Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drag Race/Archive 3

Todrick Hall
Should the Todrick Hall article be part of this project? I was surprised to see our project banner on his talk page. I know he's appeared on the series multiple times, but I'd say his connection to RPDR is tangential. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He’s one tier below Ross Matthews, and a consummate drag performer. You just removed a huge chunk of true content from his bio which helped explain how accomplished an artist he has become. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok, well, the content should be sourced. I'm not going to add back unsourced text. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm familiar with Hall's body of work, but what does that have to do with WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is really borderline. On one hand, most of what he's done in drag has been on Broadway and elsewhere, not on Drag Race. And I don't think his usual one-appearance-per-season guest spot makes him a significant part of the show. On the other hand, he was a regular judge in AS2, when he filled in for Ross, so maybe a good question to ask is: should anyone who has ever held a regular judge spot be covered by the WikiProject? Armadillopteryxtalk 18:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Todrick was a performer before RuPaul amde him an occassional judge on the show. He acted and started in Broadway many times before dragrace. ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }- 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Carson Kressley and Ross Mathews were also notable for their own careers before becoming Drag Race judges, but we consider them a part of this WikiProject. My point is: what would be the rationale for including them but not Todrick? Todrick's drag/performances have nothing to do with the show, but he was a regular judge for a full season (AS2) in addition to his single-episode spots in other seasons. So what is the threshold that Carson and Ross pass that Todrick does not? Regular judge for at least two seasons? Armadillopteryxtalk 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't know Hall was ever a regular judge, so that may change things. I agree, Hall's drag and work unrelated to Drag Race are irrelevant here and we need to focus specifically on whether or not his work related to Drag Race means he should be part of this project. I'm fine with any regular judges being under the umbrella of this project, and I'm not wanting to create an arbitrary threshold like certain number of seasons, etc. I only raised the question here because I did not think of Hall as a regular judge in RDRR history, but if I'm wrong, my bad! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the fact that Todrick replaced Ross as a regular judge on All Stars 2 is the only reason I would say he falls under our umbrella. I agree that his guest spots don't qualify him. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Then, yes, I'm fine keeping Hall as part of this project, but I'll assume we won't include all of his projects and related articles under the scope of this project. Thanks for noting his AS2 participation. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assumption. His projects unrelated to Drag Race don't fall under our umbrella, just as Ross's and Carson's don't/wouldn't. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I’ve expanded the Hall article. Also in doing research for other RPDR content he appears to have been the lead choreographer for quite a few seasons often appearing in rehearsal footage. From there he became an occasional judge, then a regular judge. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Drag Race (franchise) at AfD
It likely needs a name change but the franchise article is at AfD. Articles for deletion/Drag Race (franchise). Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Poundcake (album)
I don't remember where we left off re: whether or not projects of contestants were part of this project or not. I've nominated Poundcake (album) for Good article status. The album features several RPDR queens. Should this article be under the umbrella of this project? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think so. And I would also consider projects of contestants (in general) worthy of at least recording on our project pages. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , So, like, the two mentioned immediately above? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, like those. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not opposed. The line starts to get blurred when we start talking about all the queens' little pet projects and various collaborations, but I'm generally fine including projects as part of the larger RPDR brand/empire. We can always discuss specific cases here. Thanks! (BTW, we may need to blitz through the queens' categories and articles to see which additional pages need to be tagged as part of this project!) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, where to draw the line is an interesting question, certainly subjective to a large degree. I would personally say that any work clearly related to a contestant's drag career is worth at least keeping track of here (unless, perhaps, it's related to their drag career but more strongly linked to a different franchise/other notable umbrella project, such as Courtney Act's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother). Armadillopteryxtalk 01:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll start adding articles about queens' albums and whatnot to this project as I come across them, starting with the ones mentioned above. I'm also planning to work on other album articles during June for Wiki Loves Pride, so hopefully this will build WP:RPDR's trophy case a bit! Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Kiara (drag queen)
Someone created an unsourced stub for Kiara (drag queen), which I've reverted twice. I don't want to be accused of edit warring, so someone else may need to step in here. FWIW, I'd love to see an entry if possible, but this unsourced one does not make the cut. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've reverted them and left a message at their talk page—though it appears to be a school IP, so I'm not sure if the message will get to the right person. Armadillo  pteryx  15:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yup, perfect, thank you! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The school IP has been blocked for 3 years. I'm considering this resolved and will archive this section. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman and Stacey McKenzie
Should we add Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman and Stacey McKenzie to this project as judges of Canada's Drag Race? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was agreed to add all recurring judges? I think we should also add add all recurring music directors, and choreographers for the show’s that have them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My thoughts about this are in line with what I said at above—in other words, I think being a regular judge for a whole season is a reasonable basis to fall under the umbrella of this project. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added both articles to this project. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

B*tchelor rewritten
I’ve re-written and sourced The B*tchelor, it’s still up for deletion.

The “i” in the title was stylized as a juicy eggplant emoji, if anyone can get a screenshot of that logo or make a replica for use as the article’s title I would really appreciate it! Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be able to claim a WP:HEYMANN on the deletion discussion if you feel the article has been overhauled. If I were editing the article, I'd steer clear of adding sources that don't have to do with the episode. Without reviewing them thoroughly, I notice some are from 2018, so they wouldn't have to do with the show. Just some thoughts to hopefully help at the deletion discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There’s only one reference that pre-dates the show airing, and that’s written by a reporter who was on set during the filming. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:The B*tchelor re: whether the page should be called "The B*tchelor" or "The Bitchelor". --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race: Vegas Revue
I've created a stub for RuPaul's Drag Race: Vegas Revue! Help updating the pages of the queens in the series is appreciated. I've also proposed this article be the Collaboration of the Month for August. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Drag Race Holland
FYI! https://ew.com/tv/rupauls-drag-race-holland-season-1/

I've redirected Drag Race Holland to the parent article for now. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created the stub Drag Race Holland since we now have a premiere date (US) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Tynomi Banks
I've created a page for Tynomi Banks (Canada's Drag Race). Improvements based on journalistic coverage welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessment categories
A bunch of articles have been tagged as part of this WikiProject, but (as evidenced by a few red links at the bottom of this article), I think all the assessment categories must be created manually. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know how this page can be created? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. New to the project. I believe I got it working. Nikki♥311 13:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you, and welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your assessment work on behalf of this project. I am curious, are you assessing season articles as high- or mid-class, and are all contestant articles low-importance? Any insight here would be helpful, and also give project members a chance to discuss the importance scale. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd just give us a place to start, so I'm not opposed to reassessing anything. My thought process:
 * RuPaul's Drag Race should be top-importance in Project RuPaul's Drag Race
 * High-importance articles are articles that apply to most episodes (RuPaul, Michelle Visage, list of contestants, etc)
 * Mid-importance articles are contestants that have more popularity or success outside of the show, etc.
 * Low-importance articles are contestants really only known for their time on the show, seasons, etc.
 * Like I said, I'm not married to anything. For example, maybe seasons should be mid-importance since they cover quite a bit of info? Should winners automatically be a mid? Also, I think some of the articles might not accurately reflect a contestant's popularity or success outside of the show, so some might be currently under-assessed (but can obviously be changed later). What does everyone think? Nikki♥311 01:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for sharing and for giving us a great place to start. I agree with making RuPaul's Drag Race top-importance. I am also fine with having the seasons, lists, and judges as high-importance, except I propose we have RuPaul's article top-importance as well. The whole RPDR industry is based around him. I think popularity can be a subjective thing, so I actually propose we have all contestants marked as mid-importance. This way we don't have to worry about how contestants differentiate from one another, popularity or otherwise. Then, maybe we can reserve low-importance for things like articles about contestants' albums and songs, and other tangentially related entries. What do you think? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm open to promoting season winners to high-importance, if others prefer, but this is just one thing we'll have to remember. With WikiProject assessments, I think consistency is most helpful longterm. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree RuPaul should be top-importance, that all contestants should be at least mid, and the tangentially related articles should be low. However, I don't think all contestants should be mid. Someone like Willam, Courtney Act, or Shangela is more notable than someone known mostly for their time on RPDR, and they are even more notable than some of the winners. I think we should mostly be consistent, but recognize that there are some exceptions and rate them accordingly. Nikki♥<b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 02:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't feel strongly either way, I'm just trying to be somewhat consistent. For now, I support you assessing as you see fit, taking this conversation into consideration. We can always make adjustments later. Thanks again for your help. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and I'll incorporate the changes we agreed on. Like you said, we can re-evaluate later if needed or if someone else chimes in with a strong opinion. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 00:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration for August 2020: RuPaul's Drag Race: Vegas Revue
Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Drag Race (franchise)
Check with this draft Drag Race (francise), is this will be essential for this article?-- <b style="color:hotpink">Happypillsjr</b> <big style="color:Red">✉ 03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Canada's Drag Race
Just to let everybody know that even though the premiere of Canada's Drag Race is still four days away, there has already been a (newly registered) editor named "Adm-500 Drag race" who's already gone in and tried to pre-spoil the first four weeks of the competition by updating the progress table with unsourced placement claims. (Some of their claims match rumours I've heard on the Toronto tell-a-queen circuit, so I'm not accusing them of being a liar, but that's not the point: the point is that even if their information is completely correct, we still don't publish the claims on here at all until they're independently verifiable in published sources.) I've reverted and revision-deleted their edits and placed the page under semi-protection, but just wanted to give you hennies a heads up what's happening just in case this snowballs. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some internet forums that have surprisingly sophisticate strategies to assess information leaks, verify their reliability, and extract every last drop of information from them. I've followed them for several seasons and they have gotten every single major detail right (At least in All Stars 4, Season 11, Season 12, and what has aired of All Stars 5 so far), so I would think their information may be accurate... BUT not verified or verifiable, because nothing can be verified before it airs and is reported somewhere, so in case it's necessary any support, I support treating them as rumors and acting accordingly. It has already happened in the sense that it was filmed, but it hasn't already happened in the sense that it hasn't been published. So thank you for that and we'll keep watch along with you. Not A Superhero (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Anything else to discuss here, or may I archive the section? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing here. Not A Superhero (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration for October 2020: Priyanka
What's her name? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No love for Priyanka this month?! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

