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

Archive 1

Archive 2

new wikipedia page?

i say someone should just try and make a new wiki page, idk what else to do at this point, it’s clear that who ever is in charge of this page isn’t going to budge BitterrrTwinkkk (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Revert the Contestant Progress to the old one, this new one looks ugly and big. If you watch Drag Race, there are highs and lows placement, not just safes. This new Contestant Progress is not accurate. Also change the Contestant Progress for UK 1 too, because it's too big. 24.72.74.56 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not here to look pretty - it is a factual encyclopaedia that must be verified by third-party reliable sources. The old format was not accessible for all readers which is a legal and moral requirement for an inclusive society. The "highs and lows" have been subject to edit warring and interpretation so have been removed. The table size varies on the device you are using and is dynamic, zooming or out can usually solve that issue. For more context see above discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

***Contestants Progress***

yeah guys update it already not cool... we are gonna be 3 behind soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiix111111 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Iiix111111 I'm not sure what your grip is - the table is updated as of the last aired episode. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

it look so ugly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiix111111 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Iiix111111 See the discussions above. Your opinion, which you are entitled to, is subjective. We have to make sure the tables are accessible for all readers. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And this is not accessible to all readers. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyruslcohen55 The new format is accessible. Please explain why you think it isn't. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already done so above. Please read the main discussion before commenting. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 March 2021

We're another week behind on updating the table. Bimini WON again for the fourth time. Lawrence was HIGH. Ellie and Tayce were both BTM2 with no one being eliminated. Please update it. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyruslcohen556 repost your request using {{Edit semi-protected}}, using the format "change x to y", citing a reliable source. Also note WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FANCRUFT. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's better if no requests were posted until the discussion above reaches its conclusion; simply to avoid having to change it thereafter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please disambiguate the links for Last Thing on my Mind and Steps.

Specifically replace,

| "[[Last Thing on My Mind]]"<br />([[Steps]])

with

| "[[Last Thing on My Mind (Bananarama song)#Steps version|Last Thing on My Mind]]"<br />([[Steps (pop group)|Steps]])

and

*'''Lip Sync Song''': "[[Last Thing on My Mind]]" by [[Steps]]

with

*'''Lip Sync Song''': "[[Last Thing on My Mind (Bananarama song)#Steps version|Last Thing on My Mind]]" by [[Steps (pop group)|Steps]]

Thank you.Naraht (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Link for Tia Kofi

Can someone please link Tia Kofi in the table? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

My proposed solution: The Nuclear Option

I have read the entire history of this page and associated talk page. I do not see any prospect of the participants working together, and even the sometimes used "block everyone currently working on the article from editing it" option won't work because of the steady stream of new users and IPs.

I see zero chance of any agreement, and nothing that I can do that will help, so I propose the following:

• Remove the link that allows protected edit requests. Replace with a paragraaph about discussing changes on the article talk page, and about not creating new sections that duplicate existing sections.
• Remove the "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections. If a fight breaks out over the episodes, expand that by remove the description parts, and only including the parts starting with "Guest Judge"

The above should stay in place until one of the following happens:

• Fourteen days after the last episode of the season airs.
• The participants on this talk page come to an agreement.

This is a radical proposal, but it will send the message "come to an agreement or everybody loses." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon thanks for taking the time to read the article talk page. The issue is that this topic is part of a wider project and franchise. It won't die down but there are some blatant violations that need to be addressed particularly in light of MOS:ACCESS. That aside, could we not add Episode 8 results (keeping the current format) while we try to find a constructive way forward on the accessibility stuff? Adding episode 8 results might placate some of the edit requests. I am strongly opposed to being banned from the topic/article just because I enforced the rules/MOS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The article just moved to being semi-protected. Go ahead and make the change. If someone objects follow the advice at WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't know which article you're talking about but this one is still fully protected... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon given the pile on that just occurred on this talk page - I don't think unprotecting the page is a good idea. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not my decision to make. I advise giving Deepfriedokra a chance to deal with it. I thought that I could resolve it by just giving advice but I became convinced that doing that isn't going to work. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks for trying. There's very little we can do when there's a seemingly orchestrated attack like what happened here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected

while we remove the COPVIOs and personal attacks. Will be looking at blocks for the worst actors so the rest of us can get back to encyclopedia building. It is regrettable that this became necessary, but some of you gave me no other choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: This (at the very bottom, a threat to "eliminate"...) and [Special:Contributions/100%25ure This one] probably fits NOTHERE too, but then again I'll leave that up to your so far excellent judgement and just give you a massive thanks for being so prompt. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please check for further NPA and COPYVIO revisions that need revdel. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra There's a couple further NPA if I dig, [1] [2] [3], but they're comparatively milder than the more recent ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably go zero tolerance and WP:DENY. Please add to the ground rules if you think they need it. We are on a clock. The SP will expire soon. I want to be ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of these diffs include more than one revision (blame SineBot for being so quick at signing things), I was trying to include everything - just double check. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs to be Fair

If the select few of you are going to decide the direction of the page going forward, then you should show some courtesy and bring it up with the main editors of the other pages in the franchise. They have all worked hard to come to a consensus. It would be very rude to "nuke" all their hard work without a discussion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.2.37 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything that is preventing you from participating in the discussion above. This notice here has also been standing for more than a week so I don't understand why there are still complaints that concerned editors haven't been notified? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have dropped a note at the project page - none of the main project contributors have complained about the changes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Hard work is appreciated but local project a project-specific or local consensus doesn't override wikipedia-wide consensus or the manual of style (WP:MOS). Remember to assume good faith of others. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 March 2021

It has now been four days and many independent WP:SECONDARY sources exist confirming the aforementioned WIN/HIGH/LOW/BTM2/ELIM placements. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such takes time to verify all information on it, especially when a conflict has occurred. However, as other contributors have mentioned, it also needs to be as up-to-date as possible in order to be most helpful to its readers. This is currently outdated, unhelpful, and incongruent with the style guide followed by every other iteration of this show's franchise. Consistency is key. Thank you for all of your work trying to solve this editing issue.Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cyruslcohen: If "many secondary sources exist" you should be able to WP:CITE at least one. And even then simply because some information might be true does not mean it requires inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide - instead of making repeated requests please participate in the discussion above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to cite many sources [4][5][6]. I agree not all information must be included, but this is central information that is missing. Not updating the page makes it less relevant and reads as both confusing and potentially suspicious as well. I personally do not believe that there are issues of bias here, but I can imagine others coming to that conclusion. I have nothing more to say beyond what was stated above. It seems like a simple issue to me. Take care. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The the question is more whether this is encyclopedic content or more something like WP:NOTNEWS material. I'll note the very informal tone of the first article as an example of the latter? And well none of the sources seem to mention a "high/safe/low" distinction: hence the compromise solution (C) - but even then simply WP:RECENTISM will show that this is likely something that is of little relevance for an encyclopedic coverage of the subject: in 10 years time probably the only relevant bit - even in the minds of fans - will be who won and (maybe?) the order of the other ones (as given by the contestants table). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They specify that Lawrence was called safe after Bimini and before Ellie with Tayce and A'Whora in the BTM2. Anyone familiar with the show would recognize that means Lawrence was technically HIGH. The last person called safe is always LOW. I understand that is a challenge to cite within Wikipedia's guidelines, but the placement is absolutely relevant and will remain relevant, not just for fans but casual viewers and the individuals participating in the show as well. As for your comments about formality, tone is not the sole indication of whether something is news or not. It is reporting on facts and using a jovial voice to do so, largely because of the demographics of their readership as well as the identity of the writer. LGBTQ+ culture & norms surrounding our community must be taken into account when considering this. Thanks! Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Anyone familiar with the show" and "technically" leads me to think this is WP:SYNTH upon a likely fan-agreed convention. "The last person safe is always low"? WP:RS for that? Anyway, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll stop this back and forth because it's clear we're not getting anywhere. It's simply the structure of the show that has been established since 2009, and, if this is as much of an issue to hold up any and all updates, that same standard and stylistic convention should be applied to all twenty-four seasons of the show. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So basically appeal to tradition? And yes the discussion above (under "Ground rules") also covers applying this to other articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cyruslcohen556: Purely so that your views are not 'lost' among the noise on this page, can I suggest that you express an opinion in the section above discussing whether to have the table on the page or not? It just makes life easier for whoever ends up determining consensus. And yes, the point of Wikipedia is that it can be read and understood by anyone - whether they are familiar with the show or not. From my personal experience, I do watch the show and even then I probably could not tell you who counts as "high" and "low" without referring to a source! ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 March 2021 (2)

Please update the page. Awhora went gone home in the last episode. 2603:6010:7827:E400:5408:20D2:8A5F:757E (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please provide a reliable source. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Also, Wikipedia is not a fan site. It is an encyclopedia. It is not necessary to provide moment-by-moment updates. Please see this section above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also considering Bimini won i don’t know why it’s protected Macy Sinrich (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It is protected because of disruption, mostly from IPs and WP:SPAs. Deepfriedokra seems to be doing a good job dealing with the disruption, so maybe we will be able to unprotect it soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: Please provide a reliable, independent source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

History The article was full protected by El_C because of edit warring among extended confirmed editors. When the talk page was flooded with personal attacks and violations of copyright policy, I briefly semi protected the talk page, removed and revdel'd the copyvio's and personal attacks, and blocked those who had made them. I don't care about the content dispute. I'm just here to remove and revdel any further copyvio's and personal attacks, and block those who had make them. Thank you for helping build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content online encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra, thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is UK drag race season 2 Macy Sinrich (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a WP:PRIMARY source which as we can see from previous discussions is constantly WP:OR debated. We should seek a better, independent WP:SECONDARY source instead. The urge to constantly update this seems like a misuse of Wikipedia: this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or a TV guide. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: Please see my prior post. Wikiepedia is not a fansite sourced to viewers watching. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which is a primary source, rather than a secondary one. We need content to be cited to secondary sources independent of the subject. An episode of the show would not count. I realise this sounds odd at face value, because if you’ve watched the show you’re probably thinking “but I know it to be true!”. Thing is, Wikipedia (and ultimately all encyclopaedias) care about verifiability, not truth. That’s not to say we’re interested in falsehoods, but that ultimately we summarise what other people say about a subject, rather than what the subject says them/itself. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but the information is from the primary source itself Macy Sinrich (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem! We cannot cite primary sources. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer (Only a Sith deals in absolutes): under some limited circumstances, yes (for example, to cite a text of law directly for what is written in it - ex. here). Definitively don't think that's the case here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was typing quickly on mobile - I should have expanded further, that wasn't helpful of me. Primary sources can be cited in limited circumstances - to make straightforward statements of fact where an educated with access to the primary source can verify the information. Ideally this primary source would be easily available for readers to verify from, but that's not an absolute requirement. So, on balance, the person who won an episode, and the person who was eliminated could potentially be cited to a primary source if there were no secondary sources available (and I'm sure there are some, there will be loads of TV magazines and culture websites etc discussing Drag Race). However, saying who was 'top' and 'bottom' would be interpreting that primary source, and therefore that wouldn't fly. That would require a secondary source to be cited. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it really "interpretation" if RuPaul and the contestants themselves specifically state on the show that certain contestants are "top" or "bottom" three for the week? For example, if RuPaul says "You represent the tops and bottoms of the week" and then later, upon entering the Untucked lounge, Queens A, B, and C all say 'I'm in the top" and Queens D, E, and F all say "I'm in the bottom" then how is reflecting that information seen as "interpreting" a primary source? Because to me (and my graduate-level research degree), that is simply a direct reflection of the truth of the source, not interpreting it to fit a specific narrative. I'm not trying to start an edit war, merely just attempting to understand how the editors have come to that conclusion.

Discussions such as 1; 2 and 3 seem rather to justify that this arbitrary distinction is not as clear cut in the source material as it is made up to be... And the persistent changes to such tables as here and on other articles further suggest that this is information which is WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I note that there already appears to be fresh disagreement about these distinctions. All the more reason to bin the tables in my opinion, but I digress... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And the moment I mention it here, someone switches it back(?). How long before this ends up on this list I wonder... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Further complaint

The High’s and Low’s are a fundamental part of the Drag Race fandom and the whole experience of the show. Without those placements the contestant progress table is not accurate, just look at all 13 seasons of the US version, the Thailand version, the Canadian version and the Holland version.

The old table is the only one that truly represents the ongoings of the competition each and every week. Also, following Episode 9 that aired this evening on BBC iPlayer, Bimini has another WIN, Lawrence is HIGH, and Tayce and Ellie both were in the BTM2; so this needs to be added to the old table once it has been reinstated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4A8B:5C00:3B:FA10:EE87:515F (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The High’s and Low’s are a fundamental part of the Drag Race fandom - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. There are other places for fandom-related things. I agree that consistency is worth striving for, and will be opening an RfC on updating all such tables that fall foul of MOS:ACCESS shortly. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

this is simply not true. highs and lows have been a part of the show for many seasons now, queens actively discuss that in the show. as such it should be reflected on the table. this new direction is just destroying any kind of nuance for the sake of strictly adhering to rules. Fumegar (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So you plan on single handedly editing 13 US seasons, 5 All Stars, 2 Seasons Drag Race Thailand, Drag Race Holland and Canada's Drag Race all because two people complained about the tables? That's a lot of emotion for safe (that's 22 tables for anyone who doesn't want to do the math). 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

New Elimination Table

What do you think of this new elimination table proposal? I think that this way the table looks more symmetrical, it is also perfectly understood, without writing episode 1, episode 2 in the table ...

