Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars season 4

Trinity Taylor's Original Placement
Trinity Taylor's original placement should say 3rd/4th as she was eliminated during the same round of the lip sync for the crown tournament in season 9. If you want specific's she lip synced and was eliminated before Shea which techinically would make her 4th place. Seeing as there are sources claiming all three options of placement it should reflect the season 9 page in which her placement has gone undisputed. Brocicle (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree theres no reason it shouldn't say 3rd/4th as it states on the RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) page. Dallasansel (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I disagree with its usage on other pages too. No one gets 3rd/4th place. People tie for 3rd. No one gets 7th/8th place. People tie for 7th. It's common sense. You can look at the reverse of it as well and say she was Top 4, but you wouldn't say she was Top 3/4. She was either tied for 3rd, or she was Top 4. Nihlus  16:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been used on mulitple seasons both regular and all stars using 3rd/4th, 11th/12th place etc. with accompanying sources, there hasn't been a problem with it in the past so why start now if it isn't broken. And you can't have 2 people in one 3rd place, that's why it's called 3rd, not 3rds. Brocicle (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a cop-out and a poor argument. The second line in that essay essentially counters your own argument. I know you like how you have everything set up on these pages and how you revert anything that deviates from your own vision of it, but I am saying that I disagree with something and explaining why. And people tie in competitions all the time (from television shows to the Olympics). What are you talking about? Nihlus  16:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How does it counter my own arguement when you're the one trying to change what's been used for years without issues? It was used long before I even started editing wikipedia, and I don't believe I've ever been the editor to actually add it in until changing your edit, so your seeimingly subtle personal attack and poor attempt attempt at shooting WP:OWN at me is irrelevant. I don't revert anything that "deviates", but if you wish to talk about that feel free to bring it to my talk page rather than attempting an ad hominem attack. Brocicle (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me walk you through it: On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it. Right there. Second sentence. You can look at WP:NOPROBLEM if you want to throw out more alphabet soup. And it's not a personal attack to point out your WP:OWNERSHIP behavior displayed on these articles. It's the reason I've avoided them for so long. Nihlus  16:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit doesn't improve the article due to conflicting sources. You cannot blame me for your lack of editing considering you're the only one who has the mindset. If you've had an apparent problem with my alleged (but false claim) ownership of articles there were plenty of opportunities to say something but you didn't, which leads me to believe you're only claiming this because I disagree with you, which has also happened in the past. If you want to discuss my behaviour further, take it to my talk page and stay on the topic at hand here. I will be asking for a third party comment to help resolve this situation.
 * There are multiple reliable sources claiming 3rd/4th placement for Trinity   . There is one claiming 3rd, and one claiming 4th . Please explain why the source claiming 3rd place is more valid compared to the rest for 3rd place usage over the other options. Brocicle (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE. Like I said before, she either tied for third or she made it to the Top 4. (Side note: those pages are likely using Wikipedia as a source, so you using them as a source is just circular sourcing and should be ignored.) Also, my claims aren't false. Me not saying anything before now doesn't validate or show approval of your editing patterns. Nihlus  17:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A high edit count doesn't equal ownership. If you actually looked at the edits majority are undoing vandalism to the progress tables. Again, your arguement is flawed. Please stay on topic of discussing the issue at hand rather than continuing your ad hominem attacks..
 * Where's the proof they used wikipedia as a source? You can't claim something that you have no evidence of. Again, what makes one source more correct than the others? Brocicle (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not ad hominem attacks. Until you realize that, I'm done discussing this with you. It's not worth the extra effort. Other people can join in and help form a consensus if they desire, but they should know these discussions are exercises in futility. Nihlus  17:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They are ad hominem attacks, if they weren't I wouldn't have said anything. I've requested a third opinion from an outside editor. Brocicle (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Technically you've already got a third opinion in favour of 3rd/4th from Dallasansel above, but I'll respond as well. If reliable sources disagree then it is our job to convey that disagreement. If we don't include the sources which say 4th or 3rd/4th, then we'd be forcing a particular POV into the article, which violates neutrality. I understand 3rd/4th may feel a little unpalatable to some editors, but making sense out of it could be a mild form of original research. You might consider another footnote on the table to explain the split places, if it is felt that some readers might be confused. This all assumes that those sources are reliable. If the sources are unreliable or mirror Wikipedia content, that's another matter. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Original season" and "Original placement" columns
The "Original season" and "Original placement" columns should be renamed. One cannot originally appear on two or three seasons. Perhaps, "Previous"? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Trinity "The Tuck"
Why do you insist on adding "The Tuck"? Almost no sourcing refers to her by this name thus far. (I mean, they may include this as a nickname, but this is definitely not how she is known.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Official cast promo photo calls her Trinity the Tuck rather than Trinity Taylor, and she said on her personal verified Twitter shes going by it for branding purposes. Unsure though whether that's what she will be going by on the show so should probably be left as Trinity Taylor until we know for sure. Brocicle (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but these 2 Tweets don't outweigh all the secondary coverage about Trinity Taylor using this name. Yes, I suppose we should wait to see how current coverage describes her. In the meantime, I suggest we stick to using the name of the parent article: Trinity Taylor. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no of course not, I was just providing a possible reason as to why it keeps being changed. I agree it should remain as Trinity Taylor per WP:COMMONNAME. Brocicle (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could add a note that she goes by that name as well, like we do for queens that have middle names or go by only their first name on the show? I don't know, just a thought.Gagaluv1 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until the show airs to add a note indicating she is referred to by that name, as we do not yet know how she is officially referred to during the show. Gemsweater1 (talk)
 * The first 13 minutes of episode 1 have been released, and it's pretty clear that Trinity has deliberately changed her name to Trinity the Tuck (around 1:15 in the video). Shall we incorporate that change into this and her personal article? Armadillopteryxtalk 22:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just saw it myself and I agree, it should be changed to Trinity The Tuck now that we have confirmation. Brocicle (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I undid a move of Trinity Taylor to Trinity The Tuck because most of the article's sources use Taylor still, but if you agree the page should be moved, please say on talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Trinity Taylor is what she's most know as and only recently started rebranding and The Tuck so I definitely agree with your decision per WP:COMMONNAME. Brocicle (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection?
Episode 3 has leaked on the WOW+ App. Not sure if anyone's tried to edit the article with the episode info. Could it be preemptively protected to avoid that?213.233.147.125 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The information should be added anyway. The fandom has already watched and commented on the episode so this gices us more time to work on things. Coleloc12 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan but appreciate watching the episodes as they air live, not as they leak. It's not fair to have spoilers appear in places in they shouldn't appear. This wiki should be for formally aired results only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:5080:5680:C591:19AB:9233:3EEE (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Placement for Episode 4
Valentina was clearly safe I think Naomi received mostly positive - so High? Trinity was mixed as well - so Safe? KyleCH5 (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources are putting Naomi as HIGH and Trinity as LOW. Dallasansel (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing then is to put Valentina, Naomi and Trinity as all being SAFE as this reduces the finer lines of ambiguity. As the competition moves on, it's harder to clearly identify a HIGH from a SAFE as the critiques will generally be harsher based on historical events. So, having them all as SAFE seems to be the "safe" option here. (There is an argument to made for Trinity as of being LOW however I am unsure unless others agree with this).


 * If we come to a conclusion of Trinity being LOW then sure, But, without any other backing, it is best to leave her (and the other two) as SAFE Badgerdog2 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Trinity and Naomi were critiqued positively on their runway but their performance in the challenge was critiqued negatively. Valentina was positively critiqued in the challenge but negatively critiqued for her runway. They should all be listed as cornsilk safe to avoid violating WP:NNPOV. Brocicle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Safe and cornsilk seems to be the best solution. I agree and think this should be the consensus. Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm new here and just wanted to put in my thoughts about it. I agree that they should all be considered as safe because Trinity and Naomi were positively critiqued on their runway looks but they had kind of a negative critique on their challenge. While Valentina had negative critiques on her runway look, but a positive critique on her challenge. So I agree that they all should be considered as safe.


 * RuPaul explicitly stated the three of them were SAFE while announcing the top two and the bottom two. In the previous three weeks, he'd stated TOP THREE and BOTTOM THREE before sending two of them to safety. Thus, we should only have Monique/Manila as the top two, Monét/Latrice as the bottom two, and the other three are safe with receiving critiques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpdrchbb (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * At this point it's noticeable that high and low placements are determined by the main challenge, not the runway. Also in the way RuPaul judges, it has been the same situation: runways are basically only taken into account to untie. Therefore, runways' critiques do not determine that they all should be labeled as safe, neither by the arguement that "RuPaul declared them safe" since all highs and lows are ultimately declared safe as well.


