Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race season 9/Archive 1

HIGH and LOW
These pages seriously don't look good with a color that looks basically white, describing the queens who got "critique." RuPaul literally says who is in the top and who is in the bottom. So why shouldn't they be on these pages? Every other tv show series that has a format like this, and they have the high's and low's on it, so why is this the only season that doesn't? The pages don't even look good anymore without the HIGH and LOW. That table is to say the contestant's progress each week, so the high and low should be on there saying which queen got that score, not a white box saying they had critique, that doesn't give us anything. Not to mention that the episodes tables also look a mess too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Realitytvshow There's a few issues then. 1) The wiki policy. WP:OR bans original research, which this falls under. 2) If it was so cut and dry about who Ru literally says who is in the top and bottom, then why were there constant edit wars switching people from SAFE to either HIGH or LOW? It's not what RuPaul *literally* says. Even you yourself say that "Acid Betty can't be the only one from her team in the bottom when her whole team was declared safe." on Season 8. Ru does not specifically state who the HIGH and LOWs are. If she does at any point, you would have to provide a **reliable** source for that. 3) The other TV shows are irrelevant here. Just because some other pages does something does not mean that it is either a) correct or b) what we she should do. 4) Episode tables like what? Oath2order (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at a discussion on Reddit and everyone there also says this is so stupid and irrelevant. Why would you even take them out? Who cares if the "violate the wiki policy." Why even have the contestants progress table if the only thing on there is who won, who was in the bottom 2, and who was eliminated then. This table is about who was in the top and the bottom. Also RuPaul does specifically state who is in the top and the bottom so don't even say that he doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but a discussion on Reddit is not relevant. Wikipedia, the very site this is on, cares about if it violates wiki policy.


 * If you can provide a reliable source that we can cite in-article showing where exactly RuPaul says who is HIGH and LOW for every single example, then I will agree that they should be in article, but you'd be very hard-pressed to find it. Oath2order (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

How about watch the episode, then you'll see that he says who is in the top and the bottom. This is just stupid. Not to mention the stupid color you chose looks exactly like white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Except you **need a source** where Ru **explicitly** states the high and low, while still differentiating between just plain safe. The issue we have though, is that people continuously keep changing safe to high and safe to low. Hell, just look at the season 6 page just last night.


 * The onus is on *you* to provide the source. If you want that information on the page, then you need to provide a link to the reliable source for that information. Oath2order (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If this information needs to be deleted then why is it still on the season 9 page? I thought it was so important for you guys to have it off the page. Obviously it's not that important. And why can't you get sources for the information. It was on these pages for long enough, we don't need to put a stupid source for some information that was on here for 5 years so no I'm not going to do that idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I said it was important for it to be sourced. While this season doesn't have the first episode sourced, it will. Given that it was extremely explicit as to who was the top, that can stay. I did look for sources. They don't exist.


 * Just because something has been there for a long time doesn't mean it should always be there. It just means that for those five years those pages have been ignoring Wiki policy. And please refrain from insults. Oath2order (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So this season will be the only season with the highs and lows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B120:6D94:A0C4:E3DA:4A78:E9C3 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless if reliable sources can be found for the other seasons, yes. Oath2order (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I just don't get why it has to be sourced. It's literally said which queen is in the top and who's in the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. So I re-watched season 8, episode 4. The Wiki revision with Highs and Lows can be found here. In order of the queens, Ru states that Bob the Drag Queen is Safe, Thorgy Thor is safe, Acid Betty got comments that her runway was bright but was overshadowed in the challenge. She was then stated to be safe. Derrick Barry was "not aced" in the challenge. Naysha Lopez was "radioactive with a performance that was not electrifying." ChiChi's runway was "not dominating". Derrick Barry was then proceeded to be called safe. It is pure conjecture as to whether or not these are safe or low, as evidenced by a previous revision where Acid Betty was listed as safe instead of low. **RuPaul does not explicitly state who is high or low.** Oath2order (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So why can't this information be on all of the pages then? Why only on a couple. You said you rewatched it and you didn't source it, so why does every season have to be sourced if you didn't source it?
 * Two reasons: 1) Still looking for a source. 2) My comment right there is exactly why season 8 shouldn't have it. It's conjecture. Oath2order (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Given then, the case of S9E1 where it was explicit who was "high", I think it'll be best to be keeping that. As per the last statement, it's a grey area as to what people think is high, low, and safe, so until a reliable source can be found, then we'll be going back to the safe for all. Thanks for showing up btw! Oath2order (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to add to this discussion, I also believe the HIGH and LOW scores should return to the 'Contestant Progress' section. I understand that sometimes RuPaul's comments and critiques can leave ambiguity to whether a contestant called to remain onstage is either 'HIGH' or 'LOW' if they aren't in the bottom two. I also believe that sometimes it is blatantly obvious and the consensus around here for a while before the changes has been that when RuPaul is giving comments to the Bottom 3 queens and deciding who will be in the bottom two and who will just scrape by is that that contestant is 'LOW' and the two contestants (if the usual six contestants are told to remain on stage) who receive positive critiques and comments and are told they are 'SAFE' are indicated as 'HIGH' as they did not land in the bottom three. Of course, as mentioned before there is some ambiguity, for example Ivy Winters in Season 5, Episode 1 and Naomi Smalls in Season 8, Episode 1 where they both received comments and critiques that left them "on the fence" of sorts, but the 'HIGH' for Ivy Winters and the 'LOW' for Naomi Smalls, I'm certain was agreed on by viewers and editors. I also understand that Wikipedia policy is paramount, but I also believe that RuPaul's comments before declaring a contestant as 'SAFE' indicate whether or not they fell above ('HIGH') or below ('LOW'). The obviousness of some outcomes should warrant the 'HIGH' and 'LOW' scores' return. Lauralimilein (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a source for it, then I'd agree.But at the moment we have issues like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race_(season_8)&diff=next&oldid=772924261). Oath2order (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No one fucking likes this new setup that u think is so great. Quit deleting the highs and lows. No one likes this new setup. The color looks white so wtf is the point of having that stupid ass color. Second of all u just come in and ruin these pages thinking ur all cool taking off the highs and lows after we put them on. Fucking stop.
 * It's following wiki policy. And further wiki policy is refraining from rude language, so please refrain from that language. Oath2order (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oath2order, I'm sorry but this is deeply irritating me so I'll refrain from using bad language. I myself have tried to add highs and lows and they have since been deleted. NONE of the fans enjoy this table without highs/lows. What is the point in having a contestant progress table if it doesn't show wether the contestant did well or not in the challenge? If there is ambiguity, then just keep "the contestant received judges critiques but was ultimately declared safe" for the one contestant who's performance is causing debate. Also, can we change the phrase to "**and** was ultimately declared safe" as opposed to "but was ultimately declared safe" as "but" has negative connotations. And Rupaul and Michelle Visage have discussed the abondonment of the highs and lows themselves on their podcast! Like the fans, they do not like it! Ultimately, what I propose we do is use highs and lows as well as using "the contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately declared safe" when the critiques for the contestant aren't clear as to wether they are high or low. I know it will be messy but it's better than nothing. This will stop debates over the contestants performance as it doesn't say that they didn't perform well nor does it say that they did perform well in the challenge. The show is all in good fun! Policy is ruining the tables for the fans. There is no point in having tables if they only show the winner and the bottom two, as it's too hard to determine wether the winner of the season was the rightful one or not based on challenge performance. Thank you. Seanmurpha (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And after all, Rupaul does say that they are the "tops and bottoms of the week" Seanmurpha (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@oath2order sorry I forgot to tag you. Seanmurpha (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, you can't say that none of the fans like it. Some do. Secondly, the table shows that they did do well, it shows winners and losers. Third, what Ru and Michelle think about the table is frankly irrelevant. If they want highs and lows, they can come out and tell us explicitly which is high or low. That said we're looking at other color options for safe so.

