Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race season 11/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019

Shuga Cain's birth name is Jesus Martinez Jr. 2604:6000:150F:4D5:DC0A:A734:922E:9079 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Soju (drag queen)

Soju (drag queen) has been created. Feel free to review, expand, and otherwise improve. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

The article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soju (drag queen). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was redirected. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Protect page again?

Resolved

Should we consider a new request to have this page protected? It has been less than 48 hours since the last protection was removed, and there has already been quite a bit of vandalism on this page from unregistered users, especially concerning the contestant progress table. Thanks! Yompi20 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the page has been protected again through May 26. Hopefully, that will cut down on the recent disruption to this page. Thanks to the person that made the request! Yompi20 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Plastique Tiara

Resolved

There is now a Wikipedia article for Plastique Tiara. Should we keep or redirect for now? There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject RPDR: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Part_III. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirected. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump: The Rusical

I've created Trump: The Rusical. There has never been an article about a specific RPDR episode (not counting a holiday special), so I'm not exactly sure what to follow. But, given the number of cultural depictions of notable people, and the coverage specifically about this episode and related politics, I think a standalone article is justifiable. I certainly welcome help from others to make the entry better. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Has there been more coverage about this episode than any other this season? Umimmak (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's that notable for a stand alone article. The Kardashian musical episode received probably the same amount if not more media attention and there was no suggestion for a stand alone article. Not that I think either deserve one but is it only because it's about Trump which it's getting some attention? Brocicle (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Brocicle, I'm definitely not opposed to having articles about other select episodes, assuming sourcing allows. There are many Wikipedia articles about specific television episodes. I've shared sources about the Trump episode at Talk:Trump: The Rusical. Maybe we can all collaborate on the Trump episode, and if things go well, we can see if any other episodes should also have articles? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think, due the political significance of the episode, the page has a reason to be created. I don't think we need a page for every episode as they don't have enough material to be created. Probably the episode will generate media attention due the representation of women in the musical and parodies of Trump - including Ginger's performance and Shuga's runway look. --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

probably the episode will generate media coverage — see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Coverage needs to be WP:SUSTAINED, more than just the flurry of reviews/recaps that follow every episode each week. Umimmak (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm biased as the primary author of the Trump episode article, but I think the entry is coming along nicely and there are still many sources posted on the talk page needing to be incorporated. Also, I'm starting to collect sources for the Kardashian musical episode at Talk:Reality Stars: The Musical. I would welcome an entry for this episode as well. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and started Reality Stars: The Musical. There are many sources on the talk page to add. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Snatch Game

See also: Snatch Game

First off, it is obvious that you have put in a lot of work in developing the Trump: The Rusical and Reality Stars: The Musical pages, Another Believer. Very well done! I personally support the creation of these pages due to the pop cultural significance and sheer number of celebrities and public figures represented. Obviously what is considered significant enough for an episode to warrant a stand alone page is subjective. However, if we are opening the door to creating pages for Drag Race episodes, then I personally think we are waaaaaaaay overdue for a stand alone page devoted to Snatch Game. It's a Drag Race staple and I can't think of an episode (or series of episodes) more deserving! Yompi20 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yompi20: there was one for Snatch Game; it was deleted, instead of merged, so unfortunately the history/previous article has been lost. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatch Game. Umimmak (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Umimmak, I, for one, support having an article about Snatch Game. I was considering making one myself, but I invite other to beat me to the punch. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well it was deleted only last year; do you think there has been sufficient coverage since then to demonstrate notability? I’d just imagine it’d get deleted all over again. Also, if someone does end up trying to write it again—I don’t remember how much was written but I would suggest getting what was written undeleted so the article doesn’t have to start from scratch, if possible. Umimmak (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Umimmak, Yes, I think there would be enough commentary and like, Yompi said, cultural significance on the number of notable people involved, both queens and celebrities. I would love to see a group collaboration on a new Snatch Game article. Shall we starting drafting over at Draft:Snatch Game? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, like I said you should try to WP:UNDELETE the article first if you think its notability has really increased since 2018 so you don’t have to start from scratch. I’m honestly still skeptical it won’t get deleted all over again. Umimmak (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm up to collaborate for a Snatch Game article. Some media outlets have talked about Snatch Game - ranking the impersonations, for example. And since every season (except S1 and AS1) has a Snatch Game, it could be nice to have an article about it. --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'd rather just start from scratch in the draft space than worry about undeleting the previous page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that this idea had been considered before, and it looks like the draft page is well under way. Awesome! I'll be adding some contributions too. Thanks! Yompi20 (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yompi20, I agree. As I've worked on these two episode articles, I've started considering creating others as well. I didn't want to push the envelope too quickly, but there are many television series with articles for every episode. I'm not suggesting that's what we do here, but I think there are other episodes that may qualify based on secondary coverage. I plan to make some other articles in the near future, but I invite others to be bold as well. Further discussion is welcome over at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Snatch Game has been moved into the main space. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Honey Davenport

