Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 2/Archive 1

Redirecting
Can you please stop redirecting this page? The season airs starting next month. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - When it starts is completely irrelevant. Per MOS:TV and standard practice, we don't create season articles until there is something substantial to include in the article, such as a sourced episode table and/or substantial production information. Where the only information is minor, like notification of a renewal, MOS:TVUPCOMING applies and the information should be included in the lead of the LoE page. This has been alluded to or stated in every redirection and you have ignored each and every edit summary, which is bordering on disruptive editing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the current state of the article shows keeping is appropriate. Thanks, -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Obviously more than just me disagree with you. Please do not redirect again without discussing. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The information added by other editors now justifies keeping the article. Keeping your version was not at all justified. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, ok, whatever... Moving on! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please can somebody just put the contestant progress table back to normal and update it following Thursdays episode. It’s really not difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin161 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Episode 2 Mini Challenge voting history
Here's the voting history of the episode 2 Mini Challenge, which I think is interesting trivia for most Drag Race viewers (I know I would personally take the time to read the table if I stumbled upon it). A random user edited it out saying it's not relevant to the page, but I don't see why we should leave any kind of information out of Wikipedia. I'm going to leave this here and let the community decide whether it deserves to be on the page or not.

G.R.Scott 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode 3 progress chart
Why are Ellie & Tayce listed as LOW? They both got very positive critiques despite losing their duels. They should be listed as SAFE. 2A00:23C7:7BB6:ED01:6459:5A42:44DA:4993 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained in the notes and edit summaries, RuPaul herself said at the start of the episodes that there would be no safe queens, only tops and bottoms. The HIGH and LOW rankings are not meant to be reflect whether judges critiques came across as positive or negative, but how the queens place. In this instance, The five of them were collectively in the bottom and all received critiques, and the five top queens were sent to the Untuck lounge. While Tayce and Ellie were indeed considered "the best of the worst", they were still "the worst" and in the bottom. Hope this helps to clear up the confusion.Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In the latest episode (ep4), RuPaul is talking to Ellie and references her being "in the bottom last week". Tayce and Ellie should be changed to LOW tbh 51.37.177.45 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an invalid argument, as the definition of LOW is that the contestant recieved negative critiques but was ultimately declared SAFE. Whilst there were a top and bottom group. Only the bottom 3 recieved these negative critiques. Ellie and Tayce recieved pretty much only postitive critiques, therefore they should be marked as SAFE with critiques. Billwebster91 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They were in the bottom. RuPaul said there were no safe queens. It cannot get any clearer than that.Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes zero sense. This is classed as a group task, if you are in the losing group but receive positive critiques, you are classed as SAFE with critiques. It is that way for EVERY other season. Ellis.o22 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ellis.o22. Thijslandsmeer (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Also agree with Ellis.o22 Billwebster91 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021
4	Ginny Lemon	vs. Sister Sister	"You Keep Me Hangin' On" (Kim Wilde)	Ginny Lemon