First FL!
FYI, List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul is the project's first featured list! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yasss! Armadillo  pteryx  05:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jamal Sims
Jamal Sims has been nominated for deletion. Not tagged as part of this project but may be of interest to members. Happy editing, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up! There are a ton of reliable sources so there’s no way this should be deleted. It’s a very short stub if anyone wants a project.  Glee anon 23:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was kept. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration for November 2020: Vampire Fitness
Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Top 100 most powerful drag queens
This has been inserted into many articles lead sections: New York magazine named ____ one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019. The problem is that the article is only ranking RuPaul contestants. So please add the modifier: New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful *RuPaul* drag queens in June 2019. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's true that the editors of that New York magazine article only included Drag Race queens on the list, you'll notice that the title of the article is "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", and that phrase is accordingly capitalized in the version of the sentence that appears in our articles. Given that an inline citation is included at the end of the sentence to reflect that specific wording, I think it borders on editorializing to change the language—after all, it sure seems like they didn't consider any performers outside of the show, but they don't explicitly say they excluded anyone else from their selection criteria, so implying as much would be WP:OR even though our reasoning is probably right. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article itself states they only ranked RPDR alum: "...we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars." So while the title states "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", the content and description is RPDR alum. I think it'd be disingenuous to not include that it was only RPDR alum who were ranked. --Kbabej (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The way I interpreted is was that the title is sort of the name of the award, like "Best Actor" or "Most Likely to Succeed." If the title of the accolade were not capitalized, I would agree we should use a descriptor mentioning that only Drag Race queens are on the list. But it's capitalized as the name of the title, not lower-case as our own description. So even though (as you point out) the article mentions ranking RPDR queens, I don't think it's appropriate to change the wording of the title name. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s common for media to have an editor write a snappy title for the work submitted by the writer.
 * I can’t get around any sincere ranking of drag queens that *only* includes one sub-set dismissing all others. I would feel the same if they were only NYC queens and that was buried in the article, etc. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In one sense I fully agree with you: I think it would have been more clear/accurate for New York magazine to title its own list "The Most Powerful RuPaul's Drag Race Alumnae in America" or something similar. That said, they didn't. For us to change the language of their title (a capitalized, proper noun phrase—not our subjective assessment) would be editorializing if not WP:OR.
 * Consider this: we (Wikipedia editors) don't change the title of Best Actor to "best actor in an American film" in years that foreign films were not considered at the Oscars (even though many foreign actors deliver outstanding performances), and likewise we should not alter the name of this title even though we have valid criticism for the way the list was compiled.
 * Just to speculate, since it's a list of the most powerful queens in America, maybe the New York editors thought that performers who lack the RPDR platform aren't among the most powerful in America, even if they are among the most talented/artistic/vocal/etc. Whether or not that's true, though, does not matter: all that matters is what the RS says, and it's our job per policy to not include speculation or OR in our writing. The grammar in the sentence takes care of that: capitalizing the phrase shows it's a title chosen by the source, not Wiki editors' original descriptions. We did not describe the list that way; we are merely reporting the name of the list in the RS. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid NPOV says that we cannot knowingly deceive readers. We cannot pretend queen X is among the 100 most powerful when we know the source is unfairly bias against non-RPDQ queens for whatever reason.
 * Perhaps we should ask at the WP:RSNB what the NPOV way to present this information would be? Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how reporting a proper noun phrase from an RS verbatim is deceiving. It's not up to us and our opinions what the list is objectively named. All we can do is report what is stated in RS, with a citation, and we have done that. The fact that you and I don't like the name doesn't factor into what it is. As I explained in my previous reply, it's also just an assumption that the source is biased against non-RPDR queens. We don't know for a fact that they didn't reason out that only queens with the RPDR platform are among the most powerful (as opposed to other things, like most talented). And since we don't know that, it is deceiving to modify our writing off of that assumption. That said, I'm not opposed to hearing other opinions, such as those at WP:RSNB—though I'm not sure that's the right venue, since our questions isn't related to the reliability of the source. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with Armadillopteryx's assumption it's the name of an award (ie: Best Actor) per se; I think it's simply capitalizing the name of the article. Look at Vulture. All article titles are capitalized. As quoted above, the article states "...we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars." I think it's simply a ranked list and not an award. --Kbabej (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it's not an award, it's certainly a title. And the fact that it is capitalized in our sentence clearly delineates it as such. The grammar matters.
 * And let's not forget to look at the phrasing of the sentence as a whole. Right now, we state an objective fact: "New York magazine named X one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America." It's phrased that way because that is what New York magazine said. If we change the title to a descriptor, that will objectively not be what New York magazine said. We don't say "X is one of the most powerful drag queens in America". We say, "New York magazine called X one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America." If we deviate from this, we editorialize what New York magazine said.
 * I think at the core of my point is this: if we change this wording, we are violating WP:V (more at WP:VNT). Though some/all of us may personally believe the truth is that this list is not what it claims to be, what is verifiable is what the source said, and the phrasing on Wikipedia is unambiguously clear to say, "[Source] says X." If we change this to what we think about X, we're violating the verifiability pillar by attempting to assert what we believe is the truth despite not having a source for it. Armadillopteryxtalk 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, we use our WP:Brains to properly make an editorial decision, like every choice Wikipedia editors make, to serve the readers. It’s deceptive to report something that is untrue by almost every metric. I think RSNB would be best as they are well used to judging how sources can be presented NPOV. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, we don't editorialize our sources and instead report objectively what they said and attach an appropriate citation. Armadillopteryxtalk 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The source itself states, “we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. After it opens by saying how things associated with RuPaul are a big deal. It's OR to speculate whether they merely "left out" non-RPDR queens or whether they decided that the queens on their list are the most powerful because they were on RuPaul's show. They don't elaborate further or state their criteria explicitly.
 * I think the most neutral thing to do is what we've done: report the name of the list as it appears in the source and state openly that New York magazine said this (and phrased it as such). I would totally be onboard to change the description if the source had actually named the list a different thing or if we needed to obfuscate the fact that these are the source's words, not ours (which we shouldn't). But the list is named what it is, and our sentence is fully transparent about who phrased the description that way (i.e. not us). Armadillopteryxtalk 03:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might be right, I’ve started a RSNB discussion to get some outside eyes on the question. Let’s see if we get some new insight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion. I've commented as well. Armadillopteryxtalk 05:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Do one of you mind linking the discussion for those interested, please? --Kbabej (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Accordingly I’ve updated to:
 * In June 2019, New York magazine named Oddly as one of the top 100 drag queens on RPDR.
 * Anyone want to take on updating all the articles? Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hang on, that discussion was just begun, has only one new contributor, and no consensus. There is nothing to change as of yet, and if and when we do agree on a change, it will be delineated in writing. You can't take unilateral action to change a large number of articles based on your opinion. That's against policy, as I am sure you are aware. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are knowingly deceiving readers on dozens of BLP articles against policies of NPOV and V. I feel we should correct them to reflect reality as guided ASAP. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that we are "knowingly deceiving readers." It is my opinion that we have been absolutely objective in our phrasing, and if a reader chooses to ignore capitalization and interpret the sentence to mean something it objectively does not mean, it is not due to any error in our writing. I would actually be willing to make certain changes, but we need to respect the policies on NPOV and OR in our phrasing. We can't editorialize a source when stating what the source said. I would be open to something like the following:
 * New York magazine included ___ on its list of the Most Powerful Drag Queens in America in June 2019.
 * In June 2019, New York magazine included ___ in "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", a ranked list of 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants.
 * Do you have opinions on options like this? Armadillopteryxtalk 16:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m alarmed by the reluctance to take the direction given at RSNB. They directly say do not use “Most Powerful Drag Queens in America” anywhere except the source citation title. Instead rely only on what is in the source article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only response we received at RSNB was a response to your deliberate misrepresentation of the sentence at hand, not even the sentence itself. The discussion that person linked was about using headlines to source claims, not reproduce list titles. You should strike out and correct your incorrect reproduction of the sentence both at the top of this section and at RSNB, because you have been deliberately deceptive in your opening of both discussions on this topic by doing so, and both discussions have suffered as a result. Armadillopteryxtalk 17:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it should even be included unless they are in the top 20, since those are specifically numbered. Further, there are 153 contestants, and saying they are in the top 100 is deceptive as there is barely even enough to make a top 100 list. Nihlus  17:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair point, considering "top 100" out of 153 is two thirds of the contestants. --Kbabej (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree totally, and the total number of queens was actually one season less at that time so 140-something, with 2/3’s of all RPDR queens on the list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is also where consensus is now heading over at the RSNB discussion. Apparently this solution is amenable to everyone, so unless there are any objections, I think we should just go this route. Armadillopteryxtalk 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've not read this entire discussion, but I'm not sure why this is so controversial. We should present this as a list inclusion, not an award. Can't we just write something completely neutral like, "In 2019, Vulture.com ranked "America's top-100 Drag Race superstars" in their list of the "the most powerful drag queens" in the United States; Xperson ranked number YYY". Or, if they were not in the top 20, "Xperson was included in Vulture.com's 2019 list, "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", a ranking of America's top-100 Drag Race superstars". I'm fine with this wording being used for any of the queens in the list. Please be sure to let others weigh in so a consensus can be formed, before taking immediate action. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am all for using language that is fully objective and neutral (no opinions, no editorializing, just hard facts). I think that any rewording is objective if it does three things:
 * Makes it unambiguously clear the article subject (drag queen) was included in a list,
 * Accurately reproduces (i.e. does not modify) the name of the list, and
 * Clarifies that the only people included on the list are RPDR queens.
 * Above, I proposed something similar to you: In June 2019, New York magazine included ___ in "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", a ranked list of 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants.
 * Armadillopteryxtalk 02:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per their specific guidance at the RSNB, using the headline violates WP:V, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Another Believer‘s wording is acceptable but I still think only the top twenty should have this added. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. That guidance was the input of one editor, and it referred to using headlines to source claims, not to using them to ... state their own names. Do you really think you can never mention the name of an article or list in the body of a Wikipedia article? And FWIW, Another Believer's wording also includes the title, so you appear to be just reading what you want to read :-p
 * I'm also fine with only leaving the sentence in the articles of the top 20. Armadillopteryxtalk 09:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ”Titles are not statements, are often not even written by the journalist, and cannot be used to support anything” seems pretty clear you should not use them at all. There was little “wiggle” room. If you insist on going forward I’ll ask again about the new specific wording to see what the community’s experts in this area think. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. That says titles can't be used to support anything. Luckily, they're not being used to support anything in the sentences we're discussing. I posted over at the #Headlines discussion so they can clarify and so we can wrap this up. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you’re using ”Most Powerful Drag Queens”, which appears nowhere in the source itself, only the headline, then you are indeed missing the point and you’re using the title as content which violates WP:Verifiability. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you see the difference between *sourcing the truth value of a claim* and *quoting the name* of an article inline?
 * Do you think that "X is one of the top drag queens in America" is the same as "A publication put X on a list that the publication called 'The Top Drag Queens in America'"?
 * Or do all of those things sound exactly the same to you? Genuine question—I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to write the desired content as if the title didn’t exist. In this case you would never use “powerful” as it doesn’t appear in the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ive updated the top twenty, of someone else wants to strip this from the other eighty just post an update here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you're acting in good faith, but don't make unilateral changes until an agreement is reached on this talk page. Please wait for consensus. Maybe a productive way forward would be to list all of the sentences that have been proposed thus far (by you, me and others) and ping everyone who has participated for a poll on everyone's preferences? Armadillopteryxtalk 08:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The main point of all this was to stop spreading false information which everyone now seems to agree is the correct thing to do.
 * A new phrasing has already been put on the top twenty Queens, you can see a version on Bianca Del Rio. It incorporates two new points while dismissing the ‘powerful’ title; that a panel of writers and judges made the ranking, and that they are within the top twenty.
 * Anyone can tweak or otherwise edit this if they wish, my goal was to get the misinformation off.
 * I’m now working to ensure it’s removed from the other eighty queens which everyone also agreed should take place. If someone else wants to do it just let me know. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can help you remove the sentence from the non-top 20 articles (I've already done a couple, looking through them). But we didn't reach consensus about that sentence you put in the top 20 queens' articles, and the sentence you wrote includes a number of grammatical errors and is not very clear IMO. And I still think we should include the list name—as we discussed earlier, this is not the same thing as using it as content or using it to verify the veracity of the claim "X is a powerful drag queen." I think we should see what everyone else has to say and go from there.
 * Also, since this has been a long disagreement, just want to mention I don't harbor any ill will toward you and think you do lots of good things for this project. Armadillopteryxtalk 08:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: As far as I can see, the sentence has now been removed from the articles of everyone outside the top 20. Armadillopteryxtalk 09:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, no ill will, I appreciate you as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward (100 list)
Since this discussion sort of went stagnant before consensus was reached, I think it could help to take a quick poll on everyone's preferences. Below I will list all of the sentences that have been proposed so far, including the one that Gleeanon has just added to some articles. Which of the following does everyone prefer? If none of the following, would you like to propose a new sentence of your own?