For those interested, I've created Honey Davenport. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Great work creating this page! Yompi20 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

change shuga cain to 7th place and that she lost the lipsync to vanessa vanjie mateo 96.242.53.216 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Shuga Cain's Lipstick message is readable and can be put in.

Her lipstick message reads: "You all have a very special place in my heart. Make nana proud! ♥ Shuga"

Ra'jah vs. Rajah

Source? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Her social media states Rajah. Brocicle (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed Ra'jah to Rajah in the table. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone has changed the entry to "Ra'jah D. O'Hara". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Progress

Please stop vandalising that article Ezifor (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Tables

Shouldn’t contestants’ teams and other things all be in a table. They were before until we changed the episode summaries. It was there before and I feel like it should still be there

Also the HIGH for the team win should be changed to something else. Since it says “contestant received positive critiques but was safe” even though they received no judges critiques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.198.2.76 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

"Change Brook Lynn Hytes Hometown from Nashville, Tennessee to Toronto, Canada" LtSorrel (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Disagree, it should remain as Nashville, Tennessee. The "hometown" as used on Drag Race Wiki pages has been consistently where the contestant is from as of the time of filming, not where they spent their childhood. Other examples: Season 1's page shows BeBe is from Minneapolis instead of her hometown in Cameroon, Season 6's page shows Courtney is from West Hollywood instead of her hometown in Australia, Season 9's page shows Charlie is from Boston instead of London, etc. Listing Nashville as Brooke's hometown is appropriate here. Yompi20 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Hometown means where they are from. All of those people you listed all should have that listed as their hometown since that’s what is said. If that’s not their hometown, then change the name to current residence or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B12D:F000:9DA3:168A:6FE7:DE46 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lip Sync chart

There's idea of updating of the lip-sync chart. What you think about this idea? -- Happypillsjr ✉ 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

For example:

Season 5

Episode	Song	Bottom Two
1	"Party in the U.S.A." (Miley Cyrus)	Penny Tration	vs.	Serena ChaCha
2	"Only Girl (In the World)" (Rihanna)	Monica Beverly Hillz	vs.	Serena ChaCha
3	"When I Grow Up" (The Pussycat Dolls)	Coco Montrese	vs.	Monica Beverly Hillz
4	"Oops!... I Did It Again" (Britney Spears)	Honey Mahogany	vs.	Vivienne Pinay
5	"Take Me Home" (Cher)	Detox	vs.	Lineysha Sparx
6	"I'm So Excited" (The Pointer Sisters)	Coco Montrese	vs.	Jade Jolie
7	"Whip My Hair" (Willow Smith)	Alyssa Edwards	vs.	Roxxxy Andrews
8	"Ain't Nothin' Goin' on But the Rent" (Gwen Guthrie)	Alyssa Edwards	vs.	Ivy Winters
9	"Cold Hearted" (Paula Abdul)	Alyssa Edwards	vs.	Coco Montrese
10	"(It Takes) Two to Make It Right" (Seduction (band))	Coco Montrese	vs.	Detox
11	"Malambo No. 1" (Yma Sumac)	Detox	vs.	Jinkx Monsoon

I don't see how this is an improvement in any way. Nihlus 01:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Violates accessibility of WP:COLOR for colour blind readers/editors. Brocicle (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, I prefer the current presentation to the one you propose here. Also, your proposal does not account for instances where a queen is eliminated who is not in the bottom two, as with Willam in Season 4. Yompi20 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ep 6

