Talk:Australian Survivor

I have tagged this article for a rewrite as it appears over-long and much of its content is trivia. --Nick Dowling 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't watch survivor (so can't speak with authority), but I don't think any of the personal character profiles was necessary. Spot the changes! ~ Giggy! ^{Talk | Contribs} _{About Me | QASMT} 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that this page is a disatorous mess. Everyone needs to pitch in and put everything straight. Here are the episodes to help. DarkFireYoshi (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AusSurvivor&view=videos&start=120

A reference link to a PDF file containing complete details and results for the show's challenges has been added to the existing table showing said results. It's 100% accurate, and the author of the file also wrote extremely detailed recaps of the show in 2008/2009 (reposted here: http://australiansurvivorrecaps.blogspot.com/), making him one of, if not the, foremost expert on this show and its spinoff series, where the link has also been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.30.178 (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:C9AS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alot of the voting history is up the creek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.32.18 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can someone add a re vote for episode 11 and change robert to rob 121.222.30.95 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.30.95 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply 

Removed this part of the article as there is no source linked with this rumour and there is nothing more than a rumour that it will return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.228.83 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

- Removed AGAIN as once again was included with NO references. There is no evidence to support that there is a revival or any plans in 2015 or beyond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.163.84 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Removed for a THIRD time as AGAIN this is listed with no source or facts to back it up. Does anybody not monitor this page to see that somebody is trolling this page constantly with unsubstantiated rumours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.197.207.224 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

FOURTH time this has been removed and now somebody claims "you haven't explained why you have removed the content". Can somebody not read the comments above? The so called '2015 revival' has no EVIDENCE or support to back this claim up. NONE AT ALL! I could put a post on here saying "Australian Survivor will return and be hosted by my pet dog Rover" without any claims to back it up, will that then stay on here? Read through the 2015 revival links and show me one link or source that back up the claim. There is no evidence to suggest it will return, ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.197.207.224 (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

FIFTH TIME removed this post. Again does NOBODY read this? How can someone put this on this page continually with NO EVIDENCE of return! Look at the post. It has NO SOURCES on it AT ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.197.223.227 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You do realize that there is an edit summary field. Why not use it all the time? MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

SIXTH TIME removed the post about a possible revival. AGAIN no sources have been provided for the revival with NO EVIDENCE that such a revival is in place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.197.207.224 (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

SEVENTH TIME removed post about a possible revival. AGAIN THERE ARE NO SOURCES TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP!!! It is simply not true and is being trolled on here constantly. There is nothing indicating that it is in the pipeline at all for Channel 9. Please fix this and block needless edits from taking place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.55 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

EIGHTH TIME removed post now, was seemingly put up because I didn't "provide an edit summary" to which I have done now again. Once again may I point out this information is put on the page with NO sources or NO evidence to back up the claims the show is returning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.116.55 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just to let readers know, I have removed most of the content from this article, and moved it to Australian Survivor (season 1), to allow this page to serve as a series overview page similar to other reality show articles. I haven't added or deleted much from the original content, it has simply moved over to the other page, then I have rewritten this page to serve as an overview. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Survivor. 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/20151127225533/http://www.citv.com.au/kalgoorlie-cops/about/credits.aspx to http://www.citv.com.au/kalgoorlie-cops/about/credits.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222224348/http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19289385-2902,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19289385-2902,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Opening discussion on a proposed change for the reformatting of this page to better represent the changes that the show has seen over its time.

Enough time has passed between each incarnation for them to be listed separately on the page - as "original series" and "revived series". To the casual reader, lumping the five seasons together makes it seem as if the show has run for five years with no significant changes. When in reality, it has been on three different networks, and had completely different production companies. The airdates in the infobox are already separated into its different runs - for consistency throughout the page, the episode tables should also be split this way. Also considering that Channel Ten referred to their seasons of the program as "Season 1", "Season 2", etc., it would make more sense to represent that on this page.

If this change was approved by major editors, the individual season pages would be renamed like; "Australian Survivor (2016 TV series) (season 1)", etc. It may appear to be more confusing, but it would be more accurate, as the new seasons are technically part of a revival. SatDis (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oppose: Numerous shows, Australian and globally, have changed broadcasters or production companies during their run. All five of the seasons of Australian Survivor are Australian adaptations of the same television format, and each has detailed season pages describing the differences between them. Both the Seven Network and Network Ten versions of The X Factor reside from the one parent article, as do the Network Ten and Nine Network versions of Big Brother. Similarily, the one parent article houses series information about the original and revival of formats such as, for example, American Deal or No Deal and The Contender. American Idol, arguably one of the biggest reality programs of recent times, also does not have separate articles for the "original" FOX run and the "revived" ABC run. In any case, your proposed season renaming would violate WP:NCTV -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Whats new?: Thankyou for the response! I appreciate all of your points, and I agree that everything should be kept to one parent article. At the very least I am just suggesting that the "Series Overview" section clearly states the changes in networks; potentially like I have drafted below. As a point of reference, Big Brother (Australian TV series) also notes the network changes in their Series Overview and I believe that works fine with WP:NCTV - and much neater than my original proposal.

SatDis (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@SatDis: You'll note in the main article, that broadcast information is in the very next section, in the very next table, which already includes the "Network" column you proposed above. There's no need to duplicate the information. The Big Brother season detail doesn't have nearly as much information, so it doesn't need a split between actual 'in-season' information (location, tribe makeup, etc.) and the broadcast detail. Also, NCTV is only about article naming conventions, which was about your initial proposal. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Whats new?: Ah okay. Once again that does make sense. Thankyou for taking the time to explain. SatDis (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

As is standard on Wikipedia, I keep having to correct the season numbers to match that of the show. The shows entitled "Australian Survivor" on Nine and Seven were entirely different shows that the Network 10 version does not count as part of its canon. They count them as separate shows. Please note the season numbers in the chyrons in All-Stars - those are what the show uses, so Wikipedia should not contradict that.

This has been accepted in the fanon community as the true numbering since All-Stars, and all articles need to be updated to reflect the canonical numbering instead of challenging it (and thus confusing people). Andymancan1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Should we refer to season numbers, primarily, as their networks' season number instead of overall season number? </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The WP:OFFICIAL name, according to Castaway Productions and Charlie Parsons, which sells the format (although the one source given for this is a now-404 blog) is that, for example, Heroes V Villains would be season 10, not season 8 as according to Network 10. Here are the logical options:

• No change. Castaway numbering is supreme and 10 numbering rarely mentioned (e.g. on Heroes V Villains the fact Ten calls it Season 8 isn't mentioned at all)
• List both, 10 primary: List both, but 10 numbering primary, Castaway secondary. This includes season table, articles, infoboxes, etc. Wherever a season number is mentioned, the other number is also mentioned. Season 1-6 titles (titled by number currently) would have to be changed, including either a year or a subtitle.
• List both, Castaway primary: List both, but Castaway primary, 10 secondary. As above, except titles don't need to change as Castaway numbering is primary.

Note: Many sources do not refer to numbering at all, instead referring to subtitle or year. Feel free to populate this table if more sources are found.

</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply