Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC review on "RfC on names of transgender contestants"

Admins have been asked to review the closure at ["RfC on names of transgender contestants" after one editor has begun unilaterally censoring all civilian names of all contestants, not only transgender contestants. The review is here. -Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on names of transgender contestants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should the real names of transgender contestants who transition after their appearance on the show be used in articles on seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race? Nihlus 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1: Current name used only
• Option 2: Current name used with footnotes mentioning former name
• Option 3: Former name used with footnotes mentioning current name
• Option 4: Former name used only

Survey

• List credited names only. From looking at the articles, it appears that these names aren't used in the credits of the show, but are instead tracked down in secondary sources. I don't see the point, in an article about the show, of listing names that are neither credited nor the names the individuals are popularly known by.--Trystan (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. To those who aren't aware, note that this RfC follows on from this RfC about season 2 contestant Kylie Love (drag name Sonique). I'm simply going to copy my comment from there, which was written about Drag Race contestants in general:
  The legal names of contestants are very rarely mentioned on the show, so this isn't a matter of omitting information that is important to understanding the show. This is a matter of allowing people to find out more information about the contestants, and for that we need two names: their drag name; and their current name. I should clarify that current name is what the person wishes to be called, not their legal name, for the same reason that we refer to Muhammad Ali rather than Cassius Clay (a legal name he never changed)—it's both common courtesy and correct to use the name they go by. This is particularly important in the case of transgender contestants, who generally have very strong objections to using their wrong-gendered name. For those who aren't particularly familiar with trans issues, the analogy of gay people is relevant here: we wouldn't call a gay person "formerly straight" when talking about their life before coming out, because they have always been gay; here, we shouldn't be using a male name to describe a person who has always been female, or vice versa. Finally, the most relevant policy is MOS:GENDERID: "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." Well, contextually it makes sense to describe a person, in table columns where it says "Name", by... their name. Not some former legal name.
  To add to this, I'd like to say that of course information must follow WP:BLP, so we can't include current names unless mentioned in reliable sources (but primary sources are fine for this). If we have no source, but reasonable doubt that a person is using the name they used at the time of the competition, the deadname should be removed (the cell could perhaps read "—" or "N/A"). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 (Option 2 may be acceptable but is not preferable. I reject options 3 and 4.) I'll paraphrase some of what I've said in the ongoing Wachowski RfC: Wikipedia should not go out of its way to misgender people. Mainstream style guides and publications are generally in agreement that people's gender identities should be respected; Wikipedia should follow their lead. The Reuters style guide, for example, says "Always use a transgender person's chosen name." A recent New York Times blurb on V for Vendetta credits the writers as "Lana and Lilly Wachowski" even though the Wachowski sisters were not going by those names when that movie was released. The Times understands they don't have a claim on the Wachowskis' gender, just like you don't have any claim on my gender, just like I don't have any claim on yours. A person's gender is what they say it is, by definition. To say otherwise is to deny a fundamental part of a person's identity - to dehumanize them. This Wikipedia essay is a good primer on this topic. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Addition: Upon consideration I'll also vote for using drag names only. Looking over the official Drag Race site I see that drag names are the only ones listed there. But if non-drag-names are used option 1 still the best choice. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• OPTION 1 IS THE ONLY OPTION. Period. Option 2 may be considered. Options 3 and 4 are purely transphobic, and I am sick to death of obviously straight and/or cis people wilfully refusing to learn that forcing use of a trans person's deadname is not only wrong, it is violence against trans people. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. I know it says Ages and names stated are at time of contest but I always understood this as referring to drag names, e.g., "Trinity Taylor" for S9 but "Trinity The Tuck" for AS4; "Shangela Laquifa Wadley" for S2, "Shangela" for S2, AS3. Their names out of drag don't appear on chyrons or in the credits or in any official promotional material for the show; the sources used for their non-drag names aren't necessarly published "at time of contest" (e.g., the source for Yuhua's name in RPDR9 is from 2011, the source for Bebe's name in RPDR1 is from 2018) so it's not like all the sources for names are from when the season first aired anyway. List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants doesn't even have a column for non-drag names after BLP concerns, there are still questionably-used sources for non-drag names (e.g., "BracketYard.com" for Vanessa in RPDR10 which presumably just took all contestants' names from the Drag Race wikia or an earlier, unsourced version of Wikipedia). I wonder if it's even necessary to have non-drag names in the article considering they're not mentioned in the show itself. But I definitely don't think there's any reason to deadname trans contestants. Umimmak (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also okay with Drag/credited/stage names only Umimmak (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• List credited names only. As Bilorv notes, the legal names of contestants are generally not mentioned on the show and IMO are not inherently important enough to include on season pages, either. Current and former names can be dealt with sensitively, in context, and on a case-by-case basis in contestants' standalone articles when such exist. To me, Ages and names stated are at time of contest refers to all names present unless stated otherwise. Therefore, if we are to leave legal names in the tables in season articles, I vote for option 3 so that the tables do not neglect current names but also are not factually inaccurate -- after all, current names were not used at the specified age. Therefore, to avoid deadnaming, I find it preferable to simply drop the legal names from season articles. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One option: changing the wording of that notice (from Ages and names [...], to Ages and drag names [...] or similar). WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 07:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• My opinion on this is very straightforward reality TV articles in general should only used the name credited at the time of filming. In the case of RuPaul's Drag Race if their out of drag names are not mentioned on the show and they are only referred to by their drag names while on the show then the season articles and contestant lists should exclude their out of drag names. From the seasons I've seen the contestants are referred to by their drag names via on screen graphics and credits. With season articles about reality TV shows in general the contestant's name, age, occupation, etc should be what was used during filming. My reasoning for this is the season article should match up with the episodes of the show in the event someone watches the season like ten years down the road. This rational is not transphobic but is to avoid confusion when an un-involved reader watches a season for the first time and comes to Wikipedia to find out more information about the season. So if there is someone that was known as "Jason" during filming the season article should reflect that even if the person changed their name for any reason after filming was completed. The individual articles of the contestants however should be updated in accordance with MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• "This rational (sic) is not transphobic" -- yes it is. Deadnaming without explicit permission is always transphobic, in the same way the n-word is always racist, f-g is always homophobic, etc. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• List credited names only. Second choice is Option 3. We aren't changing Caitlyn Jenner's name on her Olympic articles, so I am unconvinced that referring to someone's name at a certain point in time is an issue if it is referring to the past and not the present. Removing the names would be preferably given the rude comments and hostile nature of some of the participants in this discussion. I do not support Option 1. Nihlus 19:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• In a shocking turn of events, you might find people would be less hostile if you would stop advocating for transphobic policy. Again, do you understand what deadnaming is and why it is violence against trans people? Yes or no, it's not a difficult question. You understand or you don't. Which is it? 24.138.76.242 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Names are not "violence" any more than they are vegetables, animals, or minerals, so drop the silly hyperbole. You need to chill in general because they way you act is a fast track to a block. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose options 2, 3 and 4 as a rule. I continue to think this RfC is misguided in the attempt to make one rule for everyone where individuals may have indicated a specific preferences we should respect. However as a place to begin from, the default should be to follow MOS:GENDERID's preference for the most recent self-designation in reliable sources and if sources indicate a different preference in handling the past, then adjust accordingly. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Innisfree987, please provide examples of how this rule will conflict with someone's preference if it were to be adopted. Additionally, MOS:GENDERID applied to articles about the individual specifically, not every article. Nihlus 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Nihlus, I'm starting to feel badgered. You have a different view; I get it. I was just registering mine as a formal ivote (as the RfC seems likely to wrap up soon): that we should extend MOS:GENDERID here if we must have a rule. I'll answer your questions but then I'm done here; I think my views are clear enough. Examples: I added to deadname, for instance, a study showing that generally using preferred name reduces measurable, material harm to transgender adolescents. Such findings (of which this is just one example) show us that implementing 2, 3 or 4 is plainly out of line with the general principle of avoiding harm to living individuals when it is avoidable (very certainly it is here). At the same time, individuals may voice different preferences about use of their former name, which we should categorically respect for their individual cases, so long as they're reliable sourced: for instance, as on the Daniel Mallory Ortberg talk page. But I cannot stress enough: this should strictly be a matter of respecting individual preference when we can confirm it, given we have significant community opinion (see the very term "deadname") as well as scientific evidence that Ortberg's personal feelings are not broadly generalizable. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Innisfree987, you are not being badgered. This is your first participation in this discussion here where you have provided a confusing rationale that I am seeking to clarify. You also misquoted a policy in order to support your choice. I also would like to point out to the closer of this discussion that you did not provide an example of how a general rule would negatively impact any of the Drag Race articles we currently have. You also did not speak to the limitations of MOS:GENDERID and instead, ask that we extend it beyond the scope that it was intended in order to somehow make sense of your argument. This is not the place to expand or change the MOS:GENDERID policy. Nihlus 20:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3, reject options 1, 2, and 4. Per same reasoning as Alucard 16 above and my own reason that I stated on the RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2) talk page in the first RfC that I won't rehash. Alternatively I would okay with removing out of drag names completely if that's the consensus. Brocicle (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, clearly. Per above. Drag culture has a lot of quirks/exceptions and grey area, esp. with names, but this is not one of them. Cut and dried. theonesean 05:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Either Option 1, or just ditch the list of real names entirely. The name the person used out of drag is not essential to an understanding of the show — the contestants are not credited by their real names on the air at all, and while there have been isolated instances of some queens' real names being spoken, that hasn't been true of all of the queens (which is why the lists of names have to rely on outside sources rather than the show itself), and even when it was true it was still a one-off glancing namecheck that remained completely inessential to an understanding of the show anyway. So the idea that it's contextually important for the list to stick with "real names as used at the time" doesn't really wash, because it isn't contextually important for the list to provide any real names at all. So if you want real names present, then it's Option 1; if you're not comfortable with Option 1, then the alternative is "get rid of the real names column entirely" rather than any option that treats the names as not subject to the same rules around gender identity issues that actual BLPs about the queens would have to follow. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• As I've said elsewhere, I don't know that this is a one-size-fits-all question. I suggest adding a fifth option saying none of the above (in lieu of a more elaborate conversation on considerations to weigh, for instance, what the person has indicated about their preferences, how extensively they are discussed in the entry and thus how much weight the inclusion of a former name would put on their transition, etc.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  Innisfree987, this is easily solved by saying that this is a preferred method but local discussion can overrule it if necessary. That being said, I've yet to see a case where one individual would need to be treated differently than the others. I'm not interested in hypothetical scenarios. Nihlus 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  It is absolutely one-size-fits-all. We refer to people by the names they prefer and which they are known by. Period. Referring to trans people by their deadnames is transphobic. Period. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Dial down the rhetoric. You've made your position known through the copious amounts of personal attacks you have levied against individuals. Additionally, do not assume the status of other individuals (whether they're straight, gay, cis, or trans). Actually, just stop talking about other people and focus on the topic at hand. Nihlus 18:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  You can stop telling me what to do, is what you can do. When you demonstrate that you're even qualified to be part of this discussion--which so far you have decidedly not; claiming that deadnaming isn't transphobic is the giveaway that you're not qualified--I'll give a damn about what you have to say. And not a single moment before. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  An individual should not be forced to produce evidence of whether or not they're qualified to a stranger online. That it forcefully outing someone. Your continued personal attacks and attempts at trying to get people to tell you how they identify is unwarranted and continued behaviour may required being looked into by an administrator as you have been warned in the past but still continue. Brocicle (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently you didn't bother reading what I wrote. Quelle surprise. If you do not understand that deadnaming is transphobic, you are not qualified to have this discussion. That is what I said. You can see for yourself. By all means, show me in that statement where I demanded to out someone. You can't. I did, however, demand that people involved in a conversation actually comprehend the subject at hand. You don't, Nihlus doesn't, anyone else who thinks that deadnaming isn't transphobic doesn't. It is roughly akin to someone wanting to weigh in on a decision about racist behaviour who doesn't understand that the n-word is racist. That's the bottom line here. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, I will no longer be taking you seriously or responding to your comments at all. Insult people again, and I will seek to have you blocked. Nihlus 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  "Waah, I don't understand the subject matter and someone called me on it, so I'm going to get them removed." Pffft. Do you, yes or no, understand what deadnaming is? Do you, yes or no, understand that it is transphobic? If you answered no to either question, you are not qualified to be in this discussion. If you answered yes to both questions, I am perplexed at your claim that deadnaming isn't transphobic. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I went back and forth on the question of whether to ditch or keep the list of non-drag names. One thing I considered is that, since the uncredited non-drag names have to be researched and referenced, their inclusion inadvertently provides the articles with a hefty set of references with lots of nice interviews and articles about the contestants. At first I thought it would be a shame to wipe all those links out. But then it struck me that it would be odd to keep information in the main article that I agree isn't very notable just for the sake of links in the references section. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Those reliable sources/links can be used in other aspects of the article. Scripted shows use bits from interviews to help expand a season article in areas such as production, reception, release, etc. (See Game of Thrones (season 1) as an example) Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Close challenged

