirty and ashamed of this show.

(Seriously, what are the CHANCES of this show going off completely without anyone, from any team, making any racist comments?)

(Corby 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Uhhh

I thought that everyone came to a final consensus that we were going to organize the contestants by the way in which the official website lists them.... why is it that we're still organizing them by last name even though we agreed to do first name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.146.66 (talk • contribs).

Why? Because you did not discuss it - you went ahead and did it yourself.
QUOTE: My finalized changes please dont change it.
I revised (once again) Caucasian-Americans into Caucasians only; -Americans does not need to be there because it is unneccessary (much like how CBS referred to them as the "White Tribe" instead of the "White-American Tribe".
Anf finally because some of you who keep on claiming that organizing the tribes by their tribe colour is racist, I decided to reorganize them into the way how the official website does it, which is by their first name instead of last. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs) .

It was a major change so others decided to revert your changes. If you scroll back up the page and read the previous discussion, you will see it was previously decided by more than one person that the list would be alphabetical by last name, just like the other seasons.
lease remember to sign your comments by inserting four of these ~.
<d3345>l4V78> 09:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not agreed on. I suggested making a page that has bios of all the contestants. I also suggested since we would have a bio page, we could use first names only on the table. Look at the bottom of the topic on this talk page called "Why do you keep doing this." Gogo Dodo agrees with me. See the bio page here TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! ^_^ <d3345>l4V78> 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that the bio page is complete, if nobody has any objects, I'd like to make the change to first name only with preference to nickname and remove the last name, age, and home town. Then sort by first name. -- Gogo Dodo 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. If you disagree, make sure you revert just that last edit as I corrected a few other things that needed to be removed no matter what. -- Gogo Dodo 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold Gogo Dodo. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Agrees?

Does the majority of people agree to leave the sentences as "Caucasians" rather than "Caucasian-Americans". My explanation as of why is stated above. Also, it keeps it consistant with a sentence prior to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azn sam8 (talk • contribs).

[edit] I Can Forgive Her...

I find it strange that the title of the first episode is "I Can Forgive Her But I Don't Have To Because She Screwed With My Chickens". I was reverted by Gogo Dodo yesterday because an anon put it in and it seemed like vandalism, but today UWAFanatic put it in and gave source. Any ideas what the title is about? TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wouldn't have believed it to be correct. I had checked the Yahoo listing just before I reverted it and that title was not listed. I rechecked and there it was. My apologies to the anonymous IP. -- Gogo Dodo 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sterotypes

I thought Mark Burnett said that the show would do away with sterotypes. From the first episode it seems to have reinforced them. The black team loses because they don't have the intellect, a sterotype, to complete a challenge which required some thinking. Then the blacks pick a white person to send to exile island. And lastly they are shown as being lazy, another sterotype. 69.234.66.23 07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The game" table condense?

What does everybody think of removing the last four columns from the "The game" table since it lists redundant information? I'm proposing removing the Original, Merge, Vote, and Finish columns. My reasoning is that the table's main purpose appears to give a summary of the episodes, but the four columns are details already covered in the other tables. The Tribes and Finish is in the Contestants table and Vote is in the Voting History table. Comments? -- Gogo Dodo 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been five days, so I did it. I wanted to put the change in before episode 2 aired. -- Gogo Dodo 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this? I thought the table looked way better in the condensed form, but it seems to have grown again... --Maelwys 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed it so that it was in the same form as the past season tables. However, it got way too cluttered so I removed the episode titles. -- Scorpion0422 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to remove information from the standard table and put it somewhere else, why not just remove the information that's causing the clutter, and is already somewhere else? Especially the (4 now) "tribe" columns, which don't really add much to the table, and just clutter it up. Ideally I think it should again have all the stuff removed that Gogo listed above, but at the very least I think we could get rid of those. We already know which tribe lost (and therefor the current tribe of the eliminated guy) we don't need his whole history too as it's not relevent to the current episode, and already in two other tables above and below that one. --Maelwys 04:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Put the episode titles back in and remove the tribe columns since the tribe affiliations are already listed in the Contestants table. -- Gogo Dodo 04:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done this now. Already it looks better, I think. And this is hopefully a good compromise between the people that wanted to keep everything, and the people that wanted to slim down the table as above. --Maelwys 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better looking. I did add in the tribe color of the Voted Out at the time of their voting out to stick with the "standard" of the rest of the table. -- Gogo Dodo 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The above change got reverted twice. Anybody have any thoughts on colorizing the Voted Out? -- Gogo Dodo 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I figured the table looks better without the names being coloured. After the merge hits, there will be no tribes and thus the immunity, reward, etc winners will not be coloured. So it makes little sense to colour the person who is voted out. Besides, the tribe of the person voted out can be found in both of the other tables. -- Scorpion0422 02:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that either everything should be colored or nothing should be colored on the table. It's just odd to see some colored and some not. True, you are going to get a section all the same color, but that's going to happen with the other tables, too, and that's likely to continue post merge. The colors are not going to stop post merge with Voting History. We have already veered off "standard" with regards to the previous series as there really is no "standard". Some have no names colored, some have just tribes, some have no related table at all. -- Gogo Dodo 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Council Dates

I corrected the tribal council dates as the 3rd tribal council took place on Day 8, and the 4th tribal council on Day 11, as last night's episode started with the night of day 8 after the previous tribal council. RobertCMWV1974 17:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Not Aired Info