 * Naomi must be declared saved because she received mixed reviews, Trinity as Low because, even though she received good reviews about the runway, was still a negative critic for the acting, Valentina should stay High because she received only one negative review about her look, the rest it was just compliment. we should be based primarily on each other's performance on the challenges, so Naomi had a median performance, Trinity a poor performance and Valentina a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena505 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Contestant Progress - Episode 6
OK

For Manila and Monet this should be SAFE with the white background. Why? Being safe (and i.e. immune) meant they did not receive any critiques and thus this follows precedent. There is no need to add another colour and over complicate a table that is already pretty complicated.

For Latrice, I think it should be IN rather than WIN. Why? When Alyssa and Tati won their lipsyncs, Ru stated "You are a WINNER baby". With Latrice, Ru stated "Shantay you stay". And so, IN seems to be more logical. Badgerdog2 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that the SAFE color correction added by @theneondemon was more specific e clear. Its not being safe without judges critiques, they had immunity and for that they were safe so i think it should be different Endowe (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean okay, but how about putting IMMUNE instead then if we want to be specific? Where do you stand with Latrices' position? Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly latrice position confuse me a lot... i mean she won a lipsync not an entire challenge but someone can also say that if there was a winner that night its latrice and they’re right too. I think that a word for just winning a lipsync (and not a challenge) to re-entry the competition would be helpful but i really don’t know what to use. Suggestions? Endowe (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know what word to use.But wouldn't that make all the All Star girls that won their lip syncs not SAFE and instead WIN as they did "win"? Again, personally, IN seems to be the easiest and most logical as she won the lip sync and gained entrance back and we can even put this is even in the description for the colour so there is no ambiguity! Ru did not say that she was a "winner baby". What shall we do for Manila and Monet? Should we have immune then or safe but in another colour?


 * EXAMPLE


 * The contestant won the challenge and won the "Lip Sync for Your Legacy."
 * The contestant won the challenge but lost the "Lip Sync for Your Legacy."
 * The contestant won their lip sync in the LaLaPaRUza and remained in the competition.
 * The contestant had a chance to return, won their lip sync in the LaLaPaRUza, and re-entered the competition.
 * The contestant had a chance to return to the competition but lost their lip sync in the LaLaPaRUza, and was eliminated.
 * The contestant received immunity during the LaLaPaRUza and did not have to lip sync.
 * The contestant received positive judges' critiques but was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant received judges' critiques but was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant received negative judges' critiques but was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant was in the bottom and eligible for elimination.
 * The contestant was eliminated.

Badgerdog2 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe its better to put safe on the board as it was before and explain immunity in the color reference, i think its less confusonary to see and more relatable to the board of older seasons where a contestant was safe and had immunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endowe (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There has never been any indication for contestants with immunity for any regular or all stars season. Keeping with consistency Manila and Monet should be labelled as safe with no colour background. Immunity doesnt change the fact they were safe.
 * In regards to Latrice, it should be listed as WIN as she won re-entry into the competition after previously being eliminated, even Ru says it when describing how the lip sync challenge works they win re-entry. The entire challenge was the lip sync contest as stated by Ru in the episode calling it this weeks maxi challenge. Comparing with Morgan who was chosen by DeLa to return while Morgan didn't win the challenge which is why hers says in. Latrice is the same as Tati and Alyssa, just the fact that the lip sync was the challenge itself and not separate. Brocicle (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also here are some of the many secondary sources online referring to it as a challenge and Latrice as a winner

. Brocicle (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Manila and Monet being safe with no background. As for Latrice...


 * http://inmagazine.ca/2019/01/rupauls-drag-race-all-stars-4-episode-6-recap-lalaparuza/ - This source states that "They’re all winners baby, and so are we for making it through all of that".


 * https://tvline.com/2019/01/18/rupauls-drag-race-recap-monique-heart-not-eliminated-all-stars-4-episode-6/ - This source goes through each lip sync and lists whoever won the lip sync as the "winner".


 * https://www.vulture.com/2019/01/rupauls-drag-race-recap-season-4-episode-6.html - This source states Latrice as the winner.