Add footnote: Ginny Lemon eliminated herself. Samvwood (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Melmann 17:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tone of article
I feel the tone of the episode summaries is too informal and may need changing in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this? - XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The person who writes the summaries is from the Netherlands I believe and I'm not 100% sure their native language is English; that might be the reason. They undo everyone's edits, but since this person has a higher rank on here, they have priority. Oh well! G.R.Scott 22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense; it is what it is! XxLuckyCxX (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried to correct some of the basic grammar in the article, but I'm still not happy with the quality of writing. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A'Whora's Critiques in Episode 6
Not sure "low" is appropriate given she received a lot of praise for her runway look. I thought critiques were mixed rather than negative, so I'd change it to "safe", but I wonder what others think of this? Spa-Franks (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. She was in the bottom three. Yes, she got some positive feedback, but it was obvious the critiques based on the challenge were more on the negative side. She was even discussing being in the bottom in the untucked segment. It isn’t the first time a queen has had positive feedback yet still been in the bottom, quite a lot of the time even the queens who end up lipsyncing receive mixed critiques. LOW is definitely accurate here. Billwebster91 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah she was definitely bottom three, therefore placed LOW Billwebster91 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence and Bimini placements on Episode 7
It is quite clear that people like Lawrence and are therefore consistently and arbitrarily changing the placement from LOW to SAFE. Unless there is reasoning for this change, this can only be classed as unnecessary editing. Lawrence was in the bottom 3 of the queens left on the stage and even received a negatively-spun pun from Ru when deliberating between Lawrence and Sister Sister. I'm popping this here as a note for future reference and hopefully for everyone to agree upon. Ellis.o22 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If we are following the same brief as the other episodes and the format show in general, then she was in the bottom three therefore placed LOW. I seriously think this page needs protecting as it’s getting ridiculous now. Billwebster91 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly, agreed. I've requested it to be protected. Sorry but if A'Whora is classed as LOW in Episode 6 - which she most certainly is by the technicality of the format - then Lawrence is absolutely LOW for Episode 7. There can be no picking and choosing based on personal bias towards certain queens. Ellis.o22 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think HIGH and LOW placements should be put to rest with all the edit warring, but if we're going to keep them I think Bimini should remain cornsilk SAFE since she wasn't explicitly bottom 3 like Lawrence and did receive positive critiques as well. Bleachies (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree re. Bimini - there's actually no argument there due to where Bimini was called in the running order after deliberation between A'Whora and Ellie as the winner. We have to be realistic in that they are going to stay otherwise every season of Drag Race would arguably have to be changed. However, if that's going to be the case then things should remain consistent. A'Whora didn't technically receive all negative critiques in episode 6, and neither did Sister Sister in episode 5. However, they are LOW (as they should be, due to them being the last to be called safe in the remaining bottom 3 queens). Lawrence fits this bill perfectly and is therefore LOW. If Lawrence is argued as SAFE, then A'Whora in episode 6 and Sister in episode should also be SAFE. Ellis.o22 (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that simple as "being the last to be called safe indicates they were LOW no matter what" when that's just one way the show tries to build tension. A'Whora and Sister received mainly negative critiques in the episodses you mentioned and discussed them in the untucked section. This week Lawrence received no real negative critiques and in the past there have been exceptions to "the bottom 3 rule", such as multiple contestants being LOW on some weeks or some episodes with no "LOW" contestant such as: Episode 5 of UK series 1, Episode 10 of US season 12, Episode 2 of US season 5, Episode ８ of US season 3, Episode 1 and 6 of Thailand season 1, most of the top 5/top 4 episodes etc. I also know for some of the other seasons we've used articles and recaps to justify placements, which from all the recaps I can find, none of them indicate Lawrence as LOW. The only real argument for Lawrence being low is that he received the Ru pun before being called safe but even that wasn't explicitly negative. 126.204.199.153 (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree there have been exceptions to the rule and they have been applied justifiably. I also do think everyone's views (including articles and recaps which for the most part are also just one person's opinion) need to be taken with a pinch of salt and not applied arbitrarily as The Be All and End All. But there needs to be some sort of consistency. You said "mainly" negative critiques - does this not then immediately make it mixed critiques? And therefore they'd be SAFE and not LOW? It's difficult. I'm not disputing the placement, I'm saying there needs to be consistency with personal bias removed. All the episodes you mentioned were nuanced like for example in Season 5 Episode 2, Ru literally called the 2 queens to step forward and announced they were the bottom 2, which I don't this has happened in any other episode. We can then say it's applicable to episodes 5, 6 and 7 of this series as well - which therefore removes nuance and suggets either they're all LOW or all SAFE. If we're talking nuances in episodes then Bimini being called SAFE before Lawrence implies that Bimini is of a higher placement than the bottom 3, but lower than the top 2 (i.e. SAFE with critiques), automatically making Lawrence LOW. Again, it's difficult. But there needs to be consistency. Ellis.o22 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you to be honest, but then my question would be "why is Bimini not considered HIGH" this week? She was called safe after the winner which in other episodes indicates a HIGH placement. Is it because we are taking into accounts the mixed critiques? In other episodes queens have received mixed critiques but been considered HIGH, why not this one? It's tricky and yes there needs to be consistency but the show itself isn't consistent. 126.133.220.143 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * True, but the nuance of episode 7 regards the fact that there are no queens who are simply SAFE without critiques. Everyone receives them. It therefore can be implied that as Ru was deliberating between Ellie and A'Whora as the top 2, leaving the person who ISN'T the winner as HIGH, and Ru deliberating between the bottom 3 after Tayce was declared in the lipsync, Bimini falls in the middle as SAFE with critiques. It gets difficult in these ending episodes when there are no queens who "represent the tops and bottoms of the week" after at least 2 are called SAFE and are sent back to the Werkroom before the judges' critiques. In that situation, the top 3 and bottom 3 (relative to the SAFE queens) are very easy to distinguish. Anyway, the table has been removed for some reason! So, we'll have to wait! Ellis.o22 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021
There is a mistake in this weeks episode, Bimini should be 'SAFE', while Lawrence should be 'LOW', as Lawrence was told he was safe after Bimini. But this wiki page states otherwise. Sugaryoof (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Fixed the mistake by removing the WP:FANCRUFT table entirely. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