The point of this isn't to determine whether or not the winner is "rightful", it's to display the facts. Whether or not the fans think Adore should have won season 6, for example, is irrelevant. The only "rightful" winner is Bianca. Oath2order (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@oath2order the new colour change is great, did you mass edit all of the seasons? And don't take my "rightful" comment too seriously I just meant people look to the table to form opinions that's all. And thank you again for changing the colours it does mean a lot to many fans. And what ru and Michelle think is very relevant to the table. They give the results of the table and they'd never come explicitly out of their way to state wether every contestant in every episode did well? Who has time for that? But regardless, thank you for coming up with a solution to the table. Seanmurpha (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What Ru and Michelle say off the main show is 100% irrelevant to the table. Oath2order (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@oath2order sorry for busting your balls I really am :'D But I've noticed that your mass edit states that all of the contestants with white coloured safes have received critiques from the judges which they have not. Can I suggest changing it back to "the contestant was chosen to be safe" And I have to ask, for every contestant that received judges critques, did they all get either a light blue or a pink safe? Are there any that have received judges critiques but received a yellow safe? (Because it was too hard to determine pink or light blue) Sorry again Seanmurpha (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just decided to go back to the last example of high/low and based the new version off that. I probably could go back to rewatch the judges critiques at some point to ensure it's properly done. Oath2order (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you cant just change something thats consistent with all previous seasons without discussion and input from other editors. Reverting until discussion is complete. Brocicle (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a wide amount of consensus among the users that the colors is what they want. I don't really get where you got the idea you seem to think that there hasn't been extensive discussion. Oath2order (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@brocicle where is the discussion? We carefully edited them so that they don't counteract the facts? Seanmurpha (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see a consensus. I see people up in arms about the high and lows and two editors discussing and agreeing on what to do about colours. No proper discussion involving other editors on the matter. You two can't just make a decision without a discussion and then do a mass edit because 2 editors agreed on what to do between them in a day. Brocicle (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * : As it stands, you're the only person opposing it. Oath2order (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Consenus is more than just having editors supporting and opposing. Brocicle (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. But given that nobody had, up until your reversions, stated an opposition, there was reason to believe there was consensus. Would you mind sharing your objections with the class? Oath2order (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's literally another way for HIGH and LOW without using those words. If you really need to go into detail about who got positive and negative critiques why not just put a sentence or two in the episode summary like previous seasons have done? There's more discussion regarding the HIGH and LOW argument which I believe is also relevant to this hidden way of saying it on the All Stars 2 talk page. And no one had time to oppose considering your discussion was done, dusted, and implimented in less than a day. Brocicle (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except there's been weeks of discussion, weeks of reversions back and forth. There has been more than enough time for people to voice their objection. You can't complain about lack of time for opposition when you come out of the blue.

Given that you've edited the pages before, why is it that now all of a sudden you seem to have an issue with the light blue and pink colors? Back when you edited in 2016 you had no issue. So why the sudden change? Oath2order (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, There's been weeks of discussion regarding HIGH and LOW. Not this apparent new system that works for two people. I haven't come out of the blue? I had a problem with it on the All Stars 2 page if you even bothered to look. And nice snarky comment "wtf is this guy?" By the way, very professional. Brocicle (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that if you asked people, this system would be acceptable. On All-Stars 2, you state that "There's no need to constantly repeat information that's elsewhere in the article and is very easy to see and find.". Please show me, on the Season 7, 8, 9, or All-Stars 2 pages, where exactly every detail from the table can be found in the article. Oath2order (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the ones who would like to impliment this system, it is your responsibility to ask around for opinions before changing it, not mine. In the episode summaries is where the "high and low" or "positive and negative" critiques are discussed on the pages that have them.Brocicle (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? This new colour version doesn't deviate from the facts. @brocicle Seanmurpha (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * : Except those pages I mentioned are specifically known for not having complete critiques. Season 8 has no complete critiques. Season 7 is missing episodes 9 and 10. Season 9 has none. Episode 5 is missing on All-Stars 2. So what exactly do you propose then? Furthermore, I find your logic that "it's listed elsewhere therefore we shouldn't have it in the top table" to be completely lacking. It's a table for the quick viewing of the progress of the queens throughout the competition.

That said, I would be more than happy to ask around. ,, , what do you all think of the version of the table, where we use the light blue and pink to differentiate positive and negative critiques, with the words "safe"? Oath2order (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your version leans towards original research (read WP:No original research). There's no way to decide what is a positive critique and what is a negative critique without using your original research. Without the judges specifying who received positive and negative critiques or that they were one of the best like they explicitly did in the first episode then there's no true way of knowing. That's why SAFE with a neutral colour is best and judges comments can go in the episode sumamry so people can decide for themselves. The table should be a NEUTRAL statement other than who won the challenge, bottom 2 and eliminated because those are EXPLICITLY stated.
 * Also other reality shows such as American Idol and Dancing With the Stars do not use a positive/negative review system on the tables. Brocicle (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And you could go to other shows and find that they *do* use positive and negative. So your examples don't exactly hold up. You go to Great British Bake Off where it's not explicitly stated who is one of the least favorite bakers and most favorite. The point is, this is not those shows, there's no reason to bring them up.

Rewatch each episode, quote Ru's critiques. That's your source. Season 5, Episode 9. "Roxxxy Andrews, as Teresa the Virgin, you really made it up. You're safe. Alaska, you're safe. Jinkx Monsoon, you came, you saw, and you came again. You're the winner. Alyssa Edwards, your performance did not have us screaming, you're up for elimination. Coco Montrese, as the Maid, you were a little dusty. Detox, as the Maid, you didn't clean up. Coco Montrese, you are up for elimination. Detox, you are safe."

The point from other users stands up. Watch the episode and it's clear. The content itself here serves as a source of information. They are not labelled high or low, but they are labelled as safe, with differing reasons to their safeness. Oath2order (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well they do hold up considering they can have positive and negative reviews but it's not implimented in the table. Just because it is doesnt mean it should.
 * It stilll isn't explicitly stated and it still falls under original research. "As Teresa the Virgin, you really made it up", ambiguous wording. We ourselves decide whether it's positive or negative. I've said what I have to say. Would like to see how others see it also. Brocicle (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "You really made it up" is a positive and it's only ambiguous because you seem to think it is. Watching the show and seeing the rest of the critiques, you get the obvious impression that it's a positive. In a later comment you state "who decides what's positive, negative, or ambiguous?" Well, how about we read the article? Let's use Season 6 for this example. The article states that "Milk was commended for her boldness". You can then safely get the reasonable conclusion that "Milk, for not playing it safe, you're safe." is a positive critique. I know you're going to claim that's OR, but it's not. That's what the show said. Oath2order (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the bright blue and think is accurate @oath2order If there is ambiguity on wether a contestant has had positive or negative critiques then we should also use a mitral colour like cornstarch ( I think it was called). The positive and negiative safe is needed because Rupaul explicitly states "you are the TOPS and BOTTOMS of the week". Seanmurpha (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