Error for episode 6. Plastique Tiara, Nina West and Vanessa Vanjie Mateo should be marked "low". RuPaul said to the team "your entire team is up for elimination" specifically and clearly and had negative critiques for all of them. I understand these are fan favorites and I love them too, but the show clearly indicated their placements and it shouldn't be marked incorrectly just because they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepearbutter12 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not correct and since S7, every challenge that is judged in teams Ru has said the exact same line. See S07E03, S09E04, S10E02, S11E03. That line has become a Ru staple for team judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.248.235 (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

In episode 3 only Ariel Versace and Vanessa Vanjie Mateo are "HIGH" and Nina West has a "WIN". The rest are "SAFE" or "BTM6" 91.189.68.14 (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Sez who? Sez you? This is not claimed in any reliable source coverage of the episode, it's not claimed in any recaps on pop culture websites that recap Drag Race, it's not even claimed on the Drag Race Wiki. Every single source I can find about the episode marks everybody who wasn't the winner or the bottom 6 as high, and indicates no high-safe distinction among any of the five queens who were neither Nina nor the bottom six fustercluck. So show real reliable sources to support the change, or cut it out. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

In the section of; Contestant Progress, there is wrong information and I want to fix it, for example the SAFE of Scarlet Envy, she was HIGH in the episode because she was part of the winning team and received a good critique, many contestants have HIGH for that but Scarlet did not have, so that need a change right now because that is wrong information Plastiquedoll12 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Hi,

I want to be an editor because I know everything about the show, I see it every week and I want to put the correct information because there are people who edit it for their own benefit or for the benefit of their favorite contestant and you can see that. I do this a long time ago and I know how to do it.

I will be waiting for your response

Barbara

Scarlett has three safes in her chart, not one, so you need to be more specific about which week you're talking about before anybody can respond to your request. However, there have been past attempts on this very page to upgrade Scarlett to high in a week when she was plainly verifiable in reliable sources as merely safe — and Drag Race Wiki doesn't give her any "high" weeks either, but rather its chart ranks her exactly the same place as ours does every single week with not even one single solitary difference between the two charts at all. So at the moment I suspect this request isn't actually on the level, but is just the same old "the article should reflect what I wanted the judges to say instead of what they really said" crap that's been attacking this article literally since the season began. So show a source which actually supports your interpretation, or buzz off. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ratings

Ratings for episodes 7 and 8 are now available on ShowBuzzDaily. Would someone with editing access mind adding them?
-- Episode 7: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-thursday-cable-originals-network-finals-4-11-2019.html Archived 2019-04-16 at the Wayback Machine
-- Episode 8: http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-thursday-cable-originals-network-finals-4-18-2019.html Archived 2019-04-23 at the Wayback Machine
Thank you! Yompi20 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please disregard. I finally have extended confirmed user access, so I added this myself. Yompi20 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Episode 12

I would consider Yvie and A’keria high as well as Silky being low. On the RuPaul’s Drag Race wiki they are listed as that, and this episode has a bottom two therefore I think the “high” and “low” placements aren’t too far fetched. Woooboi16 (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Episode 12 (Again)

Silky, A'Keria, and Yvie were all declared SAFE in the episode and it was clear Brooke and Vanessa were the bottom two. Unless there is sourcing then HIGHs and LOWs should not be written (nobody even won the episode). In previous final four performances everyone is marked safe (even though they received critiques) so why should this be different. Just because the wiki says some contestants were HIGH and LOW should not mean it should be the same on Wikipedia which is supposed to be non bias. A point of view can be sourced then it shouldn't be on the table (see weeks 4, 7, and 8 on All Stars 4 page). ECW03 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Kinda make sense to put Yvie and A'keria as high and Silky as low, because (yes, the episode didn't have a winner, but have a bottom 2 and the other contestants should receive a pontuation what is not 'win') Yvie and A'keria receive good critiques and Silky not at all. Yes, Everyone in the past seasons didn't were marked high or low because they just receive good critiques for being in the top 4/3!! Isn't time to they have bad critiques and they changed this now!! Yvie and A'keria were called the first contestants to be on top 4 and just receive good critiques (high), Silky was the 3rd and was annouced after Vanjie be in the bottom, so there make sense to marke her as 'low'. Athena505 (talk) 08:30, 23 Jun 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 May 2020

ERASE:

RuPaul's Drag Race season 11/Archive 1
Season 1
Hosted by	RuPaul
Judges	RuPaul Michelle Visage Ross Mathews Carson Kressley
No. of contestants	15
Winner	Yvie Oddly
Runner-up	Brooke Lynn Hytes
Finals venue	Orpheum Theatre, Los Angeles, California
Release
Original network	VH1
Original release	February 28 (2019-02-28) – May 30, 2019 (2019-05-30)

The eleventh season of RuPaul's Drag Race aired on VH1 from February 28, 2019 to May 30, 2019. The cast featured fourteen new queens and one returning queen, all announced in a live stream hosted by season 10 winner Aquaria and Adam Rippon on January 24, 2019.