FANCRUFT tables
Per the long above discussion (which seems to be WP:OR) and my response to the IP, I removed the tables since they do not add much encyclopedic information. There is a distinction to be made between information which is of interest to only a small group (which should be removed, per the cited essay and per WP:NOTTRIVIA) and proper encyclopedic information which gives readers a proper but not excessive (WP:SUMMARY) description of the subject. Given that the table fails core content policies (WP:V and WP:OR), I have removed it, again. Please discuss. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that the discussion aboout whether queens placing LOW, SAFE or HIGH was going on, but in the end, on other Drag Race seasons, as mentioned, these issues have been resolved. The tables have been on these Wikipedia articles, and worked for years. So I don't understand why all of the sudden these should be removed. Also, if you are right, and others are agreeing, then shouldn't all those tables be removed from all the Drag Race season/series' pages? Thijslandsmeer (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course the tables should not be removed. They collate useful informatuon for the entire series. There's no Wiki "legal" explanation for removing them. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There isn’t a single competitive television show that doesn’t have a progress table of some sort on Wikipedia. These tables provide clear and easy to find information which is kept simple and is definitely necessary. As for the policies you mentioned, there isn’t a single table that doesn’t follow a similar format, and that is why the talk page is here, so any queries can be discussed and a consensus can be made. Deleting the table altogether isn’t helpful or practical. Billwebster91 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would add that getting into an edit war by continually removing it is far worse than the initial argument and RandomCanadian should cease immediatly Yellowmellow45 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Of course the tables should not be removed"? Why? Is there any non-duplicate information presented in these tables that is not present in either the episode summaries (which are themselves full of useless details, like "farewell message"?) or the contestants table? "The tables have been on these articles for years"/"There isn't a single competitive television show": see WP:OSE - that might just be more proof that people are too busy with putting up WP:FANCRUFT on this kind of pages. In any case, what I assume would be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override project-wide policies such as WP:OR and WP:NOT. The useful information, if any, is already contained in the "contestants" (where that "at a glance outcome" already clearly visible) and "episodes" sections. The rest seems based on WP:OR (the HIGH/SAFE/LOW distinctions, as I can see from the extensive discussion before, seem merely editor opinions unsubstantiated in external secondary sources). As for my revert, I very clearly said that was because there was no explanation. And then I started this discussion; so moot point we'll keep discussing until we reach a consensus or until we get tired and get to the RfC phase. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The question you need to answer is: why is Drag Race UK season 2 different from all other seasons of Drag Race to warrant the deletion of the table? Are you going to remove it from every season's page? If not, why not? Yellowmellow45 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would remove it from every page, if I could get consensus for it. This just happens to be the first I fell upon, because it had an edit request to change something about the table. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you would abusing your powers as an editor and going against a consensus that has developed over years. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why I haven't done it. Ergo, stop the accusations. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for your second point, since I have already explained how this goes against the usual expectations of an encyclopedic article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You did try to remove it though. And you still haven't properly defined out the table meets the "FANCRUFT" criteria, given that it is a distillation of information about the series presented in a simple form - i.e., it isn't of niche interest nor is it trivia. I would respectfully suggest that your input here has done nothing to resolve the original issue, which was relatively minor. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did try to remove it, per WP:BRD - that was the B part, we're now at the D. My long comment above (23:09) perfectly explains why I think the information I originally removed is fancruft, or at least to somebody who is not deeply interested in the subject (me) it would appear so: the "HIGH/SAFE/LOW/whatever" table is redundant to the "contestants table" and is additionally WP:OR, while the "lip syncs" table is not really important information and it is redundant to the episode descriptions. Remember, simply because is true or maybe even mildly interesting to some people, doesn't mean that we should include it on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT: "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere." [emphasis mine] Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why have pages dedicated to Drag Race series at all if you aren't interested in it? The information presented in the table represents the essence of the show - information that a disinterested reader conducting research on the show (for reasons known only to them) would find useful. I've read the Fancruft section carefully, and you haven't actually hit on the criteria. I don't know why you've chosen this line of argument. It is not conducive to making this a better article or making the article "more encyclopaedic". Do you have any constructive suggestions about how to make it better? Yellowmellow45 (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Interested in the topic or not, it is a drag on everybody who does pending changes to have to deal with these kind of edits. And you still haven't addressed how the table is not WP:OR. As for not "hitting the criteria", if my previous descriptions do not somehow portray how what is in the article is "a selection of content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", then I'm afraid there's no point repeating it. Don't be pointy with your questions, simply because I'm not even remotely interested in something doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be enyclopedic or that it should contain lots of trivial details. For the same reasons, Ye Choirs of New Jerusalem (my creation) doesn't contain trivial details like every possible text variant that has been printed (even if that might be interesting to, I don't know, a few people studying the change of language in hymnals over times?). See also WP:PLOTBLOAT, which, while it applies to works of fiction, also goes in the same direction that we should make thing shorter and more concise and skip the minor details. Whatever the exact "letter of the law", the general tendency is clear that we should try to avoid unecessary details. Is knowing which songs were sung (a detail already present in the episode summaries anyway...) or the exact rankings of each candidate in each episode really necessary? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, as you're trying to make this change across all articles relating to every season of the show, I suggest you take it over to WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race instead to attempt to convince people of your point of view. Otherwise, I recommend not trying to remove it from this or other pages in the meantime, because you think it'll make your "job" easier. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact it's a drag on PC is only secondary to the other issues. And I have raised it at the Wikiproject (a while back, actually, just before this discussion here started), nobody bothered to answer though until very shortly ago. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I agree with you that the edit warring over placements is problematic, any time this has happened on any of these tables, a consensus has been reached on the talk page which has helped in going forward. Deleting the table full stop is not practical. Billwebster91 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to put my two pennies in. There are a number of issues with the tables.
 * They break the accessibility rules on MOS:ABBREV by using non-official fan-made abbreviations
 * The use colour does not satisfy MOS:COLOUR, particularly the use of white safe, and cornsilk safe as colour cannot be the only way that information is conveyed
 * They do not use scoping which again is a requirement under MOS:TABLE and MOS:DTAB. I spend ages adding these for them to be repeatedly removed.
 * They contain WP:FANCRUFT and WP:SYNTHESIS of the facts.