But we should only use a neutral safe when there is major ambiguity as to wether the contestant received positive or negative critiques. Seanmurpha (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Cornsilk you're thinking of. And that's all well in theory but who decides whats positive, negative, or ambiguous? That's why it falls under original research which is against policy. Otherwise we'd be running in circles fighting about who got good/bad/ambiguous reviews. Brocicle (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay then don't use cornsilk at all, just light blue and pink. In my version, Every contestant that received critiques should be either pink or light blue and in very special circumstances when there's too much ambiguity there should be cornsilk. And Rupaul decided who's positive and negative when he called them "the tops and bottoms of the week" Seanmurpha (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly he calls the whole lot that gets critiqued the tops and bottoms. Only the winner, and bottom two of the challenge can 100% be confirmed as top and bottom. The rest is up for interpretation depending on the person. Brocicle (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@brocicle I'm begging you please. Do you even care about these tables or do yo just care about policy? Are you a fan of the show?... After all, we used to have a system that consisted of HIGH and LOW. And Wikipedias problem was that it deviated from the actual facts. And when we come up with a new system that only slightly indicates wether the contestant performs well or not, you disagree? The new system still says SAFE for all the queens. It doesn't deviate from the facts! and plus, we have a discussion page as to wether a queen was a link safe or a light blue one? With cited sources and everything. Seanmurpha (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@brocicle I'm only asking that Wikipedia meets the fans half way. We used do have highs and lows and new we just have neutral SAFES. All we ask is that there are positive SAFE and negative SAFE. We could even change the wording for the positive/negative SAFES if you'd like? We just want differenciation. Because is it a Fact that Shea's safe last week is different to Charlie's safe. Whereas in your system it seems that they've performed just as well as each other and it's confusing Seanmurpha (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I am a fan of the show. But I also understand that Wikipedia is NOT a fansite and I know when to draw the line between WP:OPINION and what is policy and fact. This is an encyclopedia based off reliable sources, not someones opinion that they formed from their own interpretation. As I stated earlier you're more than welcome to paraphrase what the judges said in the episode summary for further information on the critiquing.Brocicle (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@realitytvshow @oath2order @Lauralimilein @livelikemusic @MSMRhurricane can you guys agree? Seanmurpha (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

After providing a third opinion a short while ago it seems this issue has migrated from a High-Low/Safe problem to a background colour of "SAFE" table entries problem. From someone who is not involved with editing the article, I am inclined to agree with Brocicle... It does seem to be original research to differentiate between different forms of "SAFE" verdicts based upon viewer interpretation (which is entering significant muddy water territory) of comments made in an episode. I don't think there's much difference in argument here between "high-low/safe" status and different coloured background "SAFE" status table entries. "High" and "Low" would look better and be more clear to the reader if you were able to pull a reliable source from someone involved in the show. Here is a bold idea to think about. Does the show have a website? If it does have a website, then someone who is involved with editing this article (and therefore a fan) could contact the show through the website or some other contact method and convince them to amend their website to include "High" and "Low" references when dealing with contestants. It's a pretty bold idea, sure but it would satisfy the readers and would meet Wikipedia policy so a win/win outcome would be possible. Just thought I'd chime in again with some thoughts. Thanks. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input and for your suggestion. Brocicle (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@trooper1005 thanks for your third opinion. HIGH and LOW will never be accepted by Wikipedia because they aren't technically correct. However this pink SAFEs and light blue SAFEs ARE technically correct. As the contestants are explicitly declared the "tops and bottoms of the week". This is the problem, readers have a hard time differentiating between an 'almost win' and 'almost loss' as the nuetral SAFE depicts both equally when the performances are not regarded equally as good. I feel that with @oath2order 's system, readers could easily see if a contestant almost won in that episode or was almost up for elimination. As for a website, I'll do some research, I've been trying to contact people involved with the show I've had no luck. Thanks again Seanmurpha (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brocicle and Seanmurpha that we cannot use POV personal judgment of contestant placement, since this is clearly original research. And to paraphrase what one editor said, we could have a dozen editors agreeing to something, but if it blatantly violates Wikipedia policy, then it doesn't fly. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't. You can see on some articles of the show what exactly happened in the episode. The table and the colors reflect what's *already in the article*. Oath2order (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You're saying the show itself specifically states each episode something to the effect of, "These queens placed high this episode and these placed low and these placed in the middle"? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@tenebrae yes! That's why highs and lows were ever a thing in the first place. It is explicitly stated that the contestants are either in the top of the week or bottom, what causes ambiguity, and it only happens in VERY RARE circumstances, is when people cannot decide wether a contestant is either one of the top of the week or one of the bottoms. And yes @oath2order that was a point I forgot to make! The light blue SAFE and the pink SAFE reflect what is already in the article under the episode descriptions. Therefore it isn't original research. Seanmurpha (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. You recently said, "HIGH and LOW will never be accepted by Wikipedia because they aren't technically correct. However this pink SAFEs and light blue SAFEs ARE technically correct." But now you're saying, "[Y]es! That's why highs and lows were ever a thing in the first place. It is explicitly stated that the contestants are either in the top of the week or bottom." This seems contradictory. As for "safe," I'm not sure how how anyone who isn't eliminated in an episode isn't safe. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "High" and "Low" would be accepted by Wikipedia if a reliable source could be obtained for them. It's not clear in each episode about "high" and "low" which is why they were deemed to be bordering on original research. The colour changes to "safe" is the equivalent of "high" and "low" in the article but in a different form so that is also original research. The best way to solve this issue is to get a reliable source for "high" and "low" in table entries. Thanks -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With the episode summaries, if we extrapolate from that, the status of each queen, would that work? Oath2order (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@tenebrae sorry for the confusion. I want a system that declares the contestants SAFE, but also declares wether the contestant was one of the tops and bottoms of the week. You see first the contestants are explicitly declared the "tops and bottoms" of the week. And then once the winner of the challenge is declared, the other tops of the week are declared "safe". So you see these contests should be described as something along the lines of "The contestant was declared one of the "tops" of the week, almost won the challenge, but was ultimately declared safe", with a light blue SAFE on the table. After this, the remaining contestants (who are first declared the bottoms of the week), are ultimately declared safe UNLESS they are one of the two contestants placed in the bottom two. These bottoms who were declared ultimately safe but were almost placed in the bottom two are to be labelled a pink coloured SAFE. For them, I want the table to read something along the lines of "the contestant was declared one of the bottoms of the week, almost being placed in the bottom two, but was ultimately declared "safe" ". The reason HIGHS/LOWS cannot be accepted on Wikipedia is because the contestant isn't explicitly labelled HIGH or LOW, as the end result is them being declared SAFE. Making HIGH/LOW original research because it doesn't state that the contestant was ultimately declared safe. And HIGH/LOW doesn't reflect what is already on Wikipedia (the episode descriptions). So with pink/light blue SAFE, it is clear that the contestant was declared a "bottom/top" of the week and was ultimately declared safe. This isn't original research as it is stated in each episode, and is also a reflection of what is already on Wikipedia: the episode descriptions (where it states wether the queen was amongst the top of the week or the bottom). The problem with the current system is that there is a nuetral colour for all of the contestants who received judges critiques, making it seem like the contestant's performances were regarded equally when in fact, they were not. As some are amongst the tops of the week and some are amongst the bottoms of the week. Seanmurpha (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@trooper1005 if we use the episode summaries in the article, then can we use the new system of pink/light blue SAFEs? Surely the article itself is a reliable source. Seanmurpha (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@tenebrae did my description clear the confusion for you? I apologise for bothering you I'm just really itching to form to a consensus. Seanmurpha (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear though. We only see not even half of the critiquing they receive. Unless Ru or one od the judges states who is top and who is bottom which is only in the event of who wins the challenge and who is bottom two then the rest is open to interpretation. You can put judges comments in the episode so those reading may decide for themselves. Table must be neutral with no original research. It's as simple as that and no matter how you spin it it's STILL original research. Unless you have a reliable source then it will not be acceptable to include it. So unless the judgea say "Trinity, Shae, and Valentina you were the tops for this week and Charlie, Kimora, and Jaymes you were the bottom" then you cant include either HIGH or LOW or positive / negative critique Brocicle (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@brocicle is it possible to add commentary for each episode under the table? For instance if we quote the episode and then say "it is thought that *contestant's name* was one of the "tops" of the week? Seanmurpha (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not under the table, in the episode summary. You can say "Michelle said Shae's look was inspired etc etc while Ross said he found it predictable" but with what they actually say. That's another reason why high/low and safe colours wouldnt work because the judges can disagree on what look the the best for them for the week and whatnot. Brocicle (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Something needs to be done, every season you have a mass of fans complaining about no highs and lows. We need some sort of substitute for this because the neutral colours just will not suffice. If anybody has suggestions please come forward :) Seanmurpha (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a way that does it neutrally there's nothing to be done. I'm sorry but policy is in place for a reason. Brocicle (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you quote what the page itself is saying, then that solves the issue. Oath2order (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Because it's still considered orginal research to label them in groups if it isn't said specifically. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained for you to understand why it's considered original research and therefore against policy. No one is saying you can't add to the episode summaries "Michelle said this" but you cannot say, for example, Shae received positive critique/was one of the top, UNLESS it is explicitly stated. Putting "Michelle said this etc about Shae" is a neutral statement, whereas the high/low and safe blue/pink colour issue is not. Brocicle (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to watch your tone and how you talk to people. You seem to know so much about policy, let me direct you to WP:CIV. Furthermore, let me remind you of WP:EW which you seem to be doing on the main pages. Let me try and explain this to you. If Ru states that "the three of you were the winning team, X was the winner", then the other two that didn't win but were on the winning team were light blue. If Ru states that "You tried to do X but came up short. You are safe", that is a pink colour. And therefore low. Oath2order (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? There's nothing wrong with my tone. Have you forgotten your snarky remarks you put in the edit summary when first responding to me? Bit hypocritical don't you think? So do not sit there and direct me to WP:CIVIL when I have done nothing to warrant such. Also, it's not edit warring. It standard practice to leave pages as they were until the discussion is complete, which I put in the edit summaries each time. Half the time the winning team doesnt even get critiqued. They're told who the winner is out of the team and then they leave for the other team to be critiqued. I don't know how many times it needs to be said. If it isn't explicitly stated then it's original research.
 * "I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you" comes off as extraordinarily condescending. And yes, it is edit warring. I've been warned about doing exactly what you're doing before. Oath2order (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If you read it as condescending that is your choice but I assure you it wasn't. Two reverts with a VALID reason for reverting isn't edit warring, especially when those choose to ignore the valid reason. Anyway, back to the topic at hand, may be it would be best for an admin to comment to close the discussion and make a decision. I'm assuming everyone has said what they would like regarding the issue. Brocicle (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that no matter what ends up happening with the admin, there'll be quite some outrage so I hope you have fun spending what will probably be a long time reverting edits here. :) Oath2order (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually liked having the pink and lightblue color on the queen who was safe, but not putting the contestant as HIGH or LOW. If we can't have the actual HIGH's and LOW's on here, than I guess this is the only other best option, and to be honest I think it worked. The tables are really confusing if I happened to miss the episode, I would always look on the tablet to see who was in the top and bottom, but now I can't see it anymore. Also the color, for the last time, looks white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If an admin decides the blue /pink system is fine then I will respect their decision, and if they decide not then other editors also need to respect the decision. I'll happily revert if the decision is to leave it and other editors don't respect that.
 * I suggest you go to the rupauls drag race wiki then if that's what you personally prefer. Brocicle (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@ What do you mean? This is rupaul's drag race wiki? That makes no sense.