The winner of the eleventh season of RuPaul's Drag Race was Yvie Oddly, with Brooke Lynn Hytes being the runner-up, and Nina West being Miss Congeniality.

Season 10 contestant Vanessa Vanjie Mateo returned to the competition.

ADD INSTEAD:

RuPaul's Drag Race season 11/Archive 1
Season 11
Hosted by	RuPaul
Judges	RuPaul Michelle Visage Carson Kressley Ross Mathews
No. of contestants	15
Winner	Yvie Oddly
Runner-up	Brooke Lynn Hytes
No. of episodes	14
Release
Original network	VH1
Original release	February 28 (2019-02-28) – May 30, 2019 (2019-05-30)
Season chronology

The eleventh season of RuPaul's Drag Race aired on VH1 from February 28, 2019 to May 30, 2019. The cast featured fourteen new queens and one returning queen, all announced in a live stream hosted by season 10 winner Aquaria and Adam Rippon on January 24, 2019.

The winner of the eleventh season of RuPaul's Drag Race was Yvie Oddly, with Brooke Lynn Hytes being the runner-up, and Nina West being Miss Congeniality.

Season 10 contestant Vanessa Vanjie Mateo returned to the competition.

Winner of the eleventh season of RuPaul's Drag Race, Yvie Oddly.

Artmanha (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I can't see any difference between the content you want erased and the content you want added? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: They are trying to replace the entire infobox, as shown on the right. Nihlus 13:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In which case I would need to see consensus for that change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ and Nihlus: I triple checked WP:TV which is the WikiProject responsible for {{Infobox television season}} and {{Infobox reality talent competition}} and there was no discussion or consensus to migrate any articles from {{Infobox reality talent competition}} to {{Infobox television season}}. There has been no discussion at WP:RPDR about changing the infobox either. The editor who proposed the change to this article already changed RuPaul's Drag Race Seasons 1-10, RuPaul's Drag Race Seasons 1-5 and Series 1 of RuPaul's Drag Race UK (I have not checked any other versions.)

According to the edit summaries they are saying per the module {{Infobox reality competition season}} which was created as a merger of the various templates from Big Brother, Survivor, I'm A Celebrity.. Get Me Out of Here, and a mega template used on America's Next Top Model and Project Runway. However when that specific module was created there was no consensus on moving any existing show (i.e. RuPaul's Drag Race, American Idol, The X Factor, etc.) from {{Infobox reality talent competition}} to using {{Infobox television season}} with the {{Infobox reality competition season}} module at that time.

So technically WP:RPDR could decide to stick with the new infobox or they could decide via consensus to go back to the old infobox. It is really up to them until WP:TV decides to merge {{Infobox reality talent competition}} into {{Infobox television season}} like they have done with around 8+ other TV related infoboxes. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I highly doubt WP:TV would object to the change, WP:RPDR may feel differently on the other hand. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Scarlet Envy

Hello! I recently updated Scarlet Envy's Wikipedia Article, and would love for it to be linked under her name here! All the best,

Supzane (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Next time use the {{Edit extended-protected}} and you should get a quicker response. Woody (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

uhm

why is the contestant progress table in spanish BitterrrTwinkkk (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Armadillopteryx 21:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued vandalism

Hey y'all, I'm a total rando with no Wikipedia cred, so maybe it's not my place to bring this up, but as I'm sure everyone is well aware, the page has recently been predictably vandalised by disgruntled "fans" of the show. In particular, Scarlet Envy is listed as "high" in Episode 4 (when in reality she was "safe" and participated in the preliminary Untucked group with the other safe queens) and has a bizarre "robbed" status for her elimination in Episode 6. I can't change it myself because, as mentioned, I'm a pleb with no power, but if someone could please correct this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! 96.95.93.235 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's somebody who's been going around the past couple of weeks, changing queens' rankings from what they actually were to the editor's own opinion about what they should have been. Unfortunately, it's not just this article, but has happened on others as well. I'm far from a Drag Race statistician, so I'm going to summon WP:LGBT for assistance. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, Thanks, and if you're posting a talk page note at WikiProject LGBT studies, consider doing the same at WP:RPDR as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

For the moment, I temporarily upped this page from semi-protection to full admin-only protection a couple of hours ago — the situation being that an editor whom I had already warned to stop making unsourced changes to the results table made yet another one, following which I blocked him, following which a different editor (possibly a sockpuppet) restored the exact change I had just reverted. What's clear here is that semi-protection is not working, because the editors who are causing the problems already have autoconfirmed status and can edit right through the semi. Obviously this page shouldn't stay under full admin-only protection any longer than it absolutely has to — I'd prefer to drop it back down to a lower level today, if possible, but I don't know if that's viable since semi isn't actually stopping the problem.

I can see a couple of other possible solutions, but neither of them is one I'd be comfortable imposing arbitrarily — so I wanted to ask for some input into whether there's any support for them.

1. Transferring the challenge results table to template space, so that it can be locked under the "template editor" level of protection separately from the level of protection that applies to the article. This is, for the record, a user right that I as an administrator have the power to give to regular users who don't already have it — so reliable editors who can be trusted to update the table accurately wouldn't be prevented from doing so, because I can personally give them template rights. The challenge here is that templates are not normally used just to transclude content into a single page, so there would also have to be a willingness to really circle the wagons around the vandalism-control defense if somebody tried to get it deleted as a single-use template that should just be directly coded in the article instead of being called as a template.
2. Alternatively, as an administrator I also have the option, in cases where regular semi really isn't working, of applying a level of protection called "extended confirmed" — instead of four days and ten edits, the minimum cutoff to edit an "extended confirmed" article is 30 days and 500 edits, which is a level that almost all genuinely active users here will already have passed, but the people who have been causing the most obvious problems will not. This is not a level of protection that I can apply on a whim, however, but one I can graduate to if an article has already been under semi but that hasn't been controlling the problem — which seems like it could well be the case here. So I'd be much more comfortable taking that step if other users agreed with me that we've reached that point than I would taking it on my own.

But either way, what's clear here is that leaving it at full admin-only protection in the long term would be too much, but semi clearly isn't enough. So, any opinions on what's the best way forward here? Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit the progress table because Episode 3 is all wrong - Yvie, Mercedes, Silky, Brooke were all Safe, not High. DinoGarofolo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What reliable source says that? The episode I watched certainly didn't make any high vs. just-safe distinction that week, and even the dedicated "Drag Race Wiki" doesn't assert any such thing either — it also just marks every contestant that week as either "High" or "Btm 6", and does not single out some of the winning team as high and others as just safe. Our role on here is to reflect what the judges did say, not what anybody thinks the judges should have said, and the judges did not make any high-vs-middling-safe distinction that week. (Redacted) Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, during the judges critique they specifically point out Ariel and Vanjie to say "Good work this week", which is what I was basing it off of, not what I "felt", but werk. Regardless, your last comment was very negative for no reason, and not conducive of any good discussion on the topic. I could've worded it better, but I had my basis in the show, not just my opinions, but what I said was not deserving of being told I should "play in traffic on the freeway". DinoGarofolo (talk)

