Template talk:Survivor contestants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 12. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

This page will be completed in a day or so. Please do not use it, delete it or edit it. Thank you, Scorpion 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Others

Shouldn't all the contestants be on the template, even if they are just black text without a link? Or would that make it too crowded? Jordan 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be too crowded. I just made this as a quick linky thing so I would know who has pages and it makes it considerable easier to track. -- Scorpion 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can't believe this note is necessary

Scorpion: I understand that you are upset about J.P. Calderon having an article. I don't understand why you are upset, but upset you clearly are. This does not give you the right to continually revert this template to remove the link to his article. Your nonsense reasons for removing it are, well, nonsense. The article exists on Wikipedia, he was a Survivor contestant and the AfD on it is clearly running in favor of keeping the article. You need to deal with your ownership issues regarding this template and Survivor in general, conduct yourself like a reasonable person and stop reverting this article. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule and believe me you're annoying me more than enough to get it invoked. So please get yourself a little maturity and a little perspective. Otto4711 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold for All Stars

It says that bold means all-stars. However, I cannot see any bolded links. But, when I check the coding there is bolding in the right spots. Does it not work on some browsers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Works for me. -- Scorpion 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps on Castaway

Unless it's because it's referring to a person non specifically, why is Castaway capitalized in the note about bold=all-stars —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Stats

For personal use only so that I can keep track of whose pages were deleted.

  • Pages in category: 71
    • Borneo: 8
    • Australia: 10
    • Africa: 4
    • Marquesas: 6
    • Thailand: 3
    • Amazon: 5
    • Pearl Islands: 5
    • Vanuatu: 3
    • Palau: 10
    • Guatemala: 4 original, 6 + Steph & BJ
    • Panama: 7
    • Cook Islands: 6
    • Fiji: 0
  • Total: 71 Pages on template (as of 13 June 2008)

[edit] Removing links to articles that an editor thinks "shouldn't" exist

I have some concerns regarding the recent removals of articles which the removing editor deletes under the theory that the subject article "should be deleted." I am not a Survivor fan, in fact have never watched a complete episode of the show. However, as a Wikipedian, it strikes me as inappropriate and a hindrance to the project to remove links on the basis of one editor's POV that the article it links to "shouldn't" exist. If the article exists, it seems reasonable to include it on the navigational template. Otto4711 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, their pages were deleted. I was just bating you and you fell for it. -- Scorpion 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I'm not sure which speedy deletion criteria this template could meet, and I don't think it's proper to speedily delete a template properly used on 58 articles. If this template deserves to be deleted, which I do not think it does, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion seems much more appropriate. --Maxamegalon2000 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Scorpian's explanation was good, especially the fact that there's already a cat. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a very reasonable explanation; I don't think it's grounds for speedy deletion, though. I guess the closest applicable criterion is G7 (Author requests deletion), but I think there's been too much interest and editing from other editors for that to apply. --Maxamegalon2000 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It could be considered a duplicate page since the category does the same thing. Then it would qualify. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit more liberal of a justification than I'd be comfortable seeing used to speedily delete a template in use. I'm not sure which criteria that fulfills, either. I'm not necessarily arguing for keeping the template; I just think it deserves some discussion, kind of like the one we're having here, only with more people. --Maxamegalon2000 03:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Why not? I'm signing off for the night. Feel free to do so. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, it really doesn't matter what template we use to get it deleted... -- Scorpion 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and ask that you not remove my indication thereof from the template page. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. What does it matter if I use the regular template or the other one, the end result is the same. The template really isn't useful and I basically only created it so it would be easier to keep track of who had articles and who didn't. -- Scorpion 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not discussing the merits or usefulness of the template here. I simply do not believe that sufficient grounds have been given for speedy deletion of a template used in 58 articles. I am also unsure of which criteria for speedy deletion the template meets. Perhaps you are willing to assume that the end result will be the same, and it very well may be, but I am not as sure as you appear to be, and believe that the template is sufficiently used, and edited by enough different users, to merit a discussion before deletion. --Maxamegalon2000 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I could do this the easy way: Remove it from every article then nominate it on the grounds that nothing links to it. -- Scorpion 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it distressing that you consider mentioning such an action to be a valid rhetorical strategy. I'm not sure how one could reasonably reply to it. --Maxamegalon2000 03:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Because, I nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that I am the page creator. I don't feel like fighting inclusionists, such as yourself, due to my already stressful exam schedule. There is a category, rendering the template useless. So, either the template or the category should go and it makes more sense that the template be deleted. -- Scorpion 03:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is clearly disputed, not a speedy, feel free to discuss it at WP:TFD --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I know the people with this template on watch are keeping an eye on me and don't actually care about the template, but...