 * There's a specific wikia site dedicated to drag racr with their own guidelines and standards if you prefer a different standard for the table. Don't forget to sign your comments. Brocicle (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply to, , and :  I have been reading this and it is quite lengthy so forgive me if I don't address most of it, however, I do want to clear up one thing that rubbed me the wrong way that was stated by saying "every season you have a mass of fans complaining about no highs and lows." To address this, we should not be concerned with what the fans of the show think and simply because this is not a fandom, this is an encyclopedia. We are not here to interpret information and especially not here to interpret it in a way that is biased/pleasing to us or the fans. This site is for recording data/information to reflect what actually happened. This is the sole reason in which I initially brought forth the argument that this was against WP:OR. I think everyone needs to take a step back and not think about what is best for them, but what is best for the article. We need to put personal feelings and phrases like "I like it" or "fans disagree with it" aside if they can not be backed up by Wikipedia policy.


 * To answer another problem we are having, someone proposed having the word "SAFE" have a background that reflects how the contestants did, whether they almost won or almost lost. In my eyes, this is equivalent and just as much Original Reasearch as having "TOP" or "BTTM" in space of the word "SAFE". They have relatively the same meaning if we use pink or blue as the backgrounds. To get to the conclusion of pink/blue, you still have to access the critics of the judges, the same as getting the conclusion of top/bottom. It is just disguised differently. I also do not agree with having this information on season 9, because the articles are doing what the fans are doing, interpreting the critics. However, this is a much more complicated issue. Chase |  talk 17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So in short it seems as though blue/pink does in fact fall under original research and therefore will not be accepted due to policy. If this is indeed the right way to go then it should remain with a neutral background that states SAFE but the constestant received critique and the discussion should be closed. Brocicle (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I brought up fans is because they just so happen to be the ones complaining about the Wikipedia pages. Also, I realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a "fandom" but the reason they're complaining is that they feel Wikipedia is withholding information in order to deliver facts that have been too subject to policy. They feel Wikipedia has been too strict. Another thing I wanted to mention is the fact that the last three episodes have always had three contestants in the "top" and three contestants in the "bottom". With the exception of episode 1 which had no bottoms but also didn't have a "bottom 2" lip syncing for their lives. I know you guys will probably consider this original research but I felt it was worth the mention as it makes the "tops and bottoms" that bit more obvious. I mean, if 6 contestants received judges critiques, and the same amount next week, and the amount of people who were in the bottom and the amount of people who were in the top have the same amount next week, surely is has to count for something Seanmurpha (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They can complain all they want but this is an encyclopedia not a site that caters to what fans want. As I've said many times before unless specifically stated like in episode one who is in the top then it is original research. I and three other editors have said this yet you still take no notice. Brocicle (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Brocicle and others who note that we're specifically WP:NOTFANSITE and that extrapolating "highs" and "lows" from episode summaries is OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