"Good job this week", as a quick aside, is not enough to base a high-vs-safe distinction off of — and again, the dedicated Drag Race Wiki doesn't consider it so either, but also just marks everybody that week as either "high" or "btm 6" without downgrading anybody to just "safe". I'm sorry for being snarky, but the amount of vandalism that this page and AS4 have seen in the past few weeks would fry Mother Theresa's patience. This hasn't been just over the issue of whether there was a high-vs-safe distinction in week 3, either: it's also included edits that totally misrepresented how many other queens actually placed in many other weeks besides just Week 3, edits that tried to create a whole new colour key for "the contestant was robbed and should have been ranked much higher than they really were", edits that have tried to impose an imaginary new rule that highs and lows never exist after the third week of any season anymore but instead everybody who isn't either the winner or forced to lipsync is automatically just marked as "safe" with no highs or lows at all, and edits that changed AS4 to pretend that it somehow had only one winner. It's not my job to somehow have psychically known that this was somehow different than all of Tullyo's other vandalism — people have been using the Wikipedia articles to push an alternate history about many different aspects of both this season and AS4, based around "what I think the judges should have said" instead of "what the judges really said", literally for weeks, and it's not my job to have guessed that this one thing was somehow different than all the other garbage. I apologize again, but even a person with the patience of a saint would have gotten snarky with people in the context of the unrelenting vandalism barrage that's been hitting this and AS4 the past few weeks. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Full protection seems highly unreasonable, I'm sure extended auto confirmed would be enough to help minimise the issue. But I do agree that saying "good job this week" does not equal a HIGH critique, it's simply a compliment. Brocicle (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "extended confirmed" is not a protection status that admins can use freely — it can be used, but it requires a clear consensus that regular sprot isn't enough, and can't be the first line of defense. Like I said, I'm happy to drop full protection as soon as there's a consensus about how to handle this, I just want to know that if I go with "extended confirmed" other editors will have my back if I get called on the carpet about it. If I know I've got at least one supporter, and nobody else can be arsed to comment at all, then I'm willing to go ahead since this has already been at full protection for longer than I ever wanted it to be in the first place — but I just wanted to know that I'll have support if somebody questions me about it, because the rules around the use of "extended confirmed" are much stricter and more specialized than "regular confirmed". Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And then, just like clockwork, no sooner do I drop this and AS4 down to "extended confirmed" status than somebody who does have extended confirmed rights goes in and fiddles with AS4 rankings again. I've given them a temporary editblock, because they've been warned before, but even extended confirmed isn't completely throwing a lid on the problem. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And, once again, somebody who can edit past extended-confirmed limitations went in and fuckified a queen's real ranking to the editor's own personal "shouldabeen" opinion in this article today. This still isn't working. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There's not much else you can do. Anyone who edits against consensus should be notified that what they are doing is wrong and then blocked if it continues despite multiple warnings. Nihlus 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on table

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC: Proposed progress table for all RPDR shows. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion regarding high, safe and low placements.

Hello all. Currently, at the page for the RPDR Wikiproject, we started a discussion about how to properly define these placements, since the lack of clear criteria has led to a lot of subjective edits and in some cases, edit warring. Since these definitions could potentially effect the placement tables through all the seasons, we would like to receive the widest possible input, to make sure that all the views and perspectives are taken in account. So, anyone interested in taking part in the conversation, please give us your view at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#Establishing_a_consistent_criteria_for_SAFE%2C_HIGH_and_LOW_placements Not A Superhero (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected

Given the large number of recent reverts about exactly the same topic on this page as well, I have temporarily fully protected this page to stop the constant edit warring. Please discuss your issues rather than reverting other edits. Woody (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Miss Congeniality legend

Nina West was voted Miss Congeniality (Miss C) by viewers. Nina wasnt voted by the viewers she was voted by the Castmates, fix that. (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

I've created redirects for all contestants:

•  Done A'keria C. Davenport / A'keria Chanel Davenport (talk)
•  Done Ariel Versace (talk)
•  Done Brooke Lynn Hytes (talk)
•  Done Honey Davenport (talk)
•  Done Kahanna Montrese (talk)
• Mercedes Iman Diamond (talk)
• Plastique Tiara (talk), redirected per AfD
•  Done Rajah O'Hara (talk) / Ra'jah O'Hara (talk)
•  Done Scarlet Envy (talk)
•  Done Shuga Cain (talk)
•  Done Silky Nutmeg Ganache (talk)
•  Done Soju (drag queen) (talk)
•  Done Yvie Oddly (talk)

I'm also adding relevant WikiProject talk page banners and collecting sources on their respective talk pages. Please feel free to add! Hopefully we can create some new biography pages once more press coverage has been published. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Episode 3 'High' vs 'Safe'

Despite declaring Team Britney the winning TEAM (Nina specifically was the sole winner), RuPaul only stated 'Vangie and Ariel, good job.' so to follow the usual episode structure - it makes sense to list the rest of the team as safe as they recieved no positive critique or praise, outside of Ariel or Vangie who should be marked as 'High' — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroyeHalsey (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