Contestant	Episode
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Bimini Bon-Boulash	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	WIN	SAFE	WIN	WIN
Ellie Diamond	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2
Lawrence Chaney	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	WIN	WIN	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE
Tayce	SAFE	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	SAFE	BTM2	BTM2	BTM2
A'Whora	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	SAFE	WIN	ELIM
Sister Sister	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	ELIM
Tia Kofi	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2	SAFE	BTM2	ELIM
Joe Black	ELIM				ELIM
Veronica Green	SAFE	WIN	SAFE	SAFE	OUT
Ginny Lemon	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	QUIT
Asttina Mandella	WIN	SAFE	ELIM
Cherry Valentine	SAFE	ELIM

-User:GinnyLemon 18:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't work, see File:Black_and_white_table_example.png which I've made as an example (if you want to double check on your own end any future attempts, what I did was screenshot it and then recolour via Publisher (program)). Colourblind users will have a hard time. Using the more washed out option is clearer, if we're going to have a table at all, that is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Help:Using_colours#Schemes_for_colour-blind_readers; "Use bright mid-range colours, like children's crayons. Do not use light or dark variants of the colours." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This table looks very good, is very consistent with the other seasons and conveys information very clearly, in an easy to read manner. Another very good advantage of using a table of this size and shape is that it doesn't extend past the borders of the page like the pastel colored table does, a cursory Google search also shows that blue/orange and red/blue are suitable colours for colourblind users (along with green/magenta), and that pastels can be considered the worst. The other suggested table has cells of varying size and shape for no discernible reason, which are not consistent at all. My vote goes for a table of this size, without unsourced highs and lows, (if an unbiased source that doesn't take information from these articles is available, great, use them), which is what I have openly supported for a very long time. 78.152.245.98 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I cannot be clearer, and this is not up for argument: the above table is not good enough. QED. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It is up for discussion actually, the greyscale version looks pretty fierce, all that needs fixing is changing the font colour on ELIM to white and it'd look clear and legible. I like it! 51.37.186.36 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just querying the point of greyscaling the table is? The colourblindness guidelines provides the colours which are listed in the smaller scale table as possibilities, and the portion you referenced says not to use light or dark variants of colours, which would imo include pastels, you've just gone against your own argument with that point it seems. 78.152.245.98 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The point of grayscaling is as an extreme example (if it can be seen clearly under grayscale, then there shouldn't be issue for only partial colourblindness). The further advice is "If you must use colour to convey meaning or make distinctions between visual items (i.e. not merely for decoration), then this table shows "safe" groups of colours which are distinguishable to most colour-blind people."Nevermind, corrected that because colour should not be used to convey information. Keeping the quote as informative for the following. Since the information is already rather clear textually and the colours are merely for decoration or as visual tooltips, we should worry about whether the colours actively obstruct the display of information. In the case above, they do. Using washed out colours is also more pleasing to full-sighted people in this case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I get a source on 'Using washed out colours is also more pleasing to full-sighted people in this case'? It seems to me like it's just an opinion. It may be more pleasing to you personally, but I'm not quite sure if your opinion is any more important than anyone else's. There doesn't need to be any colour, honestly, it's just that the size of the smaller table is at least more consistent than the size of the pastel table, which has differing sized cells for the Episode 4 column, and the Sister Sister row. Fix the size issue, ditch the colour, and keep your table. 78.152.245.98 (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the cell widths - at least in the table here, [7], of course that will go in the article if there ever is consensus fur its inclusion (though the problem was not in the row but in the columns...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem to work on mobile, but you seem to know what you're doing, so I trust it.

I agree, if the table is deemed necessary (imo it is, but we know what BDR says), it should be without colour and properly sized.

Do you know of a way to get around it extending past the edges of the article though? It's not much of an issue here, but most seasons have almost twice as many episodes as this one does, so it would be a major issue there with the same sized cells, many browsers don't permit horizontal scrolling, especially on mobile.