 * Option 1: New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful *RuPaul* drag queens in June 2019.
 * Option 2: In June 2019, New Yorkmagazine published the results from their panel of judges and writers which ranked her in the top twenty Drag Race superstars.
 * Option 3: In 2019, Vulture.com ranked "America's top-100 Drag Race superstars" in their list of the "the most powerful drag queens" in the United States; Xperson ranked number YYY.
 * Option 4: Xperson was included in Vulture.com's 2019 list, "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", a ranking of America's top-100 Drag Race superstars".
 * Option 5: In June 2019, New York magazine included ___ in a ranked list of 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants called "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America".

As far as I can tell, consensus to remove the sentence altogether for people below the top 20 was reached, meaning that the above only applies to the top 20 queens' articles.

Courtesy ping to all who have participated:, , , ... I think that's everyone, but please ping anyone I missed. Armadillopteryxtalk 08:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Only option 2 is acceptable. All the rest include ‘powerful’ which comes from the source WP:Headline which the WP:RSNB specified could not be used. Luckily #2 is the version now being used in the top twenty queen’s articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The headline discussion at WP:RSN just said you can't use headlines to source whether or not something is factual; it doesn't say you can't write "[headline] is the name of this list." I think you misinterpreted the headline discussion. But anyway, I know your vote isn't going to change, so ... noted :-p Armadillopteryxtalk 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you please answer that nuance? The source title uses the phrase “most powerful drag queens” but the article itself doesn’t, and is only about Drag Race queens. Can we say ‘powerful’ at all? Like quoting the article title? Or saying the list is titled that? Any help appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, a sentence where this is relevant is something like Option 4 or 5 above. Armadillopteryxtalk 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot include the title of the vulture list, because it is flat out wrong. The list is literally just the top 100 contestants that had appeared on RPDR ranked by vulture. To try to inject the "powerful" language in prose is pushing a POV. You can say, "Xperson was ranked #XX on in Vulture' June 2019 top 100 Drag Race contestants." --M asem (t) 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from insofar as it is wrong to imply that "X is powerful [source: headline]", but that is very much not what either of those sentences does. Saying "The list contained Drag Race queens and is named X" is a fundamentally, logically different thing. There is no claim there as to whether the person is X. All the text over at the headline essay just says you can't assume a headline is objectively true. It doesn't (and per policy, cannot) say you're not allowed to list the name of your sources inline, even if the source is poorly named. Do you have a policy that suggests otherwise? I would like to see it. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem, please correct me if I’m speaking out of terms here; the underlying policy is WP:Verifiable, the title of a source is not likely chosen by, approved, and certainly not vetted by the source’s author. In this case use of *powerful* came from somewhere else and cannot be presumed—and in this case is patently untrue—as accurate. Don’t use the title, or its claims, anywhere in your content, it’s bad enough we have to include the untrue statement in the citation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I think we are all in agreement that headlines aren't verifiable and therefore cannot be presumed true/accurate. Maybe I haven't been clear about what I'm getting at, but there is a logical principle called the use–mention distinction. Maybe the article on that can explain it better than I have. The point is just that using a headline (for example, to verify a statement) isn't the same as merely mentioning its name. The latter contains no assumption that the thing is true/accurate/anything—it's just saying, "This is the name of the source", full stop. And I think that an updated sentence that explicitly states what the list contains (i.e. only Drag Race queens, the verifiable part) and then merely mentions (not uses) the list name is most accurate and least cryptic.
 * The policy I meant I would be curious to see is one that says "You can't mention an article name even though you're not using it to verify the veracity of anything." Armadillopteryxtalk 20:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we archive this section? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC) The introduction to their rankings is pretty short so not a lot to work with. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think that the current version of the sentence that stayed was put there unilaterally and without consensus, but it seems like all participants of this discussion besides me and Gleeanon lost interest, so I'm not sure of the best way forward., I know the current version is the one you like, but are you interested in revisiting this conversation? Especially now that the ongoing Headlines RfC at the Village Pump has shown that a lot of users see a clear difference between mentioning a headline vs. using it as a source. Armadillo  pteryx  21:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was concerned we were widely reporting alternative facts. I think that’s resolved but I’m open to the sentence being reworked on the top twenty drag race queens’ articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think we all want the prose to be accurate. I find the current wording of the sentence somewhat evasive—it mentions a judging panel and that Drag Race stars were ranked, but it doesn't actually specify what the ranking even is. Right now, it's open to interpretation: Are we talking about a list? An award show? A contest? We should be explicit.
 * I also think that mentioning the judges/writers places undue weight on an unimportant detail, when we could just cut to the chase and mention the important bit: New York magazine compiled a list called X, whose selection pool consisted of performers who have competed on RuPaul's Drag Race. Are you open to some form of wording like that? Armadillo  pteryx  03:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We are still a ways apart. The judging panel is the most important factor here, most all drag queen rankings simply don’t have them, leaving the obvious question “who says so?” And there is no list title, just the title of the article which we cannot use. So far I have "In June 2019, New Yorkmagazine published their list from a panel of judges ranking “America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars” with Bianca at number one."
 * I think the list name is such a basic detail that any formulation without it seems deliberately evasive, which encyclopedic writing should not be. In fact, I think people would mistakenly assume that the text you've placed between quotation marks is the title because of that–which is misleading.
 * The list's name is certainly more fundamental than a description of its selection process—though I'm fine with adding that detail for context. You said we can't use the name, but why? It happens to also be the article headline, sure, but it's not being used as a source for any fact—and that distinction has been identified clearly at the Village Pump discussion. This is not the kind of problematic usage that WP:HEADLINE is talking about.
 * I think your proposed wording here is an improvement. Here is my proposal going off that, also using Bianca as the example case:
 * In June 2019, Del Rio placed first on New York magazine's list of "the Most Powerful Drag Queens in America", in which a panel of judges ranked 100 former contestants of RuPaul's Drag Race.
 * How do you feel about something like that? Armadillo  pteryx  13:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to that. Perhaps getting more eyes at the RSNB though will get consensus for one or the other proposals. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We've already brought this to RSN twice; I'm not sure that a third thread there is the solution. Maybe an RfC at this WikiProject could help; that's at least something new. If we do that, we should draft a neutral text for it together.
 * That said, I don't mind throwing around more ideas here first to see if we can agree on something without dragging it out. If you really feel that strongly about not including the list name, maybe there's a way around it that still sounds encyclopedic. Something like:
 * In June 2019, New York magazine ranked Del Rio first on its list of America's top 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants.
 * What about this? Armadillo  pteryx  18:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That Vulture used a panel of judges sets them head and shoulders above all other drag race listicles of queens rankings. I think it’s a disservice to omit that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, a listicle wouldn't be WP:DUE to mention at all in article prose, and certainly not in the lead. We're only including mention of this list in the first place because it makes it over a certain threshold of prestige. We need to clean up rather than clutter up the sentence. Armadillo  pteryx  06:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The judging panel is what gets this over the certain threshold of prestige. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we don't need to belabor that fact since it's required for us to mention the list in the first place. Armadillo  pteryx  07:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do want to include that detail anyway, I suggest doing it in a way like:
 * In June 2019, a panel of judges from New York magazine ranked Del Rio first on their list of America's top 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants.
 * That's still reasonably clear and indicates what form the results took. That work for you? Armadillo  pteryx  15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would tweak it just a bit: “In June 2019, a panel of judges for New York magazine ranked Del Rio first on their list of America's top Drag Race queens.” But it’s close enough for me. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mm ... I think "queens" (by itself) is more colloquial language that's common within drag circles and in informal writing, but IMO it doesn't satisfy encyclopedic tone... maybe "alumni"? Armadillo  pteryx  16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