But we have sources? See my section below. Why can't we use them to determine high/low? Umimmak (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it still constitutes original research and high/low is against policy. Brocicle (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it original research if you use sources? And "high/low" itself isn't against policy; it's against policy when Wikipedia editors interpret the judges' comments as high or low without any sources. Umimmak (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Because they interpreted what the judges have said. Unless it is specifically stated they are in the top three like the first episode of the season then it still falls under an interpretation which is original research. Unless the source is a direct one from a company associated with drag race such as Logo, VH1 or World of Wonder, then it can't used. Brocicle (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we add a LOW, to contestant Charlie Hides in episode 2, as Rupaul explicitly stated during the run-throughs in episode 3 that he was one of the "bottoms" the week before... or is it too messy? Seanmurpha (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what constitutes WP:OR; to quote the page, this refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Other users have cited published sources that back up exactly what it is they're saying. The policy in no way prohibits the inclusion of sources that interpret elements of what it is they're writing about. Given this, specifying which contestant performed well and which contestants performed poorly would absolutely not constitute original research. Anonymous5454 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Constant won" color problem
Per MOS:CONTRAST, having that dark of color for blue should have a white text. The text color and foreground color are far too close to not contrast enough for those who may have trouble with seeing certain colors. I've attempted to abide by this manual of style, on multiple occasions, and continue to be reverted. I've even brought this up prior, and discussion continues to be deleted on past seasons. And, even for those without vision problems, the text still blends in together.  livelikemusic    talk!  12:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't recall seeing the discussion. So, just change the text to white in the win section? Oath2order (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done it multiple times, and have been reverted, again, because "other seasons don't do it", etc.  livelikemusic    talk!  23:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you just mass-edit all the seasons at once (or me, I can do that), nobody can really say that. But it's just a "change the text to white", yeah? Oath2order (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can definitely go ahead and edit the other seasons tomorrow; am off to bed now, as it is nearly midnight and do have work in the morning!  livelikemusic    talk!  03:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oath2order can you please mass edit the pages. The colour is definitely too hard to see. Seanmurpha (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At work ATM but will do it if the other person doesn't when I get home. Oath2order (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * it's been taken care of :) Oath2order (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, how amazing of you! Thank you! Now, if only others would stop changing it back!   livelikemusic    talk!  00:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Replacing HIGHs and LOWs
I'd just like to say that i like how they replaced the HIGHs for the light-blue "SAFE" and the LOWs for that whiteish light-pink "SAFE". It's not even necessary to say that light-blue means top and light-pink means bottom, you could just say one recieved good critiques but ended up safe and the other ones recieved bad critiques but ended up safe. I personally think it's a good middle term for the people who want it to have HIGHs and LOWs and the people who want it to be all "SAFE".
 * So then, I do wonder, what would be the *confirmed* results? People would still change from safe color to low color... I do like the idea! Oath2order (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

But under the colours it would have to have a description, what would it be? "The contestant recieved *postive* judges critiques and was ultimately declared safe" for light blue. And "the contested received negative judges critques but was ultimately declared safe. This idea is good! If we decide to use it can we mass edit it to apply to all the seasons? Seanmurpha (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ratings
Can we change the rating numbers to thousands instead of millions? No drag race episode has ever exceeded 1 million views. I Seanmurpha (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free Oath2order (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Photograph
Can we add the cast photos to the drag race season articles? Every season has one from the promo shoots and for the amount of people who visit the pages it would really brighten them up. Right now they are just dull text. Seanmurpha (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure policy would allow it. I know we had to get rid of the winner pics for some reason. Oath2order (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this would look good on all of the season's pages as they all have cast photos, I'm not sure how to add a photo to the top of the page correctly though, I tried before and failed Seanmurpha (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't put copyrighted photos on Wikipedia unless there is a Fair Use Rationale, and there isn't one for this purpose. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighted? Do you mean the fact that there are names like LogoTV and VH1 attached to the photo? Can't we just link the photo from a source? Like social media? Surely if they're on social media we could use them Seanmurpha (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Professional and commercial images are copyrighted and cannot be used here. We can only use media with free licenses. Please familiarize yourself with Image use policy for a start. There are limited cases when copyrighted images can be used (like an album cover or movie poster) but this use would not be covered. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes for lightblue and pink
I'm just gonna use this as a section for notes on each episode. This starts after Ru brings the queens back after judge deliberations. Lists in order the queens and their status.

Episode 1
Eureka, Sasha, Nina asked to step forward as top three, Nina declared winner. Eureka and Sasha in the positive critiques/top 3.

Episode 2
Nina, Alexis, Sasha, Aja, CLF, Farrah, Peppermint, Eureka asked to step forward, proclaimed safe. Judge's critiques/break. Shea then declared safe. Jaymes declared up for elimination. Trinity called safe. Valentina called the winner. Charlie Hides critiqued, no status. Kimora Blac critiqued. Charlie declared safe/pink. Kimora therefore up for elimination.

Oath2order (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 3
CLF, Charlie, Eureka, Alexis, Sasha, Nina, Shea are safe. Deliberations. Peppermint is safe. Kimora is bottom 2. Trinity is the winner. Valentina is positively critiqued and safe. Farrah is negatively critiqued. Aja is bottom 2. Farrah is safe. Oath2order (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 4
Shea and Sasha are the winners. Team Good Morning Bitches are safe. Team Not On Today are all up for elimination. Deliberations. CLF safe. Trinity bottom 2. Eureka and Nina are safe. Peppermint is negatively critiqued. Charlie is bottom 2. Peppermint is safe. Oath2order (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 5
Peppermint, Alexis, Farrah, CLF, Nina, Shea are the tops and bottoms. Rest are safe. Peppermint is safe. Alexis is safe. Shea is the winner. Last three are negatively critiqued. Nina is safe. CLF and Farrah are bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for tops/bottoms
Since the issue is about original research, could we list the tops and bottoms of each episode if we defer to other sources? This way it's not original research, but we can still show who's top and bottom of each week.

Episode 2: "She Done Already Done Brought It On"
"(Drag vlogger Charlie Hides has similar trouble making an impression this week, and ends up in the bottom three.) [...] On the opposite end of the spectrum are Shea Couleé, Trinity Taylor, and Valentina, who impress the judges with their cheerleading performances and runway looks."

- AV Club

"Shea pulled into focus this episode by both delivering on the challenge with a top 3 performance [...] but Trinity's top three placement this challenge allows her to at least head it up. [...] 12. Charlie Hides Well, someone needed to fill out the bottom three and someone needed to fill our 12th spot."

- W Magazine Umimmak (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * oh look a source for lightblue/pink for episode 2. Oath2order (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 3: "Draggily Ever After"
"The top three is almost the same as last week, with Peppermint replacing Shea while Valentina and Trinity continue to assert their dominance."

- AV Club

"It was a close call between Farrah and Aja when it came down to the final elimination. I think Mama Ru was tired of Kimora’s high self esteem problem and made the right call in keeping the somewhat whiney, but still lovable, Farrah."