The main issue with the placements is unbiased sourcing of them, I've brought it up a lot on other seasons' talk pages, and there's never a consensus on whether it can be proven that they're not taken from the article itself (I think it's called a circular source?). Some articles do have sources for placements, but I don't see proof that those sources don't take placements from the articles themselves, and it's almost impossible to get sufficient proof so many years later. 78.152.245.98 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Farewell message

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the farewell message within the episode summaries and also the differentiating colors in that as well. These add nothing to the overall quality of the article and actually make it worse. Chase | ^talk 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

They could be included in the episode blurbs, they're an important part of almost every episode that often have several minutes dedicated to them at the beginning and end, so if anywhere they could be included in the written text summary!78.152.245.98 (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to make myself scarce; but entirely agree with Chase above (and it was actually part of my earlier comments, but it got lost in all the noise). As for "they're an important part of almost every episode"; I'd like to have a secondary source (not the show itself, not an opinion of a fan) for this. The coverage of this reality TV show I could find does mention some details of the show (not too much of which is more than routine WP:NOTNEWS type content), but not this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The farewell message itself is not an important part of the episode, they dwell a whole minute or less on it each episode. The content of the message almost entirely gets lost in the season and they mostly never provide anything to the understanding of the season nor the episode. The mention of a farewell message might be necessary one time maybe in the show article, but to provide each one is unnecessary information and degrades the articles quality. It is entirely trivia, see WP:NOT#TRIVIA. Chase | ^talk 16:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's the first one I remember seeing on my suggestion page a week or so ago, talks about the mirror message and reactions in the episode to it. I mean they've been sources of controversy before, and also pretty much one of the reasons for the live finals too EDIT: My link is actually blocked because Wikipedia doesn't trust google.com for some reason. Search for vulture's recap of episode 8 or DRUK2 78.152.245.98 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Google search results are blacklisted (see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist - one of the reasons being they could be used to attempt to bypass said blacklist too). You need to link directly to the website. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic - the discussion was about farewell messages, not about Google and alternatives thereto

Very strange that the most used and most trustworthy web browser in the world would be blacklisted anywhere! https://www.vulture.com/amp/article/rupauls-drag-race-uk-recap-season-2-episode-8-stoned-on-the-runway.html here's the link anyway!78.152.245.98 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Most used? Yes. Most trustworthy? [Citation Needed]. I personally trust DuckDuckGo more. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Ok, I searched for this duckduckgo browser, and it says that they don't provide personalised results, and asked me about how often I clear cookies (answer: never, cookies are necessary for saving browsing history, why would you want to delete them?), I'm not sure if I can trust a search engine that doesn't remember things about me and my habits, surely that's exactly what you want them to do. It wanted me to install their app, which is a big no also.78.152.245.98 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Google comes packaged as default on every mobile, and I've never seen or heard of anyone having any issues with it, I don't think I've eever heard of anyone using anything else to google things with! What trust issues have you had with it?78.152.245.98 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC) As an aside, the reason why google search results (or those of any search engine, I assume) are blacklisted, is because this could be used to trivially circumvent the actual blacklist - and also because such results are extremely unlikely to stay consistent over longer periods of time, or even for users at the same time but in different countries... Also note the confusion between "web browser" [ex. Google Chrome, Firefox, ...] and "search engine" [ex. Google, Bing (does anybody use that?), DDG, ...] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Google Chrome is just the new version of Google! I don't think they're separate things, when you click the Google Chrome icon it brings you to google.com. I honestly don't know very much about it, I just use what comes packaged 78.152.245.98 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC) No, the issue with google is, say, there's some random website "X". For some reason or another, "X" is blacklisted on Wikipedia (it contains some blatantly inappropriate content, or it's constantly spammed, or ...). Now say somebody still wants to link to "page Z" on that website... They could simply link a google search for "X page Z". And for the record, the difference I was pointing out was search engine (Google is a search engine) vs. web browser (Google CHrome is a browser). But anyway this is entirely off topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I'm still not really sure I get it, I don't understand the difference between them (I wasn't aware there was a difference until now IIH), but it's okay, we can agree to have a disagreement and still be friends, you don't seem to be good at explaining complicated things well though, but it's isn't your fault78.152.245.98 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

One paragraph (about, from a quick estimate, 5% of the total length of the article about the episode) about it isn't "an important part of almost every episode". It's "a small detail which will be of interest to, probably, only dedicated fans on the show" - I'll need to go about writing WP:OTHERPLACES at some point, because this is the kind of non-Wikipedia information that best goes to other places, such as the previously mentioned fandom wiki ([8]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again your links aren't working! I always thought Wikipedia was about providing as much information about a topic as possible, just like a real encyclopedia 😭 Wikipedia is the definitive source for Drag Race track records, which are a major part of society and history surrounding the show, and culture as a whole. I'm not sure you've understood the significance of them to a massive number of people yet78.152.245.98 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia was about providing as much information about a topic as possible". Wrong. See WP:TMI and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge". We should seek to provide a summary of the topic, not every single possible detail about it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Episode Progress

I know that the page is locked, with the awful progress tables that are currently on it, but at least update the episodes with the information. Bimini won the challenge, Tayce & Ellie Diamond were bottom two, with neither going home. Last Thing on My Mind by Steps was the lip sync song. If you're going to lock a page, make sure it's updated. 18jeds1999 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