_____

I just saw this at the Sasha Velour article. We should be following the sources with WP:Due weight. Drag queens obviously are not simply their personas. When someone states that they only identify as a female/a woman when in drag, then it can be WP:Undue and confusing to refer to them with feminine pronouns throughout their Wikipedia article, especially when it comes to their early life as separate from their career. It can leave readers thinking that the person identifies as transgender when they don't. And I state that regardless of the fact that transgender is an umbrella term. RuPaul says that people can refer to him by masculine or feminine pronouns. But sources generally refer to RuPaul as male/by masculine pronouns. So that is why Wikipedia should as well. And it currently does. Not to mention his tempestuous relationship with the LGBT community and people stating that he's not trans. In Sasha Velour's case, it's stated that "Steinberg is genderqueer and does not have any preferred pronouns when not in drag. Her drag persona, Sasha Velour, is referred to as 'she'." So using feminine pronouns throughout that article isn't too big a deal.

No need to ping me if you reply. I will check back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The diff you linked is an edit specifically to the Drag and RuPaul's Drag Race section of Velour's article. So, in keeping with wider practice, it introduced the drag name in place of the legal name to that section (a similar edit is needed to Velour, the Drag Magazine and Nightgowns). Feminine pronouns are already used throughout the article, including in sections not related to drag, as you suggest they should. I searched with CTRL+F and didn't find any "he" or "they" anywhere. Edit: there was one stray "their", which I've now switched to "her". Armadillo  pteryx  13:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the section on RuPaul's Drag Race should call Steinberg "Velour" while the rest of the article uses the name "Steinberg." The article should consistently use one surname. See WP:Surname. This is a trying case and maybe it needs discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, especially since other cases like it may or will exist. As to not confuse readers who may not even get to the Personal life section to understand what is going on with the pronoun matter, the lead should note the pronoun matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, except for disagreeing with using singular they (which the article has used before) since it can be (and often is) confusing for readers, I don't feel strongly either way regarding whether masculine or feminine pronouns are used for Steinberg...as long as the use is consistent (rather than using masculine pronouns for Steinberg and feminine pronouns for the Velour persona). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the sections called Velour, the Drag Magazine and Nightgowns should also be changed to use Velour instead of Steinberg. The convention we've long kept at this WikiProject (in accordance with RS like The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly ) is to use the drag name and pronouns when referring to the subject in drag and the out-of-drag name and pronouns when referring to the subject out of drag. This is because of what you said earlier, which is that having a drag identity is not the same as being trans and should not confusingly be treated as such. Unlike an actor playing a role, though, drag queens' notability (and the majority of RS coverage) is tied to the drag persona, not the legal identity.
 * We've started working on text for an RfC about drag queen pronouns below, and discussion about this picked up again further down . We're also planning a second RfC (still under ) regarding a hatnote or other remedy to eliminate the pronoun confusion you mentioned. If you'd like to help us draft the RfC language, you're welcome to join us down there (or just comment at the RfC when it opens). Naturally, those will be held somewhere conspicuous, such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography or Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. Armadillo  pteryx  07:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: see . Armadillo  pteryx  08:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm more so interested in what is standard for Wikipedia according to guidelines like WP:Surname than how the The New York Times does things. I'll post about the name matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and at the WP:Surname talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Update
Since it appears that only one editor (Gleeanon409, since indeffed as a sock) opposed including the quoted title in the sentence, I've boldly restored it for now. The current version also specifies that the list contains only performers from Drag Race, reading: "In June 2019, a panel of judges from New York magazine placed [name @ place] on their list of 'the most powerful drag queens in America', a ranking of 100 former Drag Race contestants." I believe this is consistent with the input of the few others who commented on the wording. Courtesy pings to and. Armadillo pteryx  03:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think we should go ahead and archive this discussion. Would you like to do the honors, or shall I? I don't mind. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I will archive this with pleasure :-p Armadillo  pteryx  21:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Establishing a consistent criteria for SAFE, HIGH and LOW placements
The season 12 page is currently protected because of edit warring, in which people insist on changing safe placements to high or low. And yes, it got so bad that a request for protection was granted. I'd say we ought to take this as a chance to find a solution for the ongoing issue on how we determine placements. Currently we have these three sentences to define the placing:


 * 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.

I think all the other placements are clear-cut: winner, top 2 for cases like season 12, bottom, eliminated, and safe in a grey background for queens declared safe without critiques. The only problem are these three. Considering that the only difference is saying "positive critiques", "critiques" and "negative critiques" and that it can get very subjective, I have several ideas that could help to start this discussion:


 * Sometimes RuPaul declares a group of queens that got critiques as safe and afterwards declares the rest "the tops and bottoms from the week". If that happens, the queens declared safe before that declaration can be considered safe, not high or low, and the queens named after that declaration cannot be considered safe, only high or low.
 * Queens that got critiques but are declared safe collectively are safe. Queens that are declared safe individually are either high or low.
 * There must be a certain point in the seasons, when there are few queens left, that we could get rid of the safe placement and consider all queens as high or low, and that moment would be when no queen is declared safe without critiques.
 * This may need to be different for the last episode when queens record a song/music video, because sometimes there is either only an elimination or a lipsync, and the rest of the queens are not placed for that episode.

Again, probably some of these ideas are either incomplete or wrong, but I think it would be a good idea to start the discussion. What do you think? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So, I know my two cents probably doesn’t matter much, but I feel the need to comment since there is not much of a discussion going on. I have been editing the Drag Race pages since Season 5 (back in 2013), and that was around the time the color scheme on the table itself was being changed from random colors of the certain placements, to using a more structural color system (in this case, the blue to red). When these pages started, there was no cornsilk color for the “safe with critiques” placement. This placement was added in just a few years ago as a resolution to disputes among the editors that couldn’t tell if a contestant was High or Low. Take Naomi from Season 8 for example. In episode one, we are shown that she is given primarily positive critiques (High). However, she herself states in the following episode, that she was actually in the bottom group (Low). The problem with most editors (and general members of the fandom), isn’t so much confusion as it is about favoritism. When I stated editing these pages, there was no constant edit warring over the placements because they were very clear to understand. However, with the show going more mainstream within the past few years, the fandom has become completely different and more passionate to a point where it blends over fairness. Please see the All Stars 3 Talk Page for example. A consensus was reached on Thorgy’s Ep. 1 placement as cornsilk Safe, instead of High or Low, as different sources were deciphering the critiques in different ways. However, every time it tries to get fixed, it is immediately reverted back to “High”, as Thorgy is a fan favorite and more people wish to decipher the critiques in a positive light. So again, the pages are usually edited to reflect personal vision of a contestant, rather than an actual placement. I always thought Low placements were easy to tell, as the contestant is usually given a negative pun/remark before they are told they are safe. However, some editors will use a single critique given as a reason to put the contestant as the opposite placement. For example, the most recent edit war seems to have been on the Season 12 page about Sherry Pie, who in episode 11 seems to have been given mostly positive critiques. She was placed as cornsilk Safe due to a negative critique on going over her time limit on the challenge, but some users are taking that critique to use as a Low placement. Sherry would be another favoritism sort of case, only it would be AGAINST her because of her public scandals. I just want to make aware anyone who is not familiar with this franchise or this fanbase, that these types of edits are not always based on the logics. Sorry it took so much to say that, but I hope this may help in a way going forward. Asd17 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a valuable contribution. Yes, the subjectivity here is one of the main issues and people tend to use it to push for their favorites, and I think it shows a problem that must be taken in account for any solution we propose unless we want to be back at square one. In some cases Ru uses a short sentence before calling the queen as safe, and that sentence can be used to determine if they're high or low, based on whether the sentence is positive or negative. However, in the cases there is no sentence we would still have those issues, particularly because most of the times there is always something positive and negative about a queen's performance. Even the winner sometimes will receive a bit of negative critiques and even the queens that lipsync will sometimes have a bit positive about their performances, so high, safe and low will probably be even less clear. Not A Superhero (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest here I mainly edit reality TV articles relating to the Big Brother franchise and I rarely edit Drag Race articles. With that being said at the rate these pages keep getting reverted over those three colors/placings I'm of the mind to just eliminate them completely to restore the tables back to a neutral point of view perspective. Delving as deep to figure out who is high or low in such cases like Thorgy from AS3 Ep. 1 or the first two episodes of season 12 is better suited for Fandom to figure out. Unless someone can come up with a better solution that will stick that is the only way I see out of this situation is just to stick to placements that we can 100% stand behind with reliable sources (winner/runner-ups/eliminated/disqualified/bottom/top).   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    21:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * From WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." From what I can gather from your comment, editors here are interpreting the statements at the end of the show. The High/Low isn't an official designation? If not, then I don't see how it can ever meet the core policies of no original research and verifiability. Woody (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this discussion is moving towards impacting the other season articles then it might be worth a quick note on all of the season talk pages pointing to this discussion to get the widest possible consensus across these articles. Woody (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Basically all seasons have some sort of discussion about highs and lows in their talk pages, further proving the necessity of this. Not A Superhero (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Most definitely. In fact, I know there was even a discussion at one point on eliminating the words high and low, because those terms are never even used on the show. Usually in the first half of the season, RuPaul will sometimes say “you represent the tops and the bottoms of the week”, or “you represent the best and the worst of the week”. But about halfway through the season, everyone will start getting critiques, so the plain white Safe placement is no longer used. All Stars seasons follow the same format but the “tops and bottoms of the week” are only used in the first couple of those episodes because those seasons are shorter. So the majority of these disputes come during the second half of a season because (just like it was stated above), the majority of contestants get sort of a mixed bag of critiques as it gets closer to the end of the competition. The wording of the color boxes were also changed initially stating “the contestant was amongst the best of the week, and was ultimately declared safe” (for High), and “the contestant was amongst the worst of the week, but was ultimately declared safe” (for Low). This was another of those changes implemented to make the editor’s job easier to understand, and not over complicate or personalize the table by preference. But like I said earlier, unfortunately the bottom line is that some editors will find loopholes with the given critiques, and try to use that to validate a placement. Asd17 (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Footnote: I changed the name of the section because the question mark at the end made it impossible to put a direct link to it. Not A Superhero (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree that there isn't a rule that applies to every episode; however, we can try to make the best assumptions and try to generalize some situations. For example, let's compare the first episode of S9 and the first two episodes of S12: we only had "WIN", "HIGH" and "SAFE". Some editors come up with the argument that "If there was a bottom 2, X and Y were to lipsync" to use "LOW", when that is just wrong because we didn't have a bottom 2 lipsync. For all we know, some of the other girls could've had worse critics and the producers only shown us the bad critiques of Nicky, Dahlia and Rock to justify their elimination in the following episodes, since these are all edited when filming ends. Of course, sometimes we have wildcard situations, as in Episode 8 of S12. There was a clear bottom 4 and a clear top 4, and they all received critiques, so there shouldn't be the argument that "When they're 8, there's at least two of them that are just Safe". I think we should mantain the High/Low placements, but the editors need to be aware that their opinions aren't relevant in an encyclopedia article. E.g. on Episode 10, Gigi literally received a pun about being Safe and some people still argue that she was Low because we need to have a "Low" queen, when it isn't even open to interpretation. Overall, I think this season's page is especially difficult to edit because of the potential Sherry critiques that we didn't get to see, with Episode 11 being very controversial. However, if we don't watch the episode with our heart on our sleeve, it is very clear what the placements should be. Tccph20 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. FWIW, I’ve seen several LGBTQ publications that routinely recap and rank each episode including who’s safe, etc. Additionally every episode—in a pinch—can serve as a primary source for content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if we can establish them as credible sources and find a consistent agreement between them, this might be really helpful. Could you provide links? Not A Superhero (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here’s some: Metro, PinkNews, Towleroad, Goldderby, and Xtra.Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a review of these sources just to check how much we can rely on them to report the placements:
 * - Metro is not reporting on placements, but personal opinions of the editors. [Here's their review of episode 9. Jackie Cox was bottom two, yet they have her ranked as second best.]
 * - PinkNews is indeed reporting on placements, but they report on cumulative placements after the episode. First of all, that would require to comb through their reports after each episode and compare the differences to obtain the placements for each episode. I'm not sure if that would still fall within WP:SYNTHESIS or that would stretch the definition. And second, that would require to make sure that they report the placements for every single queen after every single episode, so this doesn't turn into a game of guessing. And finally, they don't seem to have a particular category for their articles on Drag Race, so we would need to comb through all the website to gather the information. Doable, but probably too time consuming to be practical.
 * - Towleroad is rather more solid. Their ranking at the end is a season-wide, cumulative ranking, but they report the individual placements in text form in the article. Also, nearly all the times they do mention which queens received positive and negative critiques from the judges, so they are indeed reporting on what happened in the show.
 * - Goldderby is pretty straightforward. They report on who impressed the judges and who didn't, and most times who made top 3 (Winner + highs) and who made bottom 3 (Lipsync + Lows).
 * - Xtra has a too vague reporting to be useful, I'd say. For example, here's their report on Crystal for episode 6: Crystal’s Poppy fails to make Ru laugh, which is a classic Snatch Game mistake, but it never really feels like she’s in trouble. How should we interpret that, safe or low?
 * Overall, I would say Metro and Xtra wouldn't be usable, Metro for reporting opinions instead of placements and Xtra for being too open to interpretation. PinkNews has some logistical issues that would make me advise against using it. Towleroad and Goldderby seem quite suitable for purposes of this, though. Both are established sites, each one reporting from a slightly different point of view (Towleroad goes for LGBT news, Goldderby for entertainment news), and both of them, for what I have seen, are pretty consistent at reporting about Drag Race. I think it would be interesting to check on the most fringe cases (for example, the first episodes of season 12, cases with multiple wins, etc) to see how they handle those situations, but overall they seem like a viable alternative to me. What does the rest of us think about it? Not A Superhero (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that in the beginning episode that all of the contestants received general critiques and didn't provide placements besides the Top 2. In Season 6, there were eliminations that played a role in the pilots episodes, but in Season 9, only one winner was named and everyone received varied critiques. In this case, the critiques can be seen as general and no placement matters besides Top 2 and Win. Hurricanebasketball7 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2020 (ETC)

An issue often arises among publications about the episodes also though, there's no way of knowing if their authors have taken their placements from the articles/ placement tables. That would be a case of a circular source, no?177.194.178.151 (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but in this case I’d be more comfortable having them be the source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At least two of the provided sources, Towleroad and Goldderby, report on the opinions of the judges. And it maybe anecdotal evidence, but the placement table for yesterday's episode hasn't been updated, but Goldderby already has an article up reporting on the placements, so that strongly points at them being an independent source. Judging by the pacing of Towleroad articles, if they don't get their placements from tables here, the article should be up at some moment today. Not A Superhero (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As a note I have just protected RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11)‎ for exactly the same edit war as Season 12. To illustrate the point the recent changes for the season articles is simply filled with constant reverts about High/Low. Woody (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree with several points made by Asd17, Not a Superhero, and Alucard 16. At the beginning of each season, it's pretty clear who is high/low/safe due to the formulaic nature of RuPaul's decisions about queens' placements. However, later on in the season, things are definitely more open to interpretation, and editors are fiercely protective of whether their favorite queen was cornsilk SAFE vs. LOW or vs. HIGH. I think that subjective mentality is going to continue being a problem moving forward, especially by unregistered users - it's pretty evident in the protected edit requests on the season 12 page with language such as "To deny her that part of her track record by noting her as SAFE is very problematic.". So frankly, I think there might be edit warring even if consensus is reached on this page. The only way to eliminate edit warring entirely would be to remove all subjectivity in the contestant progress table, meaning doing away with cornsilk SAFE, HIGH, and LOW altogether. As far as the competition is concerned, none of those labels matter anyways, so I'm not sure why the seasons' Wikipedia pages should be concerned with it either. 2600:6C51:7C7F:FF81:11E7:4384:277E:6C91 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

After reading all of this and going to look at all the edit warring, I really see no other option but getting rid of all three of the "The contestant received xxx critiques..." rankings wholesale and replacing them with just one general "The contestant received critiques." This category is neutral and a statement that can be sourced. Saying whether the critiques were good or bad is not only subjective and polarizing, as we have found, but also not encyclopedic.Found5dollar (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about getting rid of them. In one hand, I understand the rationale. "The contestant was declared safe before critiques/The contestant was declared safe after critiques" is certainly much more straightforward, does not allow interpretation and would probably put an end to all those warrings. On the other hand, the fact that they are so incendiary and controversial for me could be an evidence that they are relevant, and I think that eliminating them we would just change one discussion for another. Instead of discussing why a queen is safe instead of high, we will have people discussing why all the queens are safe instead of high/low, even if that discussion will probably be easier to shut down.