That said, as a casual reader, I have found them a useful summary of each season. So I would recommend that IF these tables are to remain, they are done so in full compliance with MOS, no exceptions (no abbreviations, no colour violations and full use of scoping) and they stick to facts - you were either in the top two, won, bottom, or went home. Everyone else was safe. Whether they recieved a critique or not, and whether this was positive or negative is a null point and WP:FANCRUFT. As we have seen from untucked, everyone receives critiques its just not all of it gets shown in the final edits of the main episodes. If these conditions can't be agreed to, then yes I agree with that the tables should be removed as they cause more trouble and instability then they are use. Also and  are borderline on being recommended for a topic ban or a revert ban - both of you have failed to respond for clarity on why it is okay to ignore MOS:ACCESS which is a legal requirement, have not followed WP:BRD and have frequently ignored requests to explain their edits. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to throw a few comments in, probably not addressing everything.. The Cornsilk/white differentiation *has* to go. OTOH, having looked at MOS:ABBREV, I don't see why consistent use of ELIM (to save space vs. 'Eliminated'), especially if explained below the table has to go. I'm not sure what scoping you have added, could you please be specific?Naraht (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Saving space is never a reason to use an abbreviation, it says at the MOS page, "Avoid making up new abbreviations...If it is necessary to abbreviate in small spaces (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), use widely recognised abbreviations." ELIM is something invented by wiki editors - that is not widely recognised. Additionally, there is no need for it- there are no space worries. Additionally ! scope="col" and ! scope="row" was not used universally across the table. I've removed the cornsilk vs white safe has been removed - it is subjective and down to interpretation. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 15:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "There are no space worries" in general because we aren't constrained to a text page, or that this one doesn't expand too far? If the second, please view what Season 11 looks like with Eliminated substituted for ELIM. Naraht (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant space as in there is not a size limit, however how something appears is relative to your screen size and resolution. I use a 22" screen so when I view the pages there is loads of space. How it views on screen is not a reason to not observe the MOS. Wikipedia MOS trumps any local consensus. The main issue I have with these tables is the incessant desire to create a fansite full of fancruft and to adhere to standards for the sake of standards, not because said standards are accessible or good for the majority of readers who are not editors of the page. That isn't intended to belittle anyone's individual contribution - there are lots of editors who put a lot of hard work into these articles - the difference needs to be drawn between what's factual for casual readers versus a fan lowdown. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 22:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who decided on the new track record but do they know that the old track record has been used for YEARS? Apart from that the new table just aesthetically looks really unappealing and is really a strange rule to enforce now when we've been using the same table for years. 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you should educate yourself on web accessbility. While you might think its visually unappealing it does not harm your ability to understand the table. Wikipedia isn't a fansite where people can make up whatever style rules they like to be aesthetically pleasing. The changes I made to the table were to apply the manual of style and improve things for visually impaired users. I'm sure you can cope with "visually unaesthetic" if it means someone has impaired vision can access and read the page properly. These changes also help people who are neurodivergent e.g. dyslexic or dyspraxic. If you were a casual reader who was here for the information then tradition for the sake of tradition wouldn't matter. It's clear you care less about the information and more about making pretty pages - wikipedia is a community encyclopedia not a fansite. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 16:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what? Just because something lasted for a while doesn't mean it can't be changed. Your argument is a typical appeal to tradition. The "visually unappealing" bit can be solved by simplifying the table even further (the most relevant information might be win/safe/eliminated); and by moving some of the current colours (especially the more annoying, orange/brown/... [these might also pose contrast problems]) to footnotes (using Template:efn). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the orange/brown as I was trying to offer a compromise but still making the table pass above minimum accessibility levels. You are correct though that the old situation cannot be reverted to - it simply isn't accessible and is open to abuse by vandalism and fancruft. Being "top 2" or "bottom" is a integral part of the results - I would like to see high and low removed though because it isn't always clear or consistent. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 16:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Re. "visually unappealing" here's a proposed fix which gets rid of most colours (and uses the same colour when the outcome is basically the same), transfers some of the information to footnotes, and also gets rid of the annoying contrasts.

For reference @ADMIN

 * Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a good compromise I think, keeping the useful information and presenting it clearly. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support that as a compromise so long as the addition of notes doesn't cause accessibility issues. Now there's the job of fixing 13 tables for the US series, 5 all starts tables and then all the international franchises... ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an off-wiki text editor (Notepad++ is the best recommendation; also free; ordinary notepad can probably do the job too); you can just search and replace relevant rows; for example replace each instance of  with   (of course I don't know if the format is exactly the same for all tables. So that means that these tables are Yes check.svg resolved . I still have some concerns with the episode summaries. Ex.

The award winning RuPaul's Drag Race UK returns for a second series. Over the course of ten weeks, twelve of the country's most fabulous drag queens will compete to be crowned the UK's Next Drag Race Superstar.

In the premiere episode, the queens enter the work room for the first time and quickly take on their first challenge - a tennis photoshoot. For the main challenge, the queens are asked to serve two looks on the runway. Actress and fashion icon Elizabeth Hurley joins Michelle Visage and Graham Norton on the judging panel as the first queen sashays [can't we use proper English?] away from the competition.

Guest Judge: Elizabeth Hurley [already in the description] Alternating Judge: Graham Norton [already in the description] Mini-Challenge: Tennis photoshoot [already in the description] Mini-Challenge Winner: Lawrence Chaney [not in the description] Main Challenge: Serve two looks on the Drag Race runway. [already in the description] Runway Theme: UK Gay Icons and Queen of Your Home Town [not in the description] Challenge Winner: Asttina Mandella [not in the description; also unecessary colour] Bottom Two: Bimini Bon-Boulash and Joe Black [already in the table we're just talking about] Lip Sync Song: "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood [already in the previous table, though that could reasonable be merged with the descriptions] Eliminated: Joe Black [already in the table, could be merged in description, unecessary colour] Farewell message: "Auf wiedersehen you camp old bitches. Love you, see you soon ♡ JB [?? pure trivia?]


 * So that requires some re-adjusting too. But anyway one issue at a time. I'll give you a hand with the tables in the other articles if you need to.
 * Edit request: now that we've reached some form of consensus, please replace the table in the "Contestant progress" section with the one collapsed a bit above, including the notes (it should be clear which one, if not search for "@ADMIN"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hold on, what consensus has been reached? There are many many editors who work on these pages and even a discussion page for all seasons to discuss things like accessibility, arbitary placements and unsourced information. A similar thing happened here with the All-Stars 5 table in which only 2 editors agreed on something despite more people disagreeing and "There is now a consensus" was used as an excuse to make changes, while incorrectly quoting wikipedia guidelines. RandomCanadian and Lil-unique1 are a minority making the decisions for the majority of editors and using the protected edits to get what they want. Go and talk on the main discussion page about table changes.126.255.6.63 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