This closure is being challenged here as it is not an appropriate summation of the discussion. Nihlus 04:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

After this discussion, I have reverted the close and will ask that a new close be performed. Nihlus 19:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion

Since users wish to drag this discussion out, I will ask for clarification from those who voted for listing only credited names. @Trystan, WanderingWanda, Umimmak, Armadillopteryx, Alucard 16, Bearcat, and Brocicle: Did you vote to remove every single contestant's name from the RuPaul's Drag Race articles or remove only the names of the trans contestants? Nihlus 20:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

My vote was clearly to remove all the real names and to list the credited names only for all contestants. I thought this was clear, but here we are. Nihlus 20:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah if we're going this route it would be only having drag names for everyone, not just the trans contestants. Umimmak (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Credited (i.e., drag) names only for everyone was my intent as well.--Trystan (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Either everyone's non-drag names should be removed or nobody's should be. I would strongly object to just removing the trans names. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My vote is to list credited names only for all contestants. There is certainly no reason to single out trans contestants. That would introduce a new problem, not resolve the present one. Armadillopteryx^talk 02:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

For all contestants. Brocicle (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My intent was for credited (drag) names only since the show doesn't used RL names and only refers to the contestants by their drag names during the show. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jaida Essence Hall .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jaida.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jaida RPDR 12.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Carson on Judge Table

I was just wondering if you agree that Carson should be marked down as a 'Guest' for season 11 on the table, as Ross is for All Stars 2 on the All Stars page, as he has only appeared on one episode this season and will not appear again this week. Thanks! ECW03 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they're considered main judges no matter how many times they have appeared. Brocicle (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Should Ross be made a main judge on the All Stars page then? Thanks! ECW03 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

He was not main for 1 and 2, just 3 and 4 :) Brocicle (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-eliminations

I removed the use of lavender-colored backgrounds from non-eliminations as I don't believe it needs its own color to convey what no one being eliminated means. The wording on the note below the table ("Due to the quality of the lipsync, Rupaul decided to keep both of the queens") is poorly worded as well. Does anyone else feel this information is necessary, and, if so, how would you word it better than that? Nihlus 23:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree no colour is necessary, it's self explanatory. Brocicle (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

All Stars section on main season articles

Since we're getting more and more all stars seasons lately, does anyone think it might suit the articles for the individual regular seasons better to include a section of contestants from that season who went on to do All Stars, since including it in the article intro is getting to be a bit long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuM00d (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

List of guest judges

Somewhat related to the above discussion, I've also removed the long and unsourced list of guest judges. I'm not really sure how this benefits the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

List of non-binary, genderqueer or genderfluid contestants

I think the list of non-binary, genderqueer or genderfluid contestants should be sourced or removed. I'm not entirely sure the current list is entirely accurate. For example, BenDeLaCreme is mention, but the subject's Wikipedia article mentions nothing about gender identity, preferred pronouns, etc. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, if it isn't properly sourced, I agree it should be removed. We require sourcing to say the subject is non-binary in their own article, so that sourcing should be easy to bring in. And for people like BenDeLaCreme, if it doesn't exist, the name shouldn't be on the list. Armadillopteryx 16:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I've removed the unsourced text. I am not against someone adding back names with sourcing, but we can't just make a claim without evidence. -16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, I agree. I meant that the list should stay only if someone actually brings the sourcing over from those other articles; we shouldn't keep unsourced anything here. Armadillopteryx 16:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content

There is way, way too much unsourced text throughout this article. I see I've already annoyed one editor by removing the unsourced "Music" section. Wikipedia has rules about sourcing. I'm prepared to move large chunks of unsourced content unless editors are willing to make some improvements. This is not a threat, just a declaration of a planned course of action in order to make this page more compliant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll try to add some sources where I can. --Scootersfood (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Scootersfood, Wonderful, thank you! Happy to see several editors collaborating right now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Series overview" restructure

In the Series overview section, I converted the 13 subsections for each season into 2 subsections splitting the show's history by network. The purpose is to reduce to overall number of subheadings. I've also converted the single thumbs into a couple multi-image galleries. I hope editors think this is an improvement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. More concise text, more efficient and centralized use of space. Armadillopteryx 03:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Thanks. I'm definitely open to prose improvements. I've been making some minor adjustments to wording and attempting to make the text somewhat consistent across seasons, but some copy editing, trimming, and sourcing are still needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes

For this section, I propose:

• removing mention of the prizes for each season in the prose since details are displayed in the table
• removing mention of specific Pit Crew members because who cares... (too much detail for a series overview)