- Entertainment Weekly

Umimmak (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Contestant info
Can Charlie please be added that he is also from London as well as Boston please Jigajoe (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As this is an American show, and Hides was born in Boston, it would be best to just display Boston for brevity. TheKaphox   T  13:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Is says that he's from both "Boston, MA / London, UK" on the show. I think you should add what's displayed on the show in episode 1. This is displayed in Charlie's entrance, along with his age being 52. Seanmurpha (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Lip-sync Episode 1 thing
and - Alright, before you two get yelled at due to what could appear to be an edit war, it's probably best y'all move it to this talk page. Oath2order (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I literally deleted it once, it's not even close to be an editing war. But there's seriously no point of having that on there when there was no lip sync. It's irrelevant to say there was no lip sync, when everyone knows there's no lip sync by the progress table.
 * Sorry, just looking out for people. I've been reported the admins so we've gotta be extra careful to not break any rules. Oath2order (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you feel about the lip sync table?
 * Hard to say. On one hand, I think the "no lip sync" does make sense, so that the table tracks each episode and the lipsync (or lack thereof). On your point, I think that you're going for the more traditional idea of what a table is, strictly showing the information relevant. Oath2order (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm done trying now. Nothing I say is ever right so I'm just done. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said at all. Oath2order (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Having the no lip sync box makes plenty of sense. Brocicle (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Someone might incorrectly assume that the lip-sync on episode 1 was "Love Shack", however with the "No lip-sync" text, we can cover all bases. TheKaphox   T  21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It literally says the love shack lip sync was in episode 2 so how would people mistake that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B16E:6CAF:4460:B4D8:37F2:3765 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on the progress tables!
Hi everyone, I've just made a discussion on the main talk page of RuPaul's Drag Race (link here), concerning the progress table. Would appreciate if everyone who are interested to visit and comment about their opinions regarding this matter. Regards, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk &middot;&#32;contribs} 05:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017
GurlNo (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"High" and "Low" Issue Proposal
For those invested in the discussion about "High" and "Low" table entries, a proposal is up for voting on at Talk: RuPaul's Drag Race. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 04
"The contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately chosen to be safe." Idk why y'all still insist in this bullshit. Did Aja, Alexis, Farrah and Valentina recieved judges critiques on episode 04? If so, i don't remember. Just another reason why we should either have HIGHs and LOWs back or replace the HIGHs with the light-blue safe "The contestant was one of the best in the challenge but did not win". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamqueer (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there's been a discussion for weeks now. Feel free to add your opinion to it. Brocicle (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree . That episode didn't really have "highs"; it had people on the winning team but they didn't all get critiqued like they would if they were "High" on an individual challenge. Umimmak (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the spoilers in the Contestants section of the page
User 727deluxe appears to have posted spoilers of the entire outcome around two hours ago. Please can these be removed.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsims (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparent Spoilers
I just removed some potential spoilers regarding the outcome of future lip-syncs, and hence the elimination order and top 3 were stated revealed. Obviously, I don't know if these are accurate or just someone's guess/dreams, but shouldn't be on the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.202.125 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

-- User 186.133.43.237 vandalized the page in a couple of other sections as well with either spoilers or info that is speculation on their part. I reverted your edits, as well as those of that user, so that the page now appears as it did before any of their vandalism took place. Thank you for your help! Racaulk (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring
A redlink editor is edit warring today, making undiscussed changes to the standard, stable language used in the charts. I have alerted him to WP:BRD via edit summary and will now do so on his talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD: RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
I'm not entirely sure the AfD has been initiated for multiple articles successfully, but I created some stubs for 4 RuPaul contestants, and they were all nominated for deletion: Nina Bo'nina Brown, Trinity Taylor, Valentina (drag queen), and Sasha Velour. I wasn't really given any time to expand these articles. You can view the discussion at Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen) (2nd nomination). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017
Rsandoval89 (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please link Kimora Blac
 * That page is a redirect, so no. Oath2order (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Aja (drag queen)
The Aja (drag queen) article has been nominated for deletion. Page watchers are invited to make improvements and/or participate in the ongoing deletion discussion. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Trinity Taylor
Do any editors have a sense of whether or not Trinity Taylor qualifies for a standalone article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so just yet. There's rumours about her being on as4 so may be if that's true once announced? I dont know how extensive her paegent history is, but she isn't known for much other than drag race and that. Brocicle (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to add, a quick Google search shows mostly bookings for gigs, her social media, and interviews or stuff to do with drag race like drag con. Per WP:NOTABILITY she doesn't have significant coverage to meet the guidelines so I definitely don't think she qualifies. Brocicle (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Biography of living persons violation
I haven't checked previous seasons' articles yet, but we absolutely cannot make personal-life claims about contestants private lives, including their purported civilian names, without authoritative reliable-source citations. It's a violation of one of Wikipedia's most stringent policies, WP:BLP. That means a credible, published citation for footnoting, and not your or my claim of personal knowledge. Making personal claims about living people without RS citing is a bright-line violation. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have asked User:Devonruuurs, whose edit here was a blatant violation of WP:BLP, to familiarize themselves with the policy and to discuss any issues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like every other season contains the real names. I imagine if they are revealed on official promos or on the show itself it's ok to include them here, but I can't imagine where people are digging up these names before the season starts. I checked all the official sites and they only list the drag names. Definitely a BLP violation. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fortunately I think I have found a reliable source for their names, International Business Times:  TheKaphox   T  17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I wish it were that simple. But IBI is citing a RuPaul fan page, which in turn seems to have lifted its information straight from this wikipedia article, make it WP:CIRCULAR and unusable. We need to find RS cites from before this Wikipedia article went up. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I didn't notice that citation. I have reverted my edit. TheKaphox   T  17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the point of having the contestants' actual names on the page then if only 4 of them people know the actual name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The point is that they'll get filled in eventually as information comes out in reliable journalistic and reference sources. We don't take it upon ourselves to unilaterally decide it'll never be OK to find and insert this information. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"Guest judges"
It should be stated that Entertainment Weekly, which is sourced within the article, specifically states that all those listed under the Guest judges parameter will be guest judges on the judging panel. Nothing is stated about "special guests"; those will likely be confirmed as the seasons plays out on VH1, much like previous seasons. And said-additions of special guests — if there are to be any — will be listed accordingly, again, as done in previous seasons.  livelikemusic    talk!  22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Main Challenge
Can we please put the main challenge information on every page for the episodes. It would be nice to look on the episode summaries and have the tables of what the contestant did in the main challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean for this current challenge, the HIGH does apply. For once. Oath2order (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying, for instance in episode 1, to have the table in the episode summary, to put like what Lady Gaga outfit they had created and have that on every single season too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode 5 Lip Sync Song
Right now it's wikilinked to Woman Up, which redirects to Butterfly Effect (Ashley Roberts album). I removed the link as that's not the song they lip synced to but it got reverted because, in the edit note "The Meghan Trainor version is a cover of the Ashley Roberts song". (A) the song performed by Trainor contains a of the song performed by Roberts; it's not a cover, and (B) even if it were a cover why link to an album containing the original song instead of the album containing the song that was actually played (or no song at all as it's not necessary if the song itself wasn't notable). Umimmak (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Also, Eureka's elimination should be probably consistent with Willam's elimination in the lip sync table. Umimmak (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017
Submit an edit request

You can view and copy the source of this page:

The ninth season of RuPaul's Drag Race began airing on March 24, 2017, on VH1. Returning judges include RuPaul and Michelle Visage, along with Ross Matthews and Carson Kressley. Fourteen drag queens (including one returnee) will compete for the title of "America's Next Drag Superstar". The full list of contestants was revealed on February 2, 2017. This season saw the return of season eight contestant Cynthia Lee Fontaine.