just because more people are calling for something which is incorrect doesn't mean we go with the majority. There was to be a credible reason for not following MOS:ACCESS. You seem to not understand that it is not negotiable. A majority discussion on a page or project never overrides the manual of style regardless of which part of the manual of style you are in disagreement with. The edits suggested above remove unsourced information, synthesis and speculation and stick to facts. Wikipedia is not a fansite for fan interpretations - start a fandom page if that's what you want. Our job is to provide the factual information in a way that is accessible to most people possible - wiki pages do not serve individual editors but are there for the benefit of everyone. None of the guidelines have been quoted incorrectly. In fact yourself, and others, cannot quote any guidelines or explain how your suggestions satisfy the rules set out in the Manual of Style. The counter arguments are always "IDONTLIKEIT|it looks ugly, I don't like it, or things have always been this way, no of which hold credibility when establishing a consensus. Functionality, readability and accessibility are more important and will ALWAYS prevail over "looks". You have been given ample opportunity to explain your viewpoint and have repeatedly failed to do so and simply reverted for the sake of reverting. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 March 2021
Drag_Race_UK_2_poster.jpeg has been deleted. Can someone please remove it?&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC) &#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 11:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Episode 8
Can someone update the chart lol Sadtheticcs (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the point when it looks so fugly now lollll 78.152.193.61 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it’s outdated lmao Sadtheticcs (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be updated and it should also be changed back to the regular chart! Not sure why it was changed. Kxlesnyder (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 March 2021
As there has since been a new episode in this series, I think it would be appropriate to change to show the updated status on the show. Add a new episode 8 column under “Contestant Progress”. Change A’whora to Eliminated, change Bimini bon Boulash to Win, change Tayce to Bottom 2, change Lawrence Chaney to High, and change Ellie Diamond to Low. You’ll see what I mean when you actually look at it and edit it. 2600:1700:880:9DB0:DFA:7C1B:9EA4:65DA (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The table can be updated once the full protection expires (or you can add the content in the table above) [and your request needs to be an explicit x to y - especially since this is a fully protected page and admins have better things to do than guessing how to update a table] - anyway there is no deadline (and people shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a fansite). And there's explicit consensus above to include a table without the WP:OR 'high" and "low" descriptions RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of comments
Is there anything we can do about this RandomCanadian character? I've spotted them removing comments in this talk page that disagree with him and has pushed this new format for the contestant tables that only like two people agree with lol 78.152.193.61 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed a comment which was clearly WP:POINTY, accusing another editor of having wrecked it (WP:PA), and ignoring the consensus on the section above. If you disagree with it, speak up (ideally basing your arguments on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). Also remember this is Wikipedia, not a fansite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That person made a good point, it looks pretty poor now and after all the talk of making it inclusive, even my colourblind ass can tell that it looks fugly and uninviting now LOL. It's a massive overcorrection to a problem that no one really cared that much about in the first place78.152.193.61 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, de gustibus non est disputandum is a thing (to a certain degree: we're still bound by MOS:ACCESS), but the previous table had annoying contrast, too many different colours, and non-standard abbreviations, as well as some information which was only conveyed via colour and not textually too. Limiting the number of different colours and getting rid of the abbreviations is a net improvement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, then be consistent and go edit all 13 seasons of US Drag Race, plus all of The Challenge, they use abbreviations too, plus all the international Drag Race seasons... What I'm not understanding is why there was no poll of any kind to figure out if this was necessary and desired? Sure, you pointing to a document is lovely, but you deciding to be the voice for everyone with a vision impairment out of nowhere is just... laughable. I don't understand how you can have everyone except 2 or three people crap on you and still think "yup! I'm right!" 78.152.193.61 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Patience is a virtue, clearly. It will be fixed in short order, once I and other editors get around to it. As for the rest, I'll point you to WP:CIVIL and hope that I don't need to say further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - neither myself no RandomCanadian speak for everyone. However, are universally agreed standards for web accessibility that go beyond wikipedia. The principles of colour not being the only means of conveying information, the use of high contrast colours and the use of scoping in table formatting for example as standard universal web principles. While the changes might benefit only a small number of people who have a disability or impairment, the impact on them is massive. "Looking ugly" is very subjective, and doesn't stop you from accessing or understanding the information. Yourself and others have forgotten that wikipedia is not a fansite for the creation of fan information - it is an eyclopedia of fact that should benefit as many people as possible. The changes made are in line with current wikipedia guidelines which incorporate web accessibility (which is, by the way, a UK and European legal requirement). If you stop being bothered about editing the table for the sake of looking pretty or editing it and start thinking about the 99% of visitors who come to the page for the information then its easier to understand why accessibility is important. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 14:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