Any opposition? As I mentioned above, this section needs additional work, but I want to focus on these 2 changes for now. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the first point but definitely think discussing individual members of Pit Crew is not at all WP:DUE. Armadillopteryx 04:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for Untucked

Can anyone find a source that mentions which seasons Untucked aired on TV vs. online only? I found that info relevant enough to leave in, but I couldn't find any RS for it, so I've left it with a Citation needed tag for now. Armadillopteryx 05:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Scootersfood (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Scootersfood: Thanks for adding a source! It seems to confirm when Untucked moved online, but we still need a source to show when it came back to TV. Have you seen any? I'll look, too. Armadillopteryx 22:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx: I could be wrong but I believe one of the previous sources I added mentioned that with the Season 10 VH1 Untucked Premiere, it was also shifting from a Youtube format back to a TV format.Scootersfood (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Found it and added it inline. Thanks! Armadillopteryx 22:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Format" section

I am not going to remove all the unsourced text immediately, but I do want to point out that the vast majority of the "Format" section is currently unsourced. Do we need this much detail? Are there ways we can incorporate some sourcing to enhance the article's integrity? I am seeking editor feedback here and won't act unilaterally. I'd like editors to please keep in mind, we don't need this article to be as detailed as possible -- we need to provide readers with a good overview to gain an understanding of the subject. I welcome all concerns and suggestions here. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with paring it down (and, obviously, with sourcing everything presently unsourced). But we certainly don't need commentary like the USA Today quote in that section. A few direct, concise sentences should be enough. Armadillopteryx 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, If we need to wait for more editors to weigh in, that's fine, but I also wonder if you'd be willing to take a stab at removing unnecessarily detail. I just think there's too much text here for readers to get a quick and decent understanding of the show's format. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I guess I can. I see you're heavily editing the article at the moment—are you going to be in that section at all? Don't want to have edit conflicts. Armadillopteryx 23:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I will not. And don't feel obligated, I just think some obvious trimming would be helpful by an editor other than myself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've redone and mostly sourced the intro paragraph of that section and its first subsection. How much detail do we want to keep in all the following subsections? Armadillopteryx 01:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I've now gone through the Judge section as well. I'm tempted to remove the entire section on Untucked and simply mention/summarize it in a sentence or two in this section's main paragraph; what do you think? Armadillopteryx 02:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, What about expanding the "Spin-offs" section to "Spin-offs and related media" and having summaries of Whatcha Packin' and The Pit Stop there? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Like. I'll wait until Scootersfood is done in that section before restructuring so we don't end up with edit conflicts. Armadillopteryx 03:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Armadillopteryx! I'm done for now. --Scootersfood (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks for adding all that sourcing! I'll go start some restructuring. Armadillopteryx 03:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer and Scootersfood, what should we do with the photo montage of the four judges? Now that a lot of text has been cut out, it doesn't fit easily anywhere remotely near the Judging section. Should we maybe make it into a gallery or something? I've commented it out for now, because it looked terrible no matter where I tried moving it. Armadillopteryx 04:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I say we convert into a multi-image gallery similar to the ones I made for the series overview section. If the gallery is too wide to fit next to the judges table with color-coded cells, we could try creating a key and eliminating the words "Guest", etc, in the cells, to condense the table's width. Just a thought. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, it could definitely fit next to the table, even as is if I left-justify it ... I just think that looks messy. I was thinking something like the gallery you made at Rebar (New York City) might make sense here, but I'm open to any solution, really. Do you want to go ahead and try something? I was going to go work on the Lip sync section now. Armadillopteryx 04:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx,  Done Open to adjustments, but this gets the ball rolling. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, thanks, definitely an improvement! It still displays with a lot of white space and with the collage forced down below the infobox on my screen. What does it look like for you? Armadillopteryx 05:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, For me, the infobox ends in the mini/maxi challenge section, so I see the gallery at the top of the judges section (as intended), floating to the right of the table. I'm not bothered by the gallery floating wherever; I think illustrating the current judges is helpful even if not displayed directly next to the table. I'm sure things will continue to shuffle around a bit as we continue to work on the page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, fair enough. By the way, looking at the Lip sync section now, I'm almost tempted to just cut it out. I've summarized the LSFYL in the main paragraph anyway, and the rest of the details are season-specific anomalies that, IMO, are more appropriate in season articles. And this is to say nothing of totally irrelevant details that probably shouldn't be here at all, like what "C.U.N.T." stands for. What do you think? Armadillopteryx 22:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I'm open to trimming much of the Lip sync section; feel free to do so as you see fit. I'd be okay with keeping brief mention of 'charisma, uniqueness, nerve, and talent' and a general overview of the qualities Ru seeks in the top queen, but we don't need to mention all the exceptions to the traditional 'lip sync'. I've been working to reduce the overall # of section headings, so I have no problem with removing this one as well if the details fit in the parent 'Format' section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Alright, I've removed the Lip sync section and merged the main details into the overview paragraph. Armadillopteryx 19:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Looks good! Thanks for your work on this section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Disqualification Color, Quit Color, Removed Color