1) Lip Sync summary

Summary of contest lip syncs and eliminations Episode Winner Song Eliminated 1 Bimini Bon-Boulash "Relax" (Frankie Goes to Hollywood) Joe Black 2 Tayce "Memory" (Elaine Paige) Cherry Valentine 3 Tia Kofi "Don't Start Now" (Dua Lipa) Asttina Mandella 4 Sister Sister "You Keep Me Hangin' On" (Kim Wilde) Ginny Lemon 5 Tia Kofi "Don't Leave Me This Way" (The Communards) Joe Black 6 Lawrence Chaney "Touch Me (All Night Long)" (Cathy Dennis) Tia Kofi 7 Tayce "Don't Be So Hard on Yourself" (Jess Glynne) Sister Sister 8 Tayce "You Don't Have To Say You Love Me" (Dusty Springfield) A'Whora

2) Contestant Summary

Summary of contestants' progress in each episode Contestant Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7 Episode 8 Episode 9 Bimini Bon-Boulash BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE SAFE WIN WIN SAFE WIN WIN Ellie Diamond SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE BOTTOM 2 Lawrence Chaney SAFE SAFE WIN WIN WIN BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE SAFE Tayce SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE WIN SAFE BOTTOM 2 BOTTOM 2 BOTTOM 2 A'Whora SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE WIN SAFE WIN ELIMINATED Sister Sister SAFE SAFE SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE ELIMINATED Tia Kofi SAFE SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE BOTTOM 2 ELIMINATED Joe Black ELIMINATED ELIMINATED Veronica Green SAFE WIN SAFE SAFE OUT Ginny Lemon SAFE SAFE SAFE QUIT Asttina Mandella WIN SAFE ELIMINATED OUT Cherry Valentine SAFE ELIMINATED OUT Notes An underlined "safe" placement means the contestant received feedback from the judges, but was ultimately safe.

3) Episode Summary

No. overall No. in series Title Recap Original air date 9 1 "Royalty Returns" Recap 14 January 2021 (2021-01-14) In the premiere episode, the queens enter the work room for the first time and quickly take on their first challenge - a tennis photoshoot. For the main challenge, the queens are asked to serve two looks on the runway. Actress and fashion icon Elizabeth Hurley joins Michelle Visage and Graham Norton on the judging panel as the first queen sashays away from the competition. Mini-Challenge: Tennis photoshoot - Each of the contestants were asked to dress in tennis attire and take their best photos. At the end of the challenge, which ever contestant had the best look would win. In the mini-challenge, a few of the contestants were able to make Rupaul laugh, but in the end, Lawrence Chaney secured the win. Main Challenge: Each contestant was asked to present two runway looks themed UK Gay Icons and Queen of Your Home Town. After all the contests presented both of their runway looks, Rupaul named Asstina Mandella the challenge winner and Bimini Bon-Boulash and Joe Black as the bottom two. The bottom two went against one another in a lip sync battle to Frankie Goes to Hollywood's "Relax". When the lip sync was over, Joe Black was eliminated, as Bimini Bon-Boulash was the winner of the lip sync. Note The above underlined text is directly copied and pasted from the Episode Summary found here, which is a very big error on someone's part. I imagine this will be the case with a lot of them, but I hav e not checked yet.

A few proposals that are different than already put forward including the progress table that is already being discussed with one alteration, the lip sync table that has been reduced of redundant information within the table itself, and also the episode summary that has redundant information, plagiarism, and distracting colors. Also with the addition of the episode recap, but it could also be a place for another article. Chase | ^talk 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: 1) entirely agree 2) in the end, that might still be too on the FANCRUFTy side 3) If you have examples which are unambiguous copyright violations, you can put in a request to remove them and hide the offending revisions with clear evidence (link to the original source), see also WP:REVDELREQUEST (post an edit request on the talk page, since the article's protected) - if they're there since the very beginning that's a more annoying issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support ALL of the above as a compromise. I would add that we could also adopt a format more like The_X_Factor_(British_series_12)#Week_1_(31_October/1_November)? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The table still isn't quite good enough because underlining (or other text formatting), while it fixes issues with colourblindness, is not supported by screen readers (i.e. blind users) so it would still fail ACCESS; and it still might be subject to the usual FANCRUFT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @RandomCanadian and Lil-unique1: I would agree that it is still FANCRUFT, I was just suggesting else as an alternative because it had not been suggested as far as I know. I am fine without the dictation of if they received feedback or not, but I think some people will fight very hard for it, especially since we are getting (presumably and hopefully) rid of the highs and lows. I also do not like the format that is used in The X Factor with regard to this series. Not only that, but I am not sure if you mean the entire epiosde summary format or a few parts of it. I think it would take the worst parts of what is now and make that the entirety of the summary. Chase | ^talk 21:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the misspellings of contestant names in the episode summary, these seem great!78.152.245.98 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2021