IP-range of above editor blocked 72 hours for personal attacks/harassment. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If they blind they not gonna be reading it anyways? 2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:3DB3:2A88:B966:2A46 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blind/visually impaired people often use screen reader technology like JAWS which physically reads the page out allowed for you. That's why colour can't be used as only way information is conveyed - screen readers do not read out colour or other formatting such as bold text. Additionally the "scope" bit in tables tells the technology whether its a row header or column header or not. The changes re: colour help people who are dyslexic, colourblind and other accessibility challenges like dyspraxia. It is a relatively small change if you do not suffer from any of these conditions - yes the tables look different but that's just something you have to get used to -the changes do not stop you from reading or understanding the information. Whereas ignoring the rules and regulations mean that someone who is impaired will not have the option of reading/accessing information on the page. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it's becoming more clear to me as I read these comments that this is more about power then anything else. If they really cared they would have brought this up in the talk and we could have a discussion about ways to make the table more accessible, but they instead decided to lock the page when they were very obviously losing an edit war and refuse to take criticism over a table that no one except two people agreed on. 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was brought up on talk, in fact right here! If you disagree, feel free to give your reasons why, again ideally based on accepted content policies and guidelines. As for your argument that there is a WP:CABAL, I'll point out that User:El C is the one who protected the page and as you can see they've clearly got no involvement in this beyond that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 March 2021 (2)
This page is not being updated promptly and thus should be open to the public for editing. Boobah1995 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. And you shouldn't be counting on Wikipedia to act as a fansite for this, anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 March 2021 (3)
I wanna put the positions for the 8th episode :) Mizluh (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌, edit requests should be in the format of "add x to y" or "change A to B" with a relevant source. Try again saying exactly what you want the edit to be. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 14:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A’Whora was eliminated with Tayce in the bottom 2 and Bimini winning the challenge. There is no debate over this Kyleflorence24 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's already included in the table here, and will be included when somebody with the mop gets around to clean the house (see the one in the collapsed section marked @ADMIN). Anyway you should not be using WP for latest news about a TV series... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What...is everyone bots here? Where is a real person Mizluh (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 March 2021 (4)
I would like to edit this page to show that contestant A'whora has been eliminated, and to revert the track record sheet to it's old form. Sl.kh1 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. Not that you're likely to get that. Anyway, the updated table is already here waiting for an admin to put it in. And changes such as going back to a form which violates MOS:ACCESS and MOS:COLOUR are simply not appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Another ultimatum
Somebody put the contestant progress table back to normal and update this. This is not acceptable. Change it back. Please. Irin161 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not use this talk page to pose ultimatums to your fellow editors; please maintain a calm and civil tone. As for the table "back to normal", unlikely that that will happen: please see the discussion right above. If you disagree, feel free to express your concerns there, ideally basing your arguments in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Promotional poster
Can anyone with rights to the promotional poster add this in the infobox? I don't want it getting deleted due to copyright issues every time. Thijslandsmeer (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you contact the rightsholder. I doubt that they read this talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving
Did you intend to archive the whole talk page, or was that a wee bit of a mess-up? There is still the thread with the pending edit request; which I'll reinstate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did intend to archive most of the page. Most of it is disruptive. I will put back the unanswered edit request. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

 * Per the compromise in light of MOS:ACCESS et alia reached at the now archived thread ("FANCRUFT tables"); please replace the table in the "Contestant progress" section with the one collapsed above. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Quick check before I ask to have the above inserted into the article; does anyone object, either because they have a source that contradicts it or because of any Wikipedia policy?


 * I am going to wait at least 12 hours to see if anyone objects. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would just like to say that I object to this and, in the interest of making sure to adhere to the pieces of Wikipedia legislation laid out in previous responses to comments by RandomCanadian et al., I would like to enquire into the recent actions taken on these pages.


 * I notice you (plural) mention the fundamental requirements of the of the table is that “it’s only about if you’re in the bottom 2 or the top 2 of the week”. Most of the time, there is a top 3 and a bottom 3 - with it being distinct who is in the “top” and “bottom” of the week. With this being given as a fundamental requirement from the administrators, then the previous table structure made sense, there was someone who had a “WIN” denoting that out of the top 3 of the week, they were chosen as the winner, and a “HIGH” to denote that they were fundamentally one of the tops whilst being differentiated from the person who won. The reverse goes for the bottoms of the week, with ‘LOW’ denoting someone who is in the bottom of the week without being in the bottom 2 (in this format, a “lip sync battle”). If this deviates for whatever reason, a consensus is reached and we enter the information accordingly - that’s how it’s been done for the past several years. Therefore, removing that format would go against the very thing that administrators are saying is a requirement for the ‘correct’ display of the table.


 * I do have to concede and potentially divert from the “civil” Wikipedia legislation pointed out earlier by saying that the responses (with some of them deleted by RandomCanadian et al.) here from yourselves as administrators do read as rather power-hungry. It feels like an area of this website where people are really passionate about a subject and its information has been found where a huge stroke of a bureaucratic brush can be made across all of this with no room for manoeuvring. Specifically, for example, the incessant need of pointing out abbreviations policy. I understand that this is clearly a factor that exists within this website, but where is this energy for The Great British Bake Off using SB for Star Baker? Where is the energy for The Apprentice using BR for Board Room? It just feels oddly specific and pedantic to this community here.


 * Whilst I agree that Wikipedia isn’t a fansite, there is a massive community here making sure these pages are as good as they can be and actually *stop* all the vandalism and unnecessary editing by unregistered users, seeking to make sure that all the information is displayed correctly. If anything, whilst your need to point towards the facets of Wikipedia that need to be applied are definitely not unwarranted, the community here would actually work WITH you to solve this, rather than it being bulldozed in the space of a day because suddenly (and I’m paraphrasing here but) “well, this piece of Wikipedia legislation says this so… the past 8 years of work can be wiped out!” applies. RuPaul’s Drag Race is a reality tv competition; the people visiting the page will understand the format and recognise that “ELIM” clearly means eliminated, as it’s a common format of reality competition shows that a contestant is sent home each week for example. If this has existed for several years and faced no hassle, why should it all be changed now? It just feels like a kick in the teeth that there wasn’t even a “how do you feel about this?” - it was just a rug pull. I completely understand if this absolutely and categorically has to change - there’s nothing I can personally do to make otherwise. But I can’t help but feel some type of way about the the way it has been handled. If that makes me a so-called ‘fan’, as opposed to an encyclopaedic data entrant, then so be it. Ellis.o22 (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "SB", "BR" - more reason to fix it, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Re. "ELIM" there's no reason to use abbreviations if space isn't limited; and well using the full word is an improvement. "WP isn't a fansite" - another thing to consider is that in 10 years time very few people will care about this so much as now. And as you can see from the previous discussions the "high/safe/low" distinction leads to endless WP:OR discussions about who was what - see WP:V, which is not negotiable: information must be based on reliable sources, not opinions of random strangers on the internet. We should only keep information which requires no such synthesis of information; hence the trimmed down table. And then there's MOS:ACCESS, which in addition to being a common sense guideline is a requirement in some legislations, hence some of the changes to the table. "If this has existed for several years and faced no hassle, why should it all be changed now?" - Appeal to tradition and WP:Consensus can change (with a particular notice that an agreement among editors to disregard core policies is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and doesn't hold any weihgt). "there wasn’t even a “how do you feel about this?”" - I left a notice here, almost a week ago, so I fail to see how this is a sudden unadvertised thing... Anyway since there's an objection you're free to act how you want on the edit request; although most of these arguments have already been addressed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of highs and lows because of this reason: in one of the previous discussions someone said it was "confusing" in the sense that it is hard to understand sometimes if a queen has placed high or low, but isn't that what this page should be for? I've had times where I've come here to clarify if a queen was high or low in an episode because I was confused. Also, the argument that it is the editors opinion is a little weird since RuPaul blatantly states that there are "the tops and bottoms of the week" in each episode, so I do not understand this desire to remove these placements as even if they didn't win the challenge or were in the bottom two, they still got called to be in the top or bottom. 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussions on this page and others, which feature editors engaging in blatant WP:SYNTH based on what kind of critiques the contestants got is clear sign that this is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. And well this isn't a site to clarify inquiries of uncertain fans. Can you find even one independent reliable source (WP:RS) which mentions this distinction in something even remotely resembling a significant manner? If not, it's unlikely that the information you wish to include is anything but FANCRUFT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position here. I am a veteran editor who came here to try to help after seeing several comments elsewhere about a disagreement about this article. One thing that I can do is to support or oppose an edit request, based not on the consensus and keeping in mind any Wikipedia policies. A am not an administrator but I am a veteran edtior and my opinions are well respected