YES SutilliPedro (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree in only having Ariel and Vanjie as safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BDA0:B01:C48F:71BD:AF1D:714D (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean "high," not "safe." But yes, agreed. -Kryptonsa36 (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Umimmak (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But maybe we can put Ariel and Vanji in blue "high" and not turquoise. To make the distinction between the queen who have a congratulation by Ru and other :) Why do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:673:1E00:E911:6998:7ED7:2A72 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning. Vanjie and Ariel should be marked with the standard-color "High" and the rest of the winning team is white "Safe". Kentonindy (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Kentonindy

Another vote for marking Vanjie and Ariel as "High" and Brooke, Mercedes, Yvie, and Silky as "Safe." I think that makes the most sense. Yompi20 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes the most sense and keeps everything more consistent if just Vanjie and Ariel are high ECW03 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Only vanjie and ariel should be stated as high. Tullyo (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, RuPaul only highlighted the work of Ariel and Vanessa because Ariel had gone very badly in the last challenge of action and now it has obtained its redemption, already Vanessa was clearly the best in the challenge and only did not win because of Nina West . And also, all the winning team of the episode is HIGH, always been so in drag Race. RuPaul only highlighted the work of the two basing on the episode and the previous episode. For me, they should all stay HIGH. Vitor505 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Only ariel and vanjie are high. If thats your argument, yvie shouldnt be high in the monster ball as well as it has been stated by ru herself that she only made yvie stay on stage because she wanted to talk about her dinosaur look. It was very clear that ariel and vanjie were called out because they were high during the challenge. Dencod16 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Show a reliable source which supports your interpretation of the episode results, or all y'all just fuck the hell off. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What RS shows that every member of the winning team was a contestant [who] received positive judges' critiques? Most of them didn’t get critiques. Everyone agrees on the facts (namely: Nina West is the overall winner of the challenge, [...] Vanjie and Ariel are both commended on a job well done, and then they are dismissed. [1]), editors just disagree whether being on the winning team is the same as receiving personal kudos from the judges for the purposes of the episode summary tables. Umimmak (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this topic is still up for discussion, but I strongly agree with only Ariel and Vanjie being High. The legend states that High applies to those who "received positive judges' critiques but was ultimately declared safe" which only applies to the two of them and not their entire team. This was a unique episode in the sense that there's never been a Bottom 6 before, and RuPaul never usually highlights specific people in the winning team besides the winner, so I don't think the previous precedent of the winning team all being High applies here. 175.143.86.168 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Tough fucking shit. Drag Race Wiki says five highs and zero safes that week, so that's the final word. The next person to even think that we should say anything different than what Drag Race Wiki says will be rethinking their opinions on the business end of a temporary edit block. Wikipedia is not an opinion forum where the charts reflect people's personal opinions about what should have happened; we are an encyclopedia where the charts reflect the facts of what did happen. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the Drag Race Wiki again. Ariel and Vanjie have their own unique color for the episode (legend states "The contestant was a member of a winning team and praised as one of the best individually, but did not win the maxi challenge") as opposed to the rest of their team (whose legend states "The contestant was a member of a winning team, but did not win the maxi challenge"). If you're so adamant on using Drag Race Wiki as an absolute source of contestant placements then you should be taking into account the fact that they categorized Ariel/Vanjie's placement separately from the rest of their team, as well as the fact that they don't even consider "High Team" the same thing as "High" as opposed to here where they're both considered the same thing. It could be worth separating those two instances out here as well to avoid having conversations like this altogether. Or just continue to threaten edit blocks to anyone who disagrees with you. You do you. 175.143.86.168 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It gives all five contestants the same colour and the same class of ranking, and simply gives Ariel and Vanjie an extra footnote acknowledging that they got compliments, but not downgrading any of the other three to just "safe". That falls extremely far short of what you claim. And I'm not doing "me", I'm doing "administrator whose job is to enforce this site's rules" — one of which is that consensus trumps people's personal opinions, and another of which is that the consensus of established users counts for a lot more than an invasion of anonymous IPs with an agenda does. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "High" is defined as "contestant received positive judges' critiques" which (since you enjoy arguing for facts and subjectivity) is not the case with the entire team. The DR Wiki even has a completely separate category for "High Team" (defined simply as "member of a winning team") vs "High" (defined as "one of the best", which is more equitable to Wikipedia's "positive judge's critiques" definition). On DR Wiki, the two queens in question have a unique color and legend descriptor which indicates that they are both "High" AND "High Team", as opposed to just "High Team" (which, again, simply refers to being on the winning team, nothing to do with being best of the week or getting positive critiques). If it was just a footnote like you said I don't think there would've been any need to give them their own color/descriptor. My point ultimately is that Wikipedia's definition of "High" does not apply to the whole team, and I don't really see how the DR Wiki supports the claim that the entire team should be "High" since they categorize team wins as a separate thing altogether with an entirely different color and definition.