Which looks better, this or something like this? -- Scorpion0422 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The second one. Why repeat the names? Jordan (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to remember that the eventually at least one of the non-returnees will have their own page, so that solution is only a short term one. Bobby Jon and Stephanie are listed twice. -- Scorpion0422 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fans vs. Favs coloring

So a few days ago I added orange coloring for contestants that returned to appear on Survior:Micronesia "Fans vs. Favorites". This seemed like something that was logically missing from the Template when I first saw it given that the green coloring was being used to designate contestants who returned for Survior:All Stars. Clearly Scorpion0422 disagrees since he reverted my changes. He didn't however, explain why he disagrees. Please help me understand why returning contestants for Survior:All Stars should be designated with a color while returning contestants for "Fans vs. Favs" should not. --Skotywa (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something better discussed when the season is complete and the "fans" have pages for themselves, as is surely inevitable. However, there are currently only six or so Faves with articles. In All-Stars, we had 17 contestants with pages already which would have been too huge for the table. We do not have enough FvF contestant articles to warrant colouring. Furthermore, I disagree with the orange you used as it made the names difficult to read. (Did you try bold? Or I suggest another colour. Purple?). We should discuss this nearer the end. Especially seeing that the fans will have no other places to colour in later, as Scorpion pointed out above. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (and edited by him shortly after).
There are 17 All-stars with pages whereas 7 favorites have pages, and there is a very good chance some of the fans will get pages too. The use of colour coding is already discouraged and I felt using two colours is unnecessary. We should revisit the issue once the season is completed. -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Trombonator and Scorpion. The fact is that when a few fans get articles (someone already tried with Alexis Jones), your going to have a section there anyways, so why should it be incomplete with the contestants that appeared on the season. All-Stars is different because ALL the survivors were from previous seasons so an "All-Stars" column would be pointless. It's like with Bobby Jon and Stephenie who are listed in both the Palau and Guatemala sections because they were brought back with a cast of new survivors. Regardless, this will be discussed more when the fan articles start coming through, which should be in the coming weeks now ... only if they manage to pass AFD Survivorfan101 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, season's over now. I googled all the fans who don't have articles... which, funnily enough is the lot of them. None of them are particularly notable outside of the show, so I am wont to color in the favorites on their original seasons. Purple's good for me; I think the orange from before is too light, and the red is red-link-ish. However, if anyone considers doing *something* on the show as being inclusion criteria, and wants to make fan articles we will have to reconsider. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason I don't want to do colour coding is because it's usually discouraged. The current all-stars are bolded and coloured, but if we made the favourites coloured there wouldn't be any way to distinguish them. -- Scorpion0422 13:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Going with that theory, why is All-Stars still coloured then? It wouldn't hurt the table to make another box... although on the flip side then we are unable to see the proportion of returners from each season. This would go for Micronesia as well. Hmm... confusing... Oh, and some people/one editor keeps making it red. Only colour that the faves haven't been made now is blue... actually, that's an idea... :D -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Clement

A James Clement article has sprung up literally overnight. I don't pretend to be an expert on the inclusion criteria, so I'll hand judgment over to those who are clearer on the subject. I'll just point out that the editor who singlehandedly wrote the article is a new user, this is his first page start and he has less than 30 edits. Furthermore, there is little to no information that isn't about Survivor (not sure if that's a big point or not). Again, I'll let someone with experience in AfD/Speedy deletion to handle this if necessary. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy of Marquesas and All Stars

I can't help noticing that Kathy is the ONLY All-Star without her own page and thus with her name on thsi template...does anyone else think she merits enough to get her own? Small5th (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)