I noticed an anon put in "results" of tonight's show. They were reverted by Maelwys. If this was a respected registered user, it shouldn't be reverted. I'm going to leave a message on the anon's talk page to ask him where he got the info, and hope it's not a rotating IP. Maelwys, as Madchester stated on the TAR 10 talk page: Wikipedia doesn't run on tape delay. If it hasn't aired, or it hasn't aired in a time zone, it still goes here, as long as there is a source. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But as you said, it wasn't from a registered user. And as far as I knew, the information hadn't yet released into the public domain in any verifiable form (since I don't believe there are any stations/timezones that play the show 12 hours (or more) before the EST broadcast tonight, and there was no citation for any reliable source posting the spoilers). So as far as I could tell, it was basically indistinguishable from vandalism (and may still prove to be vandalism, if the "results" posted there are wrong tonight). But assuming good faith I marked the edit summary to show that I reverted it as unverified future-info, instead of vandalism. --Maelwys 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

... and as it turns out, it was indeed just vandalism, because it was completely wrong. --Maelwys 00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I recognized that when Raro one, and I check the history and the anon put Aitu. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Impartial Language

Just a little picky thing...

Should it be "the tribes have been divided into race" or an alternative? Because we are all one human race, not many "human races". I am aware that the use of the term is, of course, accepted, however, wouldn't 'ethnicity' (or another word?) be used instead? 59.167.108.95 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing the contestants home, age, last name, etc

I think it's important to have this information on the page somwhere. And seeing how there isn't a seperate page that has all this info, it should go here. Most of the contestants will not get their own page, so the only place on Wikipedia anybody could find last names, ages, etc would be here. It's not like listing this information makes the page extremely cluttered anyway. -- Scorpion0422 08:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode numbering

The Recap episode puts the numbering of episodes into question. Is the Recap counted as episode 7 or is that skipped since no game activity happened? The Voting History takes the view that the Recap didn't count. The Episode Notes had it so that it did count, but then I just changed it so it didn't. Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo 05:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In past Survivor pages they don't take the recap episode into account for numbering. I added it to the chart just because I thought it ws important to note. -- Scorpion0422 05:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember that. Works for me. Just checking with everybody else. -- Gogo Dodo 05:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed that as episode 7 originally. I changed it back and placed last night's as episode 8. RobertCMWV1974 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the Voting History table needs to be fixed. If you look at Survivor: Panama, the Recap episode was skipped in the numbering. It was listed in the episode table, but not anywhere else. -- Gogo Dodo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Episode

Somebody stated that the season ends on December 17. But since there are still 2 extra castaways than would normally be by day 19, it may possibly go one more episode. RobertCMWV1974 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The "somebody" was a CBS press release, so I tend to believe it. That same press release said the final episode would feature the final five, instead of the usual final four. And there might be another double-elimination episode, or there might be an episode where somebody quits, is medically evacuated, or is ejected for violating a rule, along with a regular evacuation. --Psiphiorg 01:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

TVGuide.com says that episode 9 has two people voted off [7], so that accounts for the 2 extra castaways. -- Gogo Dodo 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jury

In the most recent episode, Brad was voted off and Jeff said that he was the first member of the jury. This puts the jury starting at 12 instead of the usual 9. Normally, we have seven votes at the end for the winner, but won't this one yield ten votes? I don't see why they would allow for the possibility of a tie when they could just wait a few days and have nine. Unless they're going to kick someone off and force them to bypass the jury, I don't see how that could work very well. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, but I'm sure they thought of that. I wouldn't be surprised if there is another "twist" coming up. We will just have to watch and see. -- Gogo Dodo 21:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The final episode (the three-hour one with the live final hour) will have a "final five" instead of a "final four". My guess is that two people will still be voted out as usual, and that the jury will consist of 11 members voting on the remaining three castaways. This will require different strategies for the last few members of the tribe, as the winner of the final immunity challenge will not get to decide who comes with him/her (two of the other three could force a tie). --Psiphiorg 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. :) Irk_(talk) 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode updates

I think we should wait until the day after the episode airs to put who gets voted out. This way, people in other time zones won't have the episode spoiled for them. Irk_(talk) 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Being in the Pacific time zone, that is certainly a considerate idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well in practice. The problem is that it would be difficult to define what time is the "safe" time for posting. You would think a day, but then what if somebody recorded it and watched it the next day? Generally, you're better off not reading the relevant Wikipedia article if you're watching something "live". As TeckWiz said in an earlier discussion, "Wikipedia doesn't run on tape delay". -- Gogo Dodo

My view on this is: You know that Wikipedia will be updated relatively quickly, so just don't look. Besides, even if the members agreed not to update, the unregistered members would try to add in the results. -- Scorpion0422 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely best to put it as soon as it's been aired, because their really is no definite safetime, here in australia episode 9 doesnt air here until next wednesday (There was no episode on last wednesday due to the 2 hour finale of csi: miami, and we skipped the recap episode), so we're 3 episodes behind the U.S, but the result each week is posted on here about friday 1pm aest, which i make sure i check asap (im impatient with reality tv), and yeh if people dont want the result to be spoiled they should stay off this page if the episode has been aired in other areas of the U.S already -- 3bay sam 14:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Voting History table

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dirty Bastards

U changed what i did

I had

A
I
T
U
T
O
N
G
A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reduce Size

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

• Episode Summaries
• Elimination and Exile Notes

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Vandalism or Verified Info

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Voting table format

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

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

[edit] Page in Spanish

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

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

[edit] Tribe names in color

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

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

[edit] Aitutonga

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

[edit] Final Jury count

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

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

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

[edit] Who gets their own article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Need Help

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

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

[edit] Contestant occupations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Record?

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

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

[edit] First challenges...

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] J.P. Calderon

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

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

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

[edit] It's Flica not Flicka...

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

[edit] external link to survivor.com

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

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