So on Season 4, All Stars 2, Season 9 and Season 12, the color for disqualification, quit, and removed are all the same color. I think that they should all be different colors because they mean different things. For example, Willam's disqualification in Season 4 was always brown, until Sherry Pie was disqualified in Season 12, then it changed to maroon. Adore Delano quitting in All Stars 2, I think can remain maroon. And Eureka's removal should be a violet or color like it was before. Disqualification should be brown, quitting should be maroon, and removal should be violet. I don't think there should be one color for things meaning different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.131.69 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Award nomination

• 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Chronology and related links

Is it necessary to have all the Drag Race franchises on here? There is the own Drag Race (franchise) page, therefore this isn't needed. Other reality competition programmes such as The X Factor, The Voice and Idol don't have other franchises on their regardless if there are same judges on international versions... --94.5.190.56 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Music" section

I should note, the entire "Music" section (with the exception of the very first claim; Tunefind does not seem like a reliable source) is unsourced. How important is this information? Should we remove or work to source? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Music is a huge part of the show, and many of the challenges revolve around the music. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I'm not suggesting otherwise. But Wikipedia content should be sourced. None of this content is sourced, which is a problem. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Music section for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, well so much for any discussion. As you know unsourced doesn’t mean not able to source. So now, that you’ve removed it essentially all that work has gone to waste. And all you had to do was tag it. What a shame. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, The markup still exists in the article history and can easily be retrieved and re-added appropriately. Not a loss. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Then in the spirit of collaboration, please restore it and add any sourcing cleanup tags needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, No, I'm not willing to add back unsourced text, sorry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So you’ve removed a huge section, important to the article and series, because you couldn’t be bothered to actually have a discussion about it, or simply add a sources needed tag. That is incredibly non-collegial and disruptive. It is simply wasting other editors’ time. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I'm following Wikipedia's rules, so don't get mad at me. Perhaps another editor will weigh in here or assist with retrieving and sourcing the markup. @Armadillopteryx: Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer and Gleeanon409, why don't we just collect sources and add a draft of the old markup to either this talk page or a sandbox, and then it can be pasted back into the article space when ready? Armadillopteryx 22:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I'm not opposed. I've explained why the content was removed, and I will continue to remove unsourced content. Thanks for participating in this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That is incredibly disingenuous, the vast majority of all content on Wikipedia is unsourced. But we don’t remove it, we tag it for sourcing IF it seems dubious, etc. You’re not even claiming anything wasn’t accurate, just missing sourcing. I think that’s wasting other editors energy who have to cleanup after your destruction. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry if you disagree, and I certainly wouldn't say "the vast majority of all content on Wikipedia is unsourced". Please don't take this content removal personally. The markup can be easily retrieved and placed back into the article, not the end of the world. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gagaluv1: Making you aware of this discussion, since you attempted to add the music content back. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of this. I personally do not think it's a big deal. We don't have sources for episode summaries or for saying who wins the challenges in each episode or what the lipsyncs are. The show is its own source and there is nothing in this section that is not directly from the show.Gagaluv1 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, guys! I don't know if this discussion is closed or not, but I noticed the discography has been removed. Would it be plausible to create a separate page for this discography of the show? It would only include songs performed/sung by the contestants of the show. --Wansawansa (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wansawansa, See Draft:RuPaul's Drag Race discography ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jaida Essence Hall.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race: The Mobile Game = RuPaul's Drag Race Superstar‎ (?)

I think the previously announced RuPaul's Drag Race: The Mobile Game has been released as RuPaul's Drag Race Superstar‎? I've redirected the latter to this page, just in case, but the article's prose may require updating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 3 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gylarae01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Runner up error

For season 3 - the third runner up was not Yara Sofia, it was Alexis Mateo. For proof please refer to the last episode of season 3 on Hulu. 2603:6011:8821:3100:8CC5:89A6:A46B:B38C (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The only mention of Yara Sofia in the article is her winning Miss Congeniality. Scootersfood (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)