All other seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race have the table formatted in the same way, for consistency I was wondering if you could undo the changes made by 'Drmies' and restore the table to the most recent version before that (from the edit by 'Messinwithbruce'). Once this is done could you please add a column for the 9th episode with a 'WIN' for Bimini; 'HIGH' for Lawrence; 'BTM2' for both Tayce and Ellie (in the same format as the rest of the table). Thank you very much! ECW03 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen the controversy and discussion on this talk page- it is probably better not to change it before an agreement is reached here :) ECW03 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Random and Guy are the moderators who have been in charge of the discussions on this page for a while now, so you should wait and see what they say about any changes!78.152.245.98 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is in charge of anything - this is a discussion page to reach an outcome which meets our policies and guidelines. But yeah @ECW03: you're better off taking part in the discussion in the #All_options,_redux section; though if I can interpret your second comment as withdrawing the request then you can just mark it as |answered=yes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 March 2021

Please can you return the Contestant progress back to the old format, including the ‘HIGH’s and ‘LOW’s of each contestant as that is what most accurately reflects the competitors’ journeys on the show; just see all 13 seasons of the US version, also the Canadian, Thai and Dutch spin-offs as well for reference. Bimini Bon Boulash should have a ‘WIN’ for episode 9, Lawrence Chaney should be ‘HIGH’ and then both Ellie Diamond and Tayce gained a ‘BTM2’ placement.

Please may the old version of the table be reinstated on the Series 1 of RuPaul’s Drag Race UK page also - as although the aesthetics of your pages may not be a priority - these new tables are in fact - ugly, and most of all uninformative/misleading. Thank you. 2A00:23C4:4A8B:5C00:959E:2E1D:8E1E:2011 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Repeating the same request ad nauseam ("back to the old format") will not get anything if you keep ignoring the discussion above (Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#All_options,_redux, which seeks to establish a new consensus on the matter). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

contestant progress table

someone needs to update the elimination table, episode nine happened four days ago, also return the table back to it’s original format, the new format is very unpleasant on the eyes, and before anyone brings it up MOS:ABBREV and mos whatever are completely irrelevant, multiple reality competition shows use abbreviations and colors on their elimination tables and not one of them has had an issue, this whole thing is just completely ridiculous and uncalled for BitterrrTwinkkk (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Watch out, one of the three people who are trying to keep it in its ugly form is gonna whinge and start waving other Wiki suggestion pages that no one cares about in your faceSpintrues (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ableism

I have dyslexia and routinely used the colors as a guide to take in a contestant's track record... Can the people on here please stop acting like champions for the disabled when in fact they're making things far more difficult for people like me.Spintrues (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you list your opinion/vote in this section? #All_options,_redux. Candyo32 23:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

'Contestant Progress' complaint

There are SO many things wrong with the contestant progress section of the page.

Firstly, the chart/graph is WAY too big and doesn’t follow the other examples on other pages from other seasons (there are many you can look at.)

Taking away the “HIGH” & “LOW” elements of the page make it seem bland and dull and does not give full detail about what happened in each individual episode, to whether they were given positive or negative critiques from the judges or not