Contestants
(Ages and names stated are at time of contest)

Contestant progress

 * The contestant won RuPaul's Drag Race.
 * The contestants were the runners-up.
 * The contestant was voted Miss Congeniality by viewers.
 * The contestant won the challenge.
 * The contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately chosen to be safe.
 * The contestant received positive critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe".
 * The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe".
 * The contestant was in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * The contestant was removed from the competition due to medical reasons.
 * The contestant returned as a guest for the finale episode.

Lip-syncs

 * The contestant was eliminated after their first time in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated after their second time in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated after their third time in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated after the final lipsync of the season.

Guest judges
(In chronological order)


 * Lady Gaga (singer, songwriter, and actress)
 * The B-52's (new wave band)
 * Todrick Hall (actor and singer)
 * Cheyenne Jackson (actor and singer)
 * Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman (actor and model)
 * Naya Rivera (actress and singer)
 * Meghan Trainor (singer and songwriter)
 * Candis Cayne (actress)
 * Denis O'Hare (actor)
 * Jennie Garth (actress)
 * Tori Spelling (actress and television personality)
 * Fortune Feimster (writer, comedian, and actress)
 * Tamar Braxton (singer and television personality)
 * Lisa Robertson (television personality and former QVC host)
 * Noah Galvin (actor)
 * Kesha (singer and songwriter)
 * Andie MacDowell (actress)
 * Joan Smalls (fashion model)

Guest judges adapted from Entertainment Weekly.

Special guests
Guests who appeared in episodes, but did not judge on the main stage. (In order of appearance)
 * Episode 2:
 * Lisa Kudrow (actress and comedian)

Vandalism
After the episode that aired on 5/19, both 69.123.21.103 and 2605:a000:1417:8114:19f2:7751:26e4:b531 have been vandalizing the page in favor of the ousted queen. Can we get a edit protect or block the vandals please? 108.49.215.167 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Finale
I'm thinking that Trinity and Shea's eliminated should be red and not sienna because sienna has a different purpose for the other seasons and red is eliminated from a lip sync and they lip synced. We shouldn't really have the sienna color being 2 different things on different seasons. Also the lip sync section, the eliminated contestants should be normal for them like the number of lip syncs they did. And peppermints color should be yellow since it was the final lip sync. Thanks for your time if anyone sees this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B158:F9E2:8110:FB63:7B29:50EA (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They're sienna as it's the finale...it doesn't mean 2 different things on different seasons. Brocicle (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does mean 2 different things. The other seasons say they were eliminated after not lip syncing. But they lip synced. It should be red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B14B:5612:14F2:690F:2872:29CE (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't be. Brocicle (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And why shouldn't it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B10D:6BF:DC5A:1A0A:795:E836 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Already explained why. If you don't accept it that is you issue. Thanks Brocicle (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can ignore any edit requests or comments from a 2600:1008:B1* IP. It's block evasion by . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor Contestant Progress Table Formatting Gripe
This page is semi-protected so I can't make this change on this page yet. The background of some of the cells in the contestant progress table identifying the contestant was safe from that episode's elimination is different for a couple rows, namely, episodes 4, 10, and 12. The background is cornsilk, instead of the default table cell background colour "#f9f9f9", this is also the case for the "Color box" below the table that identifies the colour of the cell when "The contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately chosen to be safe." If someone else wants to fix this right quick that would be appreciated, otherwise I will once my account gets confirmed. Thanks!

Lavince14 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with how it is. Please stop making unnecessary edits to all the season pages. Brocicle (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reality Stars: The Musical
I've created Reality Stars: The Musical, which is about the Kardashian musical episode, and invite page watchers to help improve. I've shared plenty of sources on the article's talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with pending changes review on this page?
The protection template for this page says that the auto-accept criterion is autoconfirmed status. However, my (extended confirmed) changes are still marked as pending and needing review. Has anyone else had similar issues editing this page? This appears to be a new problem, as previous edits I made to this page (such as this one and this one) were automatically accepted.

, I saw that you're the one who protected the page; are you able to offer any insight? Thanks, Armadillopteryxtalk 09:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Also pinging, since I saw you just reviewed those revisions. Is there anything you can see on this page that would explain why users with autoconfirmed status aren't having their revisions automatically accepted? Armadillopteryxtalk 09:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. But if it was something related to the page, I don't think the accepts/reverts would be automatic either. WQUlrich (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. It seems we crossed paths while editing this talk page, as I added some further context (to my original comment) that other edits I made to this page within the past month were automatically accepted. Strange. Armadillopteryxtalk 09:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a pending change and then you edit the page without the pending changes review role, your edit will need to be accepted alongside the preceding ones. If you're the only one that's edited the page (i.e. no pending changes already) your edit will go through immediately.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  03:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Can you think of any reason why all my previous edits to this page were automatically accepted, but this one wasn't? If you look at the article history, edits I made on 4 November and 21 October, for example, were automatically accepted, despite the fact that I am not a pending changes reviewer. Other users (such as The PerfectAngel on 19 October) have also made automatically accepted edits to this article without the pending changes reviewer role. It's not a big deal, obviously—I'm just trying to better understand how this works. Armadillopteryxtalk 04:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind—I reread your reply and understand better now. Thanks! Armadillopteryxtalk 04:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Though, actually: My edit on 21 October was functionally identical to the one I made on 15 November (i.e. reverting to the last reviewed version of the page even though there were unapproved edits in between), yet the 21 October edit was automatically reviewed, and the 15 November one wasn't. Strange. Armadillopteryxtalk 04:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020
Change the contestant table to accurately reflect the final positions. In particular, Trinity Taylor coming in 4th place and Shea Coulee coming in 3rd place as even though they were eliminated at the same point; Trinity was eliminated first. Therefore, Shea still had a chance to win when Trinity did not, when Trinity was eliminated, Shea, Sasha and Peppermint were still in the fight for the crown, hence the changing of positions. Shaun3099 (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please provide reliable, secondary source(s) that support this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oath's tracking
I'm just gonna use this as a section for notes on each episode. This starts after Ru brings the queens back after judge deliberations. Lists in order the queens and their status.

Episode 1
Eureka, Sasha, Nina asked to step forward as top three, Nina declared winner. Eureka and Sasha in the positive critiques/top 3.

Episode 2
Nina, Alexis, Sasha, Aja, CLF, Farrah, Peppermint, Eureka asked to step forward, proclaimed safe. Judge's critiques/break. Shea then declared safe. Jaymes declared up for elimination. Trinity called safe. Valentina called the winner. Charlie Hides critiqued, no status. Kimora Blac critiqued. Charlie declared safe/pink. Kimora therefore up for elimination.

Oath2order (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 3
CLF, Charlie, Eureka, Alexis, Sasha, Nina, Shea are safe. Deliberations. Peppermint is safe. Kimora is bottom 2. Trinity is the winner. Valentina is positively critiqued and safe. Farrah is negatively critiqued. Aja is bottom 2. Farrah is safe. Oath2order (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 4
Shea and Sasha are the winners. Team Good Morning Bitches are safe. Team Not On Today are all up for elimination. Deliberations. CLF safe. Trinity bottom 2. Eureka and Nina are safe. Peppermint is negatively critiqued. Charlie is bottom 2. Peppermint is safe. Oath2order (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are all the members of "Good Morning Bitches" marked as HIGH on the progress chart? Here, it says they are all SAFE. The definition of HIGH on the progress chart says The contestant received positive critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe." These contestants did not receive any critique. They were told to leave the stage for being on the winning team.