 * Another important note here is that the given sources don't seem to cover the entire run of the show. For what I have found on the archives, Towleroad began reporting individual episodes in Season 6 and in some episodes there they didn't report placements, and Goldderby, while their search funcion is more clunky and harder to use, seems to have started reporting on season 9. So even taking them as sources, we would not be able to accurately report placements for all the seasons, and having them in some seasons but not in others sounds even worse than either having them for all or not having them for all. Not A Superhero (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the goal is to have *any* reliable source whereas we seem to have none being used presently beside the episode itself. That way edit warring should be lessened as it’s opinions of a published secondary source rather than an opinion of interpretation of editors. Thus we are moving from primary sources to secondary sources which are preferred. If we run into a problem that we cannot find a source then we’ll discuss that situation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We still would need to discuss what to do with earlier seasons. At least for season 6 the coverage doesn't seem sufficient for the purpose of sourcing the tables, and from seasons 1 to 5 I couldn't find coverage in either source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other Sources May exist outside from this listed so far. I suggest focusing on getting the current seasons edit-warring content sourced first, then expand to past seasons as needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think removing all HIGH and LOW labels will do any good. We should stick to what we always do: HIGH does not mean ONLY positive critiques, LOW does not mean ONLY negative critiques either, both mean when it's mostly one or the other. Being that said, Sherry Pie on episode 11 should be marked as HIGH since she received MOSTLY positive critiques, downgrading her to just SAFE when it was clear that the judges liked is counterproductive to the purpose of the labeling and I believe is deeply rooted in feelings towards her. On the same note, both Jaida and Sherry received positive critiques on episode 12 yet they're marked as just SAFE. One of the arguments said above implied that if there wasn't any actual position other than the Top 2/3 for the season 9 and 12's premiere (and season 11's episode 12 with no winner declared) then the rest should be marked as SAFE, but it is not the same situation on S12's episode 12 where both a winner and a bottom 2 were declared. There is no reason not to mark Jaida and Sherry as HIGH there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yviemike (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is that "mostly" is still subjective and so far we haven't been able to locate reliable sources that allow a full coverage of the placements in the show (and I've been looking). Coverage is more complete in recent seasons, but I'm not sure if it would be feasible to include HIGH/LOW for say, season 6 or 7 onwards, and not for earlier seasons.
 * A couple years ago, one user did a first run of all seasons with notes, but it still feels rather incomplete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race_(season_1)#Notes_for_lightblue_and_pink. Unless some other sources are found, I think something similar but listing in a more detailed way the critiques may be the only way to support the placements, but I think this would be getting into original research territory. It's funny, I began this discussion in favor of finding a way to keep the labels, but the more it advances the more I get convinced that it's probably not going to work. Not A Superhero (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Way forward for chart?
This discussion seems to have slowed down now but the number of edit protected requests that demand changes to Safe/High are still flowing in. There seem to be a number of visitors to the season 12 page who see it as a fan page rather than an Encyclopaedia article. My take away from the discussion above is that these criteria are subjective and seem to be entirely a Wikipedia creation rather than one made by primary or secondary sources. They are an interpretation rather than an easy bottom 2/winner etc. As such I can't see how they follow Wikipedia's core policies.

The article(s) can't be protected forever. This discussion needs an end product, a result that can be used to highlight a consensus that follows Wikipedia's policies and prevent any future edit wars. That said, as an interim solution, the page could be reduced to semi-protection and a voluntary system of 1RR? Woody (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt the voluntary 1RR would be helpful, as the only editors likely to abide by that are the ones reverting vandalism or cleaning up the page to begin with. SPAs and new users would overrun the page with their opinions of their favorite queens. --Kbabej (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are more general editing restrictions that can be applied or indeed make them less voluntary and more formal ie general sanctions. If SPAs do become an issue then extended confirmed can be used. Any editor who continues to edit disruptively would be blocked. Woody (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with what some other editors have stated above, which is its complicated, partially OR, and subjective. I've wondered myself about the tables and if they're totally encyclopedic. I propose having three categories: top/winner, kept in the competition, and eliminated. We have like eight nine colors for the boxes at the moment. Its too much and can't be maintained. --Kbabej (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I started wanting to keep these colors, but I think it's not feasible. I've been checking along in some fandom sites and no one has been able to point me at a reliable source that can safely cover the entire run of the show without subjectivity. We only have sources for the most recent half of the show, and I'd be strongly against of using a color scheme for some seasons and another scheme for other seasons. I would like to expand a bit on the categories proposed by @Kbabej for some that are easily verifiable and not subjective: Winner, Top 2 (which, to be honest, would be rarely used), safe without critiques, safe with critiques, bottom 2, eliminated. "Safe with critiques" could combine the current HIGH, LOW and cornsilk SAFE. If we want a bit more simplicity we could combine both SAFE categories into one. (I personally would think "Kept in the competition" may be oversimplifying by excluding the information of the queens that were up for elimination). Not A Superhero (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I came to the same conclusion in my previous post in this thread. It feels like the best way forward is something like:
 * The contestant won the challenge.
 * The contestant was in the top. (used only when there was a top 2 lipsync or similiar)
 * The contestant received critiques.
 * The contestant was in the bottom.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * Found5dollar (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this. I would like to point a few things: We have used a yellow for "in the top but not winning", and in All-Stars seasons for the queens that win the challenge but lose the Lipsync For Your Legacy. I would personally add a grey box to distinguish the queens that are named safe before the critiques start. And I would specify that the queens in the bottom are the ones that were up for elimination:
 * The contestant won the challenge.
 * The contestant was in the top but didn't win the challenge. (I think this would be used very sparingly and could be explained in a case-by-case basis)
 * The contestant was safe after receiving critiques.
 * The contestant was safe without receiving critiques.
 * The contestant was in the bottom and up for elimination.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * Besides that, there are a few cases that deviate from the norm (queens in a returning challenge, like Season 7 and All Stars 2, 3 and 4, queens appearing as guest, queens that quit or are disqualified) that can be dealt with in an individual basis. The Shceme proposed by either Found5dollar of the one I expanded I think cover the generality of all seasons. Any comments from other people? Not A Superhero (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To make sure I understand... The most common scenario that I've seen is something like "There are 10 queens in the episode". A, B, C and D are asked to step forward and then are told they are safe. E, F, G, H, J and K are still there and are told they can untuck. They come back. E & F get a "We loved you, you are safe. G gets "You're a winner baby". H gets "You are up for Elimination". J and K get "We didn't like you because blah". then Ru says "J you are up for Elimination.". With the setup proposed, we have G won, I & J up for elimination. A, B, C, & D safe with no comment. E, F and K are safe with critiques. Now everyone "knows" the way that Ru does things that E & F were praised during the judging and K almost joined I&J, but do we have anyway that we can say that without it being OR?Naraht (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good example. And yes, the problem is exactly that the sources for "E & F were praised and therefore high, K got bad critiques and was low" are a bit troublesome. There are sources, but they don't seem to cover the whole show consistently, and us going to every episode and determining the placements would be original research. Not A Superhero (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The contestant won the challenge
 * The contestant was one of the Top 2 in the first episode and won the lipsync for your life
 * The contestant was one of the Top 2 in the first episode but lost the lipsync for your life
 * The contestant was safe without receiving critiques.
 * The contestant was safe after receiving critiques.
 * The contestant was in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * The contestant was disqualified from the competition after production was completed.

This is what the Season 12 table would look like with those colors implemented. Also, it seems like another constant request on that Talk Page to edit is the placement of Sherry Pie, so I didn't fill anything in for the already aired episode for Episode 13 (which is the reunion episode). I believe that discussion (on both her placement and on the table), still needs to be resolved as well. Asd17 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. FWIW, I would just make all Safe’s the same. It seems trivial to note they get critiques as long as they make it through. For Ms Pie she was Eliminated after the 12th episode, I’m not sure the best wording but it could be “eliminated before the finale by producers”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought, but would it make more sense to always use blue shades for wins and tops, red shades for eliminated and bottom, neutral shades for safe (cornsilk and grey), and save the yellow to mark the special cases? It just seems to me that the yellow stands out from the color story we already have; a gradient from red to blue.Found5dollar (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Visual representation of my thought:
 * The contestant won the challenge
 * The contestant was one of the Top 2 in the first episode but lost the lipsync for your life
 * The contestant was safe without receiving critiques.
 * The contestant was safe after receiving critiques.
 * The contestant was in the bottom two.
 * The contestant was eliminated.
 * The contestant was disqualified from the competition after production was completed.