I have no opinion about what should and should not be in the article. I see that in the discussion above one editor made a request for a change and two opposed it. Your opinions have been posted. Please avoid a long back-and-forth discussion while I look into this further.

It will take me a while to read all of the previous comments, so please hold off for a while and give me some time. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for getting you into this. Anyway, I feel obligated to ping with whom the original agreement was reached (before all the disruptive edits), here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The objects posted above hinge on "our hard work is getting erased" and do not address how the previous style of summary tables was accessible. We're not talking about Wikipedia legislation, we're talking about national laws. For example, in the UK, we now have public web accessibility regulations in UK law. When the table(s) where changed clear descriptions were left in the edit summary, on the talk page of Drag Race All stars season 5. Many editors reverted and engaged in edit warring without citing any guidelines, rules or style guides supporting their edits. The rules and guidance for styles and formatting is 100% clear - there is no interpretation required, it is a gradual process to make sure that all articles comply with accessibility. That said, the objections to the table(s) above are stylistic and not about the content. Post-changes suggested above, the content is still available. The problem with highs and lows is that it is implied - in some episodes Ru clearly says "tops and bottoms of the week" but he never says "these contests are high, these are low" - that's Synthesis/OR in itself. Additionally in some episodes, particularly near the end of the seasons, its not always clear or a distinction between top/bottom placements. 's main issue is that his and others' "hard work" has been changed and that he/she does not understand the guidelines and policy. Wikipedia is a community process - if you're uncomfortable about your work being changed (especially when it is not compliant either from a legal or guidance point of view, then you should set up a blog/fansite instead where you can control and own your work. If you're going to under the rules, engage in edit warring etc. then the article will be locked from editing and people may end up being topic banned. It's worth saying that the article was protected from editing independently - requests are reviewed by uninvolved admin. Edit warring is not acceptable and just because more people want things a certain way doesn't mean that correct or things will be done that way when it means they are non-compliant with web accessibility. It is self-indulgent to self-proclaim that random colours, abbreviations and original research are beneficial to casual readers, especially when the impact they can have on impaired readers is massive. I request that the two objecting editors take time out and read MOS:ACCESS and the impact it has before advocating a position that deviates from above. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 20:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (for the time being) So we can have a more proper discussion after all this wikidrama. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2021
I would like to add the Episode 8 placements where, Bimini won the roast, Lawrence Chaney was HIGH, Ellie Diamond was LOW and Tayce & A’Whora lipsynced to “You Don’t Have To Say You Love Me” by Dusty Springfield. A’Whora was eliminated. MrMcCheeseMan (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is already under discussion in the request above... No need for duplicates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian, could you please hold off on answering edit requests? First, you are heavily involved in the content dispute (I am still going through the history of that, please be patient). Second, you lack the necessary permissions to make the edits. Please, just stop posting and give me some time to sort this out. There is a lot of material for me to go through. --
 * This is just a duplicate. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not for you to decide. So, are you going to give me time to evaluate what is going on here, or are you going to keep commenting after I asked you to hold off and give me some time? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Duplicate request. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2021 (2)
Update the contestant progress with the newest episode details, and the remaining details. Also, edit the progress chart to match the much nicer and cleaner US version. 92.30.212.75 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You don't look at an encyclopedia to get news that happened two days ago. Please be patient. We had to lock down the page because of disruptive edits. I am looking into the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia needs sources, include all the sources for the information that you have for the contestant progress for the previous seven episodes. There are no sources siting their decision on who was high or low, just again their personal preference. The table before was fine, if you are going to change it, then change it for all seasons of Drag Race but you won't because the US editors will swiftly take it down as that's how it has been for years with Drag Race and other reality TV shows. Kyleflorence24 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was it really O.K. or did it run afoul of the WP:MOS-alphabet soup? -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What we have here is a failure to follow directions.
"Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template."