Episode 5
Peppermint, Alexis, Farrah, CLF, Nina, Shea are the tops and bottoms. Rest are safe. Peppermint is safe. Alexis is safe. Shea is the winner. Last three are negatively critiqued. Nina is safe. CLF and Farrah are bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 6
Trinity, Aja, Valentina, Shea are safe. Critiques. Sasha is positively critiqued. Alexis is positively critiqued and wins. Nina is safe. CLF is negatively critiqued and bottom 2. Peppermint is negatively critiqued. Farrah Moan is negatively critiqued. Farrah is safe. Peppermint bottom two. Oath2order (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 7
Farrah, Peppermint, Alexis safe. Deliberations. Valentina, Trinity, and Shea positively critiqued. Trinity wins. Valentina and Shea are safe. Aja, Sasha, and Nina are negatively critiqued. Sasha is safe. Oath2order (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode 8
Nina, Valentina are safe with no critiques. Judge's critiques. Shea is safe. Sasha is positively critiqued. Peppermint is the winner. Sasha is safe. Trinity, Farrah, then Alexis are negatively critiqued. Trinity is safe. Oath2order (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode 9
Sasha and Shea win. Peppermint and Trinity are positively critiqued and safe. Nina is bottom 2. Valentina and Alexis are negatively critiqued. Alexis is safe. Valentina bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode 10
Peppermint is safe. Trinity win. Sasha is safe. Nina is bottom 2. Alexis is negatively critiqued. Shea is negatively critiqued. Shea is bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode 11
Sasha and Shea are positively critiqued. Shea wins. Sasha is safe. Alexis is bottom 2. Trinity is negatively critiqued. Peppermint is bottom 2. Trinity is safe. Oath2order (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I honestly think since Trinity got both positive & negative critiques she should be marked as safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.170.82 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * She did receive both negative and positive critiques so I agree, she should be marked as safe. Brocicle (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I see it (sorry for the belatedness of it) is that she was announced as safe between the two bottom 2 queens. Therefore low. Oath2order (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Contestant progress

 * The contestant won RuPaul's Drag Race.
 * The contestants were the runners-up.
 * The contestant was voted Miss Congeniality by viewers.
 * The contestant won the challenge.
 * The contestant received positive critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe."
 * The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe."
 * The contestant was in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * The contestant was removed from the competition due to medical reasons.
 * The contestant returned as a guest for the reunion and finale episodes.

False citations
All the citations for the per episode details are empty, see the vast collection of cite errors at the end of the article. In particular references 6-12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. All of these reference group cites "episode 01', etc but none are ever defined.

I'm at a slight loss as to how to proceed. Marking them all as "failed verification" seems wrong as these not anything to even verify. Simply removing the sources wouldn't achieve anything. Removing the content would seem reasonable but highly likely to get a lot of negative feedback.

92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those "refs" were all nonsense; good catch. Perhaps someone else may have a better way to deal with it, but for now I've removed all those ref tags and marked the section as unsourced. Armadillo  pteryx  13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Armadillopteryx. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on table
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul%27s Drag Race. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion regarding high, safe and low placements.
Hello all. Currently, at the page for the RPDR Wikiproject, we started a discussion about how to properly define these placements, since the lack of clear criteria has led to a lot of subjective edits and in some cases, edit warring. Since these definitions could potentially effect the placement tables through all the seasons, we would like to receive the widest possible input, to make sure that all the views and perspectives are taken in account. So, anyone interested in taking part in the conversation, please give us your view at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#Establishing_a_consistent_criteria_for_SAFE%2C_HIGH_and_LOW_placements Not A Superhero (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

HIGHs and LOWs

 * Comment to, , , , and :  Although I was not a part of the discussion because I was not aware that it was taking place, I need to remind everyone of the decision. It was that HIGhs and LOWs are acceptable if there are sources, whether it be from the original source or a secondary one. Which I am 100% behind. I have always been. I actually like have HIGHs and LOWs, but they need to be sourced. This is the only season that is currently sourced, the rest will need to be. I am not taking the time to do this, so others must, otherwise the current format on those pages must stay. The decision also stated that HIGHs and LOWs can be added if the critiques are clear, but as we have seen none of the comments have been clear. This causing mass edit wars to who should be in the top and who is in the bottom. This is the major problem I set out to fix in the first place. We need to be clear of the results of the discussion and not have a "this side won, this side lost" mentality. Neither "side" won or lost because what was stated is already common knowledge on Wikipedia. If I am missing anything or have misread, please inform me, but from what I have read this is what stands. Thank you, Chase |  talk 02:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You would think that, but Brocicle was vehemently claiming otherwise, see, e.g., discussion here


 * But we have sources? See my section below. Why can't we use them to determine high/low? Umimmak (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it still constitutes original research and high/low is against policy. Brocicle (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it original research if you use sources? And "high/low" itself isn't against policy; it's against policy when Wikipedia editors interpret the judges' comments as high or low without any sources. Umimmak (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they interpreted what the judges have said. Unless it is specifically stated they are in the top three like the first episode of the season then it still falls under an interpretation which is original research. Unless the source is a direct one from a company associated with drag race such as Logo, VH1 or World of Wonder, then it can't used. Brocicle (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely incorrect, and you really need to stop propagating it and being antagonistic to editors who are following community consensus. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need to calm down, Umimmak was quoting from the previous conversation. No antagonism is happening to anyone so please check your facts. Brocicle (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So perhaps it was "common knowledge" for nearly everyone, but at least some editors believed using any source that didn't come from an affiliated company somehow constituted WP:OR. I'm just glad this is finally settled. Umimmak (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know why you're just saying I claimed it when two other editors agreed with me but hey. Brocicle (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The show is a primary source, but if you want additional sources, why don't we use Untucked as one? Every episode the queens discuss who is in the top and who is in the bottom. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's should be noted that some of the citation is from a judge of the show itself, Carson Kressley. And also, @CaliforniaDreamsFan has agreed to add citation to the rest of the seasons Seanmurpha (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The queens discussing who they personally think are in the top or in the bottom are only giving their opinion. It's not the show or the judges saying this. It also sounds as if we're interpreting the queens' opinions, which is OR.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, using Untucked means you'd have to give a timestamp and, preferably, the actual quote for when someone says something that says, "So-and-so was high, so-and-so was low." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We aren't using episodes of Untucked. Per the WP:CONSENSUS, we are going to be using the show as a WP:Primary and cite to a source from one of the show's judges. This issue has been settled several times over. Anonymous5454 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You're trying so hard to have the table be your way. Obviously no one agreed with you so just stop trying. Everyone agreed with the consensus so stop trying to grasp at anything to have it be your way.
 * Actually other editors did agree with me. Nothing is being grasped at so not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. Don't forget to sign your comments. Brocicle (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is supposed to be dictated by the majority, not a small group of opinionated "other editors". These pages only contain partial and lazy documentation. Jacksm3 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)