Found5dollar (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out WP:Colour if you haven’t already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have. I am also very aware of H:Colorblind and the full Help:Using colours page. Having 3 shades of red all denoting different things doesn't fit with any of these three accessibility notes. Contrast is important, only using certain colors (no red and green for instance), and there being a reasoning behind the colors being used. My thought is simple, use one color to denote each type of placement (top v. bottom) with two contrasting shades of it denoting the severity. Found5dollar (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! Maybe start a new main talk section ‘proposed new chart for results’ so we can gauge any issues and get consensus? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the colors need to change. If they were by themselves as empty boxes, then perhaps, but they include text in them which is enough to differentiate the various results. Nihlus  01:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to say, having not read the above discussion, I don't see much point in having safe w/o critiques and safe w/ critiques. The takeaway is that the contest was safe, let's keep things simple. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive
Unless anyone objects, I am going to archive this section in a week or so. Just trying to keep this page tidy. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Top 5 w/o articles.
Just as a touchstone. As of 2020JAN16 the following queens finished in the top 5 of their seasons and don't have articles: Naraht (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebecca Glassock, S1- 3rd
 * Kenya Michaels, S4 - 5th
 * Darienne Lake, S6 - 4th
 * As a point of clarity, is each of those seasons consistent with emphasizing which queens are in the finale? I think sometimes it’s three, but maybe it’s four or five some years. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only one of them that was in the Finale was Rebecca Glasscock in Season 1. Both Kenya and Darienne were clearly eliminated prior to the finale.Naraht (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for sharing. Of course, notability has nothing to do with show placement, but this is good to know. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not stating these as Notability, I understand that Rebecca Glasscock isn't particularly notable, but as a touchstone.Naraht (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

RPDR terminology article
FWIW I think an article for Lip synch for your life also Lip synch for your legacy could make a nice article. But an article list of terminology of the series could be quite fun too! Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An article on the terminology from the episode series could be quite interesting! --Kbabej (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume "Lip synch for your life" specifically is not notable, but I agree, something about RPDR terminology in general could be interesting. Do you want to get the ball rolling? --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 01:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve got a full plate right now so go for it. In brainstorming I thought of Ruveal, Rusical, riga moris (spelling?), She-mail (since deprecated), and the many pun-laden challenge names. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok! See RuPaul's Drag Race terminology. Please, let's only add phrases clearly used in reputable journalistic sources. I'm going to get a list going and welcome others to add and help paraphrase definitions for each phrase based on sourcing. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Rita Baga
Thanks to User:Bearcat, we have a new article for Rita Baga. Improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gigi Goode
User:Kbabej and I have co-nominated Gigi Goode for Good article status. Article improvements and feedback from other project members welcome before the nom gets picked up! Happy editing, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Frock Destroyers
I've created a stub for Frock Destroyers. Improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto Frock4Life. "Frockmatica" 1, 2, and 3!.... haha, this'll be a fun one to write! Collaboration welcome. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Rusical
The editor 'Gleeanon409' was banned, so several of their Wikipedia articles were deleted (such as RuPaul's DragCon UK). I've quickly re-created Rusical because I think the topic is notable. Super short stub for now, so article expansion welcome. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration for December 2020: Christmas Queens 2
Happy editing, and for those who celebrate, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded and nominated the article for Good status. Final improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Promoted! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Chi Chi
There appear to be as-yet unsubstantiated reports circulating on social media that Chi Chi DeVayne died today. The article is overwhelmed with an onslaught of IPs adding this to the article with zero sourcing. I've already reverted twice but would appreciate more eyes on this—they're pretty persistent. Armadillo pteryx  20:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Make that three times. Armadillo  pteryx  20:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've requested temporary page protection. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Armadillo  pteryx  20:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's now a 'recent death' tag. I've nominated Chi Chi DeVayne for next month's Collaboration. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the past 10 minutes, RS have now started popping up confirming the report. Here's one from Entertainment Weekly. I have to step away from the computer now, but I will come back to help with the updates later. Armadillo  pteryx  20:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we now have RS for this, I don't think the edits should be considered vandalism; should the RfPP be withdrawn? Armadillo  pteryx  21:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , No. I think page protection will reduce vandalism and warring over pronouns, and give editors more opportunity to make higher quality improvements to the page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Works for me. It's already been protected by now, anyway. Armadillo  pteryx  22:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: Chi Chi DeVayne is the Collaboration of the Month for September. I would love to see this article nominated for Good article status by the end of the month, in Chi Chi's honor, if any editors care to lend a hand. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Still hoping to nominate for GA status by end of month. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for Good article status. Finals reviews/improvements welcome! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotional posters
I noticed the promotional posters were deleted from the infoboxes of several articles:


 * RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9)
 * RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10)
 * RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11)
 * RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 4)
 * RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5)
 * RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)
 * RuPaul's Secret Celebrity Drag Race

I assume the image were not uploaded correctly under fair use. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems User:Armadillopteryx has addressed. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The posters that have long been there were fine. What happened was that someone apparently uploaded non-free versions and replaced the longstanding ones. It was those copies that were deleted as copyvios. I just reverted to the version before that person replaced the image. Armadillo  pteryx  19:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Season 13!
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13)!

Needless to say, I've selected this as the Collaboration of the Month for January. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yasss! Armadillo  pteryx  21:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Have fun watching, and Happy New Year! Reminder, RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) is the current collaboration of the month --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)
RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) airs starting next month, too! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor
I've noticed User:Isaacwshearer has been creating a lot of problems, and there are many warnings on their user talk page. Do we need to escalate this somehow? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you're tired of cleaning up after this editor, too? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than having to undo their wikilinking Priyanka, about whom we don't have a standalone article yet, to the general disambiguation page for "Priyanka" as a name, I really haven't actually witnessed this person's actions otherwise — everything else they've done has either gotten reverted before I ever saw it, or was to a page I have nothing to do with anyway (e.g. Valravn (roller coaster)). Probably filing a report to WP:ANI would be the first next step — I'll back you up there if you need it, but I haven't been witness to enough of their troublemaking to initiate it myself. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok, thanks. I'm keeping an eye on Priyanka (drag queen) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, jeez, I didn't even see that at all (as it happens, Isaacwshearer actually didn't convert the redirect to an article until after you pinged me to comment here, so I missed it because I was already starting to type my above comment.) I've reverted it back to the redirect for the time being, because just an infobox with no body content or referencing is not a Wikipedia article. Obviously that's without prejudice against restoring an article if and when somebody can write and reference one properly, but it was just plain inappropriate and simply not keepable in that form. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, of course. Making you aware of this discussion since (I think) you blocked this user. I find many of their edits disruptive, even if meant in good faith. --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to call attention to User:Isaacwshearer/sandbox, a page whose purpose I'm not really all that clear about — it doesn't seem to actually have much to do with working on actual content that's meant for mainspace, but mostly just seems to be a datadump of content copied and pasted from articles all across a bunch of different reality franchises (including but not limited to DR), along with a table that seems to just be a list of high school teachers formatted as if they were cast members in a TV show. Their most recent edit to it involved pairing the infobox they had tried to pass off as a "completed" article about Priyanka, paired with a straight, unrevised copy-paste of the introduction to Cheryl Hole (which, after I saved this comment they converted into a similarly-worded introduction to an article about Priyanka.) There doesn't seem to be any obvious or coherent purpose to any of it. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Isaacwshearer then went on to recreate an article about Priyanka, still just at the "notable for appearing on CDR itself" level and citing only a single piece of "meet all the competitors" coverage that wasn't evidence of Priyanka being more special than everybody else. Accordingly, I've partial-blocked him from editing Priyanka, CDR and the RuPaul template for a period of one month — I would have picked a shorter time, but given that he's already had a 36-hour block for disruption by another admin, it was necessary to escalate. I didn't comprehensively block all of his editing privileges, however, just partial on those specific pages. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bearcat - I've warned this user that if they move another Wikipedia page or article without approval following a discussion, they can be blocked again without further warning. If they do, feel free to handle it as you see fit.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads up about a different problematic editor: User:Stelephand has been fuckifying with the placement table in Canada's Drag Race on more than one occasion — but then I came across User:Stelephand/sandbox, in which they're maintaining a huge collection of fantasy alternate-timeline placement tables that either alter the rankings (Gigi Goode as the winner of S12, Monet Xchange eliminated from AS4 so that Trinity is the sole winner, etc.), or invent completely imaginary seasons (All Stars 7?) that don't exist, or invent imaginary contestants — along with versions that take it out into complete nonsense, like LSFYL battles between languages and countries. Clearly none of this is meant for mainspace, and would be deleted or reverted as patent nonsense even if it were transferred to mainspace, so I've listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stelephand/sandbox. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, this was a wild experience. I would love to see more of it, but definitely not in Wikipedia.. Not A Superhero (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive?
There are several discussions above related to tables and accessibility. Are any of these discussion ongoing? Any objections to archiving? We might even consider archiving them all at the same time so they remain grouped on the archive page. I'll give at least a week for folks to object.