 * I think the best thing to do then is to assume good faith and have Latrice as WIN and the girls as SAFE using this source which states Latrice as win: https://www.vulture.com/2019/01/rupauls-drag-race-recap-season-4-episode-6.html''' Badgerdog2 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources also referred to the lip syncs as that week's challenge so it wasn't "Just a lip sync", and further confirming Latrice won the challenge. Brocicle (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, Latrice did not win any prize nor money for that lipsync, so she isn't technically a winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyvie (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ratings for Episode 6
The ratings for episode 6 haven't been updated on the page but they are available here: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-friday-cable-originals-network-finals-1-18-2019.html through Showbuzz daily, the same reference that has been used for all previous episode viewership this season.
 * I added the ratings for this episode. Thanks for the heads up that they were posted! --Yompi20 (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Designations of Monet and Monique as HIGH for Episode 7
There seems to be a bit of an edit war about the exact designations of Monet and Monique based off of the table. My take on this is that since they were all declared safe simultaneously, they should all be marked as having received he judge's critiques and declared safe.

I know a user provided a source about them being HIGH, but I would like to point out that said source is an opinion piece, and even then, is just a regurgitation of the critiques given by the judges. At no point does it say Monet and Monique were HIGH and Manila was SAFE. The claim that the source supports this is just an interpretation made by the editor, again, based off an opinion piece. Genavieve (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Monique received negative critiques on her runway, that does not make her HIGH. They're both declared SAFE at the same time as Manila with no distinction. To adhere to WP:NPOV Monique, Manila, and Monet should be SAFE with cornsilk. Here are other sources saying they're all just safe  Brocicle (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed and a call to to stop edit warring over this.  Nihlus  07:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Season 1's Ongina received positive critiques for the challenge and negative critiques on the runway on episode 3, yet she is marked as HIGH. Same thing occured with Season 3's Shangela on episode 9 where she is marked as HIGH. Therefore HIGH and LOW placements seem to have been based on challenge critiques ONLY since the beginning of the series, therefore, no runway critiques must change Monét and Monique's SAFE placement on episode 7 of All Stars 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yviemike (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Smalls and Monique Hearts Placements
There seems to be a little disagreement with how both Naomi and Monique should be placed, some who agree and some who disagree with me. By definition a runner-up is second to the crown, normally this would only apply to the one who lost out in the final lip sync, but since both the top 2 won it’s different this time. Besides the fact that multiple sources are calling both girls the “runners-up” it’s just a downright fact that the person or persons who just miss out on the crown are classified as the runner-up. Feel free to leave your opinion as I do want to hear both sides. Dallasansel (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They weren't eligible to lip sync, therefore not eligible to win the crown, making them 3rd/4th. Find a source proclaiming them to be runners up, otherwise it's OR. Brocicle (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They're 3rd/4th until proven otherwise. Nihlus  20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nits/typos..
Typos in recent finale adds:
 * "Rumway Theme" s/b "Runway Theme".
 * Winner shows "RuPual's" s/b "RuPaul's".

Title of Episode 9 should be "Sex and the Kitty, Girl 3" (ref, see 7:45 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spbWMhsbH9o ). Minimally, should have a comma before "Girl", multiple places on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.39.220 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Trinity and Monet placement
Alphabetical order has been used sometimes for runner-ups but not all the times. If you see the situations where a runner up had more points than another EVEN THO the alphabetical order was supposed to shown them in a certain way it was displayed by track records. The fact that the alphabetical order matches with the track records presentations most of the times is just a coincidence. I think that trinity should be put in the first line only because its more flattering looking at the board (ex: monet’s first low) and because she has most wins and less bottoms. We can decide to do it this way cause its the first time we have two winners and the fairest thing to do is display them by points. Endowe (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, but maybe we can highlight the winners rows the same color so readers clearly see there are 2 winners? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no points. There is only a final decision made to determine the winners; anything leading up to the finale is irrelevant. It goes by alphabetical order whenever there are two people eliminated on the same episode, and it's like that on every page. Anything else is WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV. Nihlus  19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally agree. Trinity should be displayed first cause there are more wins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoknewaboutit (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But its not like a runner-ups situation, the placement of the winners needs to be displayed off of the competition itself, this is the fairest way possible. Also this is the first case where we have two winners so we can state that this is how double-crowned queens are gonna be shown, btw yes there are points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endowe (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you can demonstrate sources are leading with Monet over Trinity, then please share them here, otherwise there does not seem to be consensus to make changes to how their names are displayed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be alphabetical, that's the fairest and most neutral way to display information without showing a bias regardless of whether trinity had more wins than monét. For the time that I've been involved with editing these pages there has never been the system where wins are chosen alphabetically.Brocicle (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m just saying that we’re talking about winners and thats enough to say thay we should base this particular cases off of track records. There are no precedent situations that we can ‘copy’ and the runner-ups placement can’t be compared cause this is on another level. Also as i was saying its more good-looking for the board too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The appearance is irrelevant as is the WP:OR that one did better than the other. Nihlus  00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding that I think the placement in the Contestant Progress table should be alphabetical as well. This is consistent with the treatment in the summary box in the upper right corner, the opening paragraph, and the contestant listing -- all three show Monet, then Trinity. In past seasons when there has been a situation where two contestants had the same placement, the treatment has been alphabetical. Season 4 is Chad then Phi Phi, season 5 is Alaska then Roxxxy, season 6 is Adore then Courtney, etc. Even in cases where there was a double elimination (for example, Honey and Vivienne in season 5), the treatment was alphabetical. Not to mention that on this very page we show Monique then Naomi, but for some reason that isn't an issue. In all these cases, the treatment was alphabetical regardless of win/loss record, some dubious system of "points", the contestant's placement in the first episode, or for the "look" of the board. The alphabetical treatment should be followed here as well. Yompi20 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks completely ridiculous like that but go off i guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endowe (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that immediately after this statement Endowe continued their edit war on the page. Nihlus  01:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Highs and lows
Please stop adding and changing highs and lows on the board, right after episode 3 who doesn’t win or be in the bottom should be marked as cornsilk safe like it was before. Its becoming messy. Opinions? Tullyo (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There has never been any rule on Wikipedia that after the third episode we stop caring about high/low and just mark everybody cornsilk-safe if they weren't explicitly top or bottom. That's not the way it's done, and it's never been the way it was done, either in-show or here. Please stop imposing your own rules over community consensus. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Result box color code captioning
The caption for the following result  should be changed to read as:
 * The contestant received positive judges' critiques but was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant received positive judges' critiques and was declared safe."