Anyway, I'm not sure what agenda you think I may have, but clearly I'm not the only one confused by the way this page defines "High" and how that definition operates when it comes to team wins. Obviously I understand that more established users have more clout but I still don't think threatening new contributors with edit blocks for disagreeing with you and using language such as "tough fucking shit" is very mature or productive as an admin. 175.143.86.168 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not my job to concern myself with what an anonymous IP thinks of my admin skills. My responsibility as an admin is to Wikipedia, not to you: I do not have a responsibility to not swear, or a responsibility to be unfailingly polite to people who are editing Wikipedia disruptively, or a responsibility to just let people keep on being disruptive — my job is to be a Catholic school nun, willing to crack people over the skull with a blackboard tablet when necessary, and not to be Pollyanna. I'm allowed to be the bad guy when I have to be: I'm allowed to swear when I need to, I'm allowed to threaten banning when I need to, I'm allowed to actually do banning when I need to. My job is to be a disciplinarian, not a comfort doll.

I'm also going to direct you to look at context: this discussion is not happening in a vacuum, but right in the midst of a huge campaign of disruption that's been hitting both this and AS4 for weeks. There are also attempts underway to upgrade Scarlett Envy to "high" in a week when she was very clearly only safe, on the incredibly flimsy grounds that Ru said "oh, by the way, good casting" as an aside in the process of sending her away with the safe group before actually starting to sort out the actual highs and lows; there are also attempts underway to create a whole new colour key for "the judges were unfair to this contestant and ranked her much lower than she deserved"; there have been attempts to falsify the weekly rankings chart in AS4; there have even been attempts to retcon a different final outcome to AS4 by giving the whole season a different winner than we really got. (Which is not to say I liked the ending we really got any more than anybody else did, but Wikipedia isn't a forum for anybody's personal opinions about how things should have gone — the ending we got is the ending we got, and Wikipedia's job is to reflect the ending we got, not to expound on who it really should or shouldn't have been.) None of this is productive or helpful editing, and all of this was initiated by the same people, so it's not my job to be polite about it, or to somehow single you out for praise as the one kid in the entire class who isn't misbehaving: my job is to yell at the class to shut up and sit down, not to read your mind as to how you somehow have different reasons for behaving in the same way as everybody else.

At any rate, going back to DR Wiki: in the week of the divangelism challenge, every single queen is marked by DRW as "win" (Nina), "high team" (the other five) or "btm 6" (Team Mariah), and zero queens are marked as merely "safe". If you would like to propose that we create a new colour key here for "high team" as a separate thing from the existing colour key for "regular high", then this discussion would be going very differently than it is — but that's not what you're doing, you're proposing that we downgrade three queens to just "safe" when that's clearly not what happened and clearly not how Drag Race Wiki records it either. And as if it wasn't already obvious, that's not happening and it's not going to. Other alternative solutions may be possible, but downgrading anybody to just safe in a week when they clearly weren't just safe is off the menu. Our job is to reflect what did happen, not what anybody thinks should have happened. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"If you would like to propose that we create a new colour key here for "high team" as a separate thing from the existing colour key for "regular high", then this discussion would be going very differently than it is — but that's not what you're doing" -> My initial argument about Vanjie/Ariel being High and the rest being Safe was based on the current High/Safe descriptors on this page. Afterwards I did in fact mention that "It could be worth separating out [High vs Challenge Wins] here as well to avoid having conversations like this altogether." From that point on I never even mentioned downgrading the rest of Team Britney to Safe (since I understood your rationale against it) and instead my argument since then has centered around the fact that the current definition of High doesn't align with challenge wins.

But clearly anything that comes from a measly anonymous IP like myself is just gonna fall on deaf ears with you so I'll end it here. I still stand by the fact that under the current definition "High" is confusing when it comes to challenge wins, and I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. I hope you enjoy whatever semblance of power this admin role is clearly fulfilling for you. 175.143.86.168 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)