Thought I'd ask before taking action. Happy to wait if any of these are still in progress. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion ended, but I'm not sure about where do we go from there now. Overall I think the consensus was that the HIGH/LOW results are subjective and unverifiable, but we didn't close on how to deal with them (the main proposal was revert to "safe with critiques" for both, I think). Not A Superhero (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

WARNING: I plan to archive Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race in a week or so. Be sure to speak up if you'd prefer to keep the discussion going longer. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can any of the discussions re: accessibility or pronouns be archived? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Plastique Tiara
Why does Plastique Tiara not have her own Wikipedia article / biography of living person? If someone creates it I can help contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbf1985 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , In April 2019, the community decided Plastique was not yet eligible for a Wikipedia entry due to insufficient secondary coverage. If you are interested, you might consider sharing helpful sources specifically about her and her work at Talk:Plastique Tiara for future reference and article development. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett BoBo
Someone has expanded Scarlett BoBo. Improvements welcome ASAP, otherwise I fear a redirect. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (Update: Redirected.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fake sandboxing alert, again
Just a note to watch out for User:Stelephand/sandbox. The page was deleted in August by MFD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stelephand/sandbox) as a nest of fake placement tables for Drag Race seasons, including ones which falsified the order of finish and ones which remixed past contestants into non-existent new seasons and ones which completely invented imaginary contestants. However, it was then recreated yesterday with a Canada's Drag Race placement table that swapped Priyanka and Jimbo so that Madame Insell won the crown and Madame Suknanan sashayed on the snow ball. (I mean, I get that some people think Jimbo should have won — but on what planet was Pri bottom-worthy in the ball? Isn't Rita the queen that the Jimbo stans usually have the hardest hate-on for?) It also flipped some of the other finish orders around as well, but Priyanka-Jimbo was the only swap in the Top 4. More serious consequences, such as editblocking, will obviously be necessary if this happens again, so I just wanted to ask y'all to keep an eye out — let me (or another administrator, if I'm not available) know as quickly as possible if you see fake placement tables at that title again before I do. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to this, I've also initiated MFD discussions on several other hoax Drag Race sandboxes:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ferdy Levine/sandbox
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Manila Mattel/sandbox (batch of 2)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sophia Alvlyxcy/sandbox
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RoaryHollace/sandbox
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Char1ene16/sandbox
 * There's something going on here, but I don't know what it is. Does anybody have any guesses as to why so many people seem to think sandbox space is just a ducky place to pretend your favourite queen won the season even if she didn't? Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's akin to playing fantasy football. People like to play What If and run wild with it. As of why do it in a sandbox space in Wikipedia, I think it's probably because it has the tools for it and existing tables they can adapt, which is much easier than trying to do it from scratch. Not A Superhero (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Anything else to discuss here, or can I archive this section? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing from my side. Not A Superhero (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Rusicals launched
I only did American ones, if someone wants to do UK, Canada go for it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Would La Más Draga merit its own article?
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_M%C3%A1s_Draga_(M%C3%A9xico)

La Más Draga is a Mexican webseries inspired by Drag Race, although not officially licensed for what I know. Do you think it a) would fall under the scope of this project? b) Merit an article?

If so, I could start translating the spanish article to English. Not A Superhero (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , my hunch would be yes, and yes. An unofficial drag queen show homage to Drag Race certainly sounds like the specialists here should be a resource if needed. And the volume of references there suggests there is at least some coverage. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Season 12 single
Should all the queens get credit for this as a single for their respective Wikipedia articles? -00:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD
Someone has nominated three four  five six episode articles for deletion:


 * Articles for deletion/Handmaids to Kitty Girls ✅
 * Articles for deletion/Divas Lip Sync Live (2nd nomination) ✅
 * Articles for deletion/Queens Behind Bars ✅
 * Articles for deletion/PharmaRusical ✅
 * Articles for deletion/Social Media Kings Into Queens ✅
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Stars: The Musical ✅

Feel free to weigh in. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and another... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna: The Unauthorized Rusical --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Frock4Life
I'm currently working on Frock4Life. I don't think this entry will be too difficult or time-consuming to expand, if another project member wants to collaborate and co-nom for Good article status? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have a request: Anyone able to view dates for the Gay Times sources used in the article? I cannot find dates, and having them would help with piecing together a timeline re: single releases, etc. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How odd they don't have those. They're not showing up for me either. --Kbabej (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for trying. Anyone else? Usually publication dates are so obvious... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoted! Will archive this section soon. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

New collaboration of the month
UK hun? RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) is the Collaboration of the Month for March. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone has changed the Drag Race UK progress tables format so that they are inconsistent with        the US version, and the pages are protected. I was wondering whether anyone knows if this is intentional or some type of unauthorised vandalism? I think that consistency between drag race UK and drag race US is important — Idontlikepeople32 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Season 12 article
I agree with the current formatting of the elimination table and the HIGH/SAFE/LOW placements for the most part, but I think two edits to this need to be made. In episode 11, Sherry Pie should be changed to LOW as she got a lot of negative feedback for going over the time limit with her act and not condensing it, and was called "selfish" for doing so. And in episode 12, Jaida Essence Hall should be changed to HIGH because she got overwhelmingly positive feedback, which as a whole was the best feedback next to Gigi Goode, who ultimately won the challenge.

If anyone does not agree with these, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkYankeesVersusNewYorkMets09281999 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about agreeing. We need reliable sources for those changes you want to make. This isn't the place for original research. Nihlus  01:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole HIGH/SAFE/LOW placements are a part of the show that is extremely controversial and open to interpretation and it's neither our job nor Wikipedia's mission to interpret this kind of things and decide something that is not reported for other sources in a conclusive way. I would suggest checking out the rest of the discussion above where we comment on these placements. So far the consensus points to not include any longer the HIGH/SAFE/LOW distinction in the placement tables because we haven't been able to find any reliable sources that report on them in an objective manner that covers all the show or at least a majority of it. However, we're open to alternatives, and if you can provide us with a reliable source for these placements, we would be very thankful. Not A Superhero (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Jaida Essence Hall got called second into the finale after the winner of the episode 12 challenge, meaning she was the person that placed HIGH that episode. Furthermore, she got the best comments together with Gigi Goode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.202.112 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire discusson about this placement is possibly part of devaluing Jaida's win. It is clear that Jaida was the other person eligible for the win in the last challenge, based on comments and the order in which they were called into the finale, and should thus be placed HIGH (giving her the overall best score of the season, since Gigi was placed LOW several times). To deny Jaida her competition score is highly problematic, possibly even because of a racial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.202.112 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism in contestant progress table in Drag Race UK S1
Since earlier today, a series of IP users have been changing the contestant progress table including Aja as the winner and basically messing up the results. What is the process to request protection for the page? Not A Superhero (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've already submitted a request, but for future reference, see Requests for page protection. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Not A Superhero (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

WOWIE Awards
User:Alsee has been going through queens' biographies and removing mention of the WOWIE Awards. For the record, I support removing mention of these awards, which are affiliated with World of Wonder and therefore not independent of the subjects. I would be open to adding mention of these awards IF there were a standalone Wikipedia article about the awards because editors deemed them notable. Raising here in case project members wish to discuss further. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to be 100% clear for anyone that I was not "going through queens' biographies". I wiki-searched all articles mentioning WOWIE awards. Yes, substantial percentage of the search hits are queen articles. That is due the awarding-company's self promotional interest in the RuPaul's Drag Race. I also deleted the award listing from Mariah Carey and Nicki Minaj who, as far as I am aware, are not queens. Also George Conway - if he is a queen he's doing it wrong. Heh.
 * And thanks Another Believer for the support. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, sure, sorry to mischaracterize your edits. I only meant to summarize how your work was specifically related to WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. :) Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Gigi Goode, Good article nomination
Hello, hello, hello! User:Kbabej and I have nominated the Gigi Goode article for Good article status. We received feedback here. The onus is on us to review comments and address concerns, but at the same time I would invite User:Armadillopteryx and User:Scootersfood to take a look as well and weigh in if you have any thoughts. I'm not trying to pawn off any work, but I am hoping for more eyes on this review because the reviewing editor has said this is their first time going through the process. More specifically, I am making sure we are not working to make this article less consistent with similar biographies; some of the feedback is related to naming conventions and discography/filmography formatting, hence why I'm seeking help from Armadillopteryx and Scootersfood, respectively.

Nothing required here, just an invite to these editors and any other project members. There's a lot of feedback and the reviewing editor will also be seeking outside help. There will be lots of people tinkering with this entry, but I'm confident we can get the article promoted and would love to see another GA under this project's belt. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look this weekend. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Great, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

DragCon UK
Which is preferred
 * 1) ) We write the DragCon UK article
 * 2) ) We make Dragcon UK a redirect to the DragCon article (which is sort of a fat disambiguation page)
 * 3) ) We change the links to DragCon UK (there are about 5 right now) to the DragCon article
 * 4) ) hold off, we can consider this later.Naraht (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the DragCon UK entry was deleted because the creator was banned. If you have a moment to recreate, I say go for it! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I can request a WP:REFUND for such an article.Naraht (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Maybe, or just create a new short page from scratch if easier. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * reached out to deleting admin. We'll see.Naraht (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Restored
Sort of. An admin was willing to restored a version of the article from 2019 rather than the one from the Banned user. I've put things into past tense in the header and added the template. Other than that, needs to be brought up to date.Naraht (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Season 13 ‘Contestant Progress’
As expected, only 2 weeks in and the edit warring is in full force on the Contestant Progress section of the Season 13 page. I think page protection will be necessary. Billwebster91 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Nothing came to fruition here. I don't know exactly how to make this happen, but I fully support and seek help moving the progress tables to subpages (for transclusion to the season articles) and protecting them. Anyone know where to ask for assistance? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I've requested page protection of the article and included a note asking admins for help here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Social Media: The Unverified Rusical"
I've created a stub for "Social Media: The Unverified Rusical" since we have entries for many of the other Rusicals. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. Nihlus 21:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Project scope
Should we include articles about contestants' projects as part of this WikiProject? Depends if we want this project to stick mostly to the television series, or if we're wanting to cover the RPDR industry as a whole. I don't want to see this project becoming too tangential, but I'm inclined to include contestants' projects because they are part of the RPDR legacy. To be clear, we're talking about the scope of this WikiProject; by taking on queens' projects, we're talking discography pages, album and song articles, and other forms of media (Drag Me Down the Aisle, The Trixie & Katya Show, books, etc). Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest doing so as it will likely elevate more articles even if it increases the work volume, which happens anyway. As example, I just saw an all RPDR queens Xmas album that should be incorporated even if officially it’s just outside of Ru’s sphere. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)