Reasoning: The default result for receiving positive critique should be that the person is declared safe. That is best stated by saying "and was declared safe". Using the word but implies that this was an exception, as would be done whenever a person received a negative review but was allowed to be safe nonetheless. We can see that being safe is the default outcome for someone receiving a positive critique, because out of all four possible combinations, the only one that does not have its own color box is the positive/not safe combination:

That means this eventuality where a person who receives a positive critique but is declared not safe has either never happened, or is not possible with the show's scoring system, in which case the caption should be changed to imply that being safe for positive critiques is a forgone conclusion. Also, the following: As there are already boxes for receiving positive and negative critiques and being declared safe, this seems redundant, as critiques can be either positive or negative. I'm not sure about this — is it really possible to offer constructive criticism which says neither? Or is it the case that they received both positive and negative in one critique and were declared safe. If that is the case, then I think that colored caption should state that they received both. Saying that they just received a critique is vague, unless that is the general understanding of what receiving a critique means. That would require that a person had watched the show and knew that, in order to decipher the table. That requirement seems to limit the table's accessibility. Spintendo 03:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The contestant received judges' critiques but was ultimately declared safe.

Real names
Why did you remove the contestants' real names? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

based on this link ["RfC on names of transgender contestants" from this [[Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race|talk Page]]-- Happypillsjr    ✉    20:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Contestant Progress
A user recently attempted to fix a page after it was changed by another user who edit the page to have false information. Any wikipedia experts willing to change it back? Kind regards Ruairi2222 Ruairi2222 (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on table
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul%27s Drag Race. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Snatch Game of Love
Snatch Game of Love redirects to this season. As seen in the preview for episode 5 of All Stars 5, there it will be Snatch Game of Love again. When it is in two seasons, it can't redirect to one season anymore, so I think it just should redirect to Snatch Game. --Blobstar (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020
Wish to obviously point out the error in the fact the elimination table incorrectly states Monique heart was listed as winner and Trinity the tuck as runner up, they were both declared winner 2001:8004:27A0:BE3A:60A2:CA41:5870:FC24 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: The contestants table labels them both as winners so no issue with sources for me. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realised this is a pending changes page not semi but I have done the change now... Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 21:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Holi-Slay Spectacular in Contestants
The Holi-Slay Spectacular is listed as a previous season for Latrice & Jasmine as an 'original season' in the Contestant section, I think it should be removed for the following reasons;

1. Holi-Slay aired after All Stars 4, so it literally hadn't happened at the time of filming. 2. It's a spin-off, not a main season of Drag Race. 3. It's not a competitive season (They all won). So has no bearing on the contestants history. 4. Mayhem doesn't have Holi-Slay for the AS5 page, so can we at least be consistant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5C89:BF00:C999:348C:49C6:9C8B (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)