Multiple participants have ignored the above and posted edit requests that are clearly controversial. I am inclined to convert any edit request that has any comment opposing it into a normal talk page discussion. If anyone thinks I shouldn't do that, please speak up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is the edit I requested has been standing since 23:19, 4 March 2021, at which time there was consensus among the few editors who seemed to be commenting. Because nobody bothered to be prompt with that, now there's a boatload of duplicate SPAs requests to add their preferred version back in based on more fallacies than are listed at List of fallacies... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Outdated article
The idea of Wikipedia is to provide information correct? So why is the article still outdated two days after the previous episode.

Bimini Bon-Boulash won this weeks challenge. Lawrence Chaney and Ellie Diamond was safe Tayce was Bottom 2 and A'Whora was eliminated after lip syncing to 'You Don't Have to Say You Love Me' by Dusty Springfield.

Shantay you... need to update the article2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:E444:6627:F5FF:DB46 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You don't look at an encyclopedia to get news that happened two days ago. Please be patient. We had to lock down the page because of disruptive edits. I am looking into the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2021 (3)
Contestant progress chart should be updated to look like this. There have been no disputes on this article up until the following accounts User:RandomCanadian and User:Lil-unique1 decided they had an issue with the elimination chart, on the British articles of all series? Why have they not broached this on the American seasons? The reason for this is because is they know they will face more criticism if they attempt to change the American seasons as many more editors are involved.

Contestant progress chart should be updated to read the following


 * The contestant won the challenge.
 * The contestant received positive critiques and was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant received critiques but was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared safe.
 * The contestant was in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * The contestant was in the bottom two, and decided to quit the competition.
 * The contestant was forced to withdraw from the competition after testing positive for COVID-19.
 * The contestant was not voted to return to the competition after the COVID-19 filming hiatus.
 * The contestant returned as a guest for that episode.

2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:3DF8:8594:92B5:B (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as with all the other duplicate ones which ignore MOS:ACCESS and MOS:ABBREV RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:RandomCanadian, User:Guy Macon has told you NUMEROUS times to STOP responding to edit requests when you are involved in the dispute. STOP ignoring simple instructions and wait for more experienced editors to respond to edit requests. 2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:2145:66EA:FC61:7064 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly this is not working, so I withdraw my request. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support THANK YOU. please can somebody just change it back to normal? why is this happening? what are you gaining from changing it? Irin161 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support For 13 main seasons, 5 All Star seasons, and countless international seasons it hasn't been a problem, why does someone get to just randomly decide it is one now? Per WP:BROKE this needs to be restored. Dallasansel (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the suggested edit request restores a broken editing style that violates MOS:ACCESS, MOS:COLOUR, MOS:ABBREV, MOS:TABLE with the suggested edits. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for why things should be changed back to how they were. Where is the assumption of good faith? Also, polling is not a substitute for discussion ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 20:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

also why do people keep bringing up MOS:ABBREV and stuff like that? like who cares? what does that have to do with anything? this is the first time there has ever been a problem with the contestant progress table and apparently only two people have a problem against so many others, the table needs to be changed back to how it was, now. BitterrrTwinkkk (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll just leave this quote from Manual of Style/Accessibility here,


 * -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 02:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 March 2021
I need to change a’whora to eliminated. 86.166.119.211 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Is it too much asking to participate in the immediately preceding discussion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Contestants Progress
Can u update it lol we are nearly 2 episodes behind Sadtheticcs (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to read prior discussion on that question. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2021
Drowssap01 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC) I have to add guest judge
 * ❌ No detail given. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 March 2021
Please update the page weekly as necessary. 2804:14C:3F82:427:BD9E:696F:9D7B:83CA (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2021
87.10.140.200 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

FIX THE BOARD, WHOEVER IS KEEPING IT LIKE THIS IS DELUSIONAL, THE BOARD HAS ALWAYS BEEN FULL WITH “WIN” “HIGH” “LOW” “BTM2” and “ELIM”. Also every other season of drag race is like that on wikipedia since forever. Fix it its literally hurting the eyes and is lacking consistency with every other contestants progress from this tv show. Omg.
 * Archiving. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (4)
Update page now the season has finished. Has not been updated in 2 weeks 2A02:C7F:8E91:FB00:35B5:E26C:2E38:87C2 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Archiving. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (2)
This page has not been updated since episode 8 79.70.78.8 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Archiving. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (3)
Update the contestant progress table so it is up to date and complete! Tobilufc (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Archiving. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 March 2021
the format should look the same as the regular seasons, why does it look like this? Singhjayden1 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to add your views in the section above where the table style and layout is being discussed. It's not clear exactly what changes you want made, so I've declined the edit request procedurally. ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 07:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Link

 * Please link A'Whora. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please link Bimini Bon Boulash as well. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto Lawrence Chaney. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2021 (2)
This season has finished. It was won by Lawrence Chaney, Bimini and Tayce were the runners-up while Ellie placed 4th. Also change the performance table, it looks horrendous and we are two episodes behind and make sure to add high/low placements 82.13.37.193 (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This has already been answered. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

do you guys care?
helloooo?????? whats with the table????? It was PERFECTLY fine and actually ACCURATE before. Now we have this false information, ugly looking, too much to say looking box/table. Mizluh (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 March 2021 (2)
Not been updated since episode 8 - there is now a winner. Can lows and highs be added back onto the progress table too to align with all other seasons. 84.70.232.151 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The progress table is currently being discussed at . Feel free to add your opinion there. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2021
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THIS. THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE IS DEAD, LAWRENE CHANEY HAS WON, BIMINI AND TAYCE ARE THE RUNNERS-UP, ELLIE 4TH. ALSO MAKE SURE TO ADD HIGHS/LOWS PLEASE. CAN THE ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE MAKE THIS FREE TO EDIT. 82.13.37.193 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouting is not going to help. Please read WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a reality show news ticker. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 March 2021
can someone please fix this page its so frustrating Blacklivesmatter444 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)