I believe the person who is now “in charge” of editing this page is doing an awful job and should be reconsidered for change. Abby Marie Cole (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion above... I do agree, broadly speaking. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Abby Marie Cole as well, the old chart has been used for years and barely anyone had ever voiced an issue. The change was pointless, and the page is now being run like a dictatorship lol 51.37.186.36 (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is in charge (see WP:OWN), just because other articles look different doesn't mean they're correct. Read the discussions above about WP:ACCESS - the tables are not compliant. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the table should revert to how it originally has always been like any other drag race season. Iiisssaaaccc (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ignoriong all the SPAs above; but "the old chart has been used for years and barely anyone had ever voiced an issue" is a plain and simple appeal to tradition ("this is right, because how it's always [sic] been done"). Given that you have been explained multiple times how the old format actually is wrong and the fact that nobody outside of the show's fans noticed these tables or the existence of an issue is just an unlucky coincidence. And come on, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Anyway I and others have explained this many times and you still don't hear it so no point trying to convince each other any further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask where this energy is for other reality TV shows like The Apprentice and The Great British Bake Off? All of the tables on The Apprentice arguably go against what you say MORE so than Drag Race, but there's no Full Protection and no new table implemented in them? Just a genuine question as to why your energy is focussed on this particular reality TV show (purely just interested to know). Ellis.o22 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a specific energy towards drag race. I edit these pages not The Apprentice or Great British Bake Off. The edit protection was more to do with edit warring rather than the access violations. Don't worry Ellis - there are plans for all reality TV to adhere to the same rules. When push comes to shove, the rules haven't been enforced properly - when the rules are enforced if you don't like them administrators are not likely to listen to "what about other articles". However, if your read the rules and guidelines and can present a credible alternative that doesn't stink of WP:INDONTLIKEIT you're much more likely to get listened to. Whatever the outcome of the above discussion on this page it will apply to other articles don't worry. Also, whether you like the changes or not, they are the right thing to do in terms of being inclusive. They have the potential to make a huge difference to visually impaired readers, and have minimal if any impact on non-impaired readers. The issue of High-Low is a slightly different thing because there's the issue of verifiability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I was specifically asking out of curiosity to understand the situation - that's all you had to give an answer to. That makes sense, aside from the conflicting statements of you saying that you edit these pages but don't have the specific energy towards Drag Race. I understand what you're saying completely, but the fact of the matter remains that no matter the alternative presented, you are sticking to your guns. That's completely fine, you're entitled to do that as an administrator. Therefore, I have no choice but to go along with it? Nothing stinks of "I don't like it", because by principal of your actions by stating what is correct and incorrect, there's literally nothing anyone can do to change it and no one else will be listened to, no matter the alternative and despite you suggesting alternatives presented by anyone else would be listened to... Again, as stated earlier, I was merely asking why this isn't a blanket thing for other reality shows' Wikipedia pages that have been around as long as Drag Race, just to understand the sudden and abrupt scale of this situation more. Thanks for clarifying. Ellis.o22 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ellis.o22 I'm not an administrator. When it comes to usability, there is no debate. How usability applies can be debated and discussed. The main issue is everyone who objects to the changes wants them changed back to match the other pages but myself and others have explained lots of times that all of the pages in the drag race series will be changed to match the outcome of the discussion on this page. This is a topic I'm interested in hence I was editing it- the biggest improvement to make to this page is improving accessibility which will benefit everyone. Other ideas and opinions can and will be listened to so long as they're accessible. The issue with asking the page to be reverted to previous versions is that it won't be accessible and therefore goes against the rules. It's as simple as that. The reason the page is edit protected is because people edit warred over the changes despite the position I've taken being supported by wikipedia guidelines and the position being proposed is not supported by guidelines. If people hadn't edit warred and taken things too far with profanity, threats and introducing non-factual content, we would have been in a position where the article could have been updated etc. That's why the situation escalated. Making the table accessible (MOS:COLOUR MOS:DTAB, MOS:ACCESS) which is what removing the colours etc and simplifying is all about, makes things inclusive for everyone especially disabled readers. I don't understand the opposition to that position. It literally makes zero impact to a non-disabled person views the page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, no where did I state in my previous message that I opposed the changes you are making - I understand that completely and am trying to understand the reasons for your changes. You didn't really have to say that alternatives can be presented and I can increase my chances of being listened to when you are saying that it has to be done x, y, z ways (that I'm trying to learn about) to anything else - therefore creating one method and one method alone of presenting information. I was just asking a question... that's all it was! Have a good day. Ellis.o22 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How does your edit help disabled people, Lil-Unique? Genuine question. If anything, I feel like the lack of consistency amongst data presentation on this Drag Race page versus the rest would upset some people on the autistic spectrum. 51.37.186.36 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:ACCESS. When blind or visually impaired people use screen reader technology, the software can't read colour therefore colour cannot be the only way that you convey information (i.e. you can't have multiple versions of Safe denominated by colour alone). Abbreviations unless sourced, should be avoided. The use of colour can also impact on colourblind people. Also some of the administrators have challenged High/Low placements as its not always explicitly said during every episode and therefore not verified. Also the plan was to edit all of the pages and they will all be changed to an accessible format. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You are greatly overthinking things, and I think your suggested edits will make minimal improvements to the experiences of a small number of disabled people, and make other disabled users' experiences worse. Deleting the entire thing because there are two colours for 'safe'? ...Really? And your proposed table still uses colour so what's that all about? You say abbreviations should be avoided, yet plenty of other competition pages use abbreviations and get commended for it. You claim you're getting 'threats' - Where? You have people upset at you, yes, but you stripped down an entire part of the page where fans go to to keep up with the season. What, exactly, did you expect? 51.37.186.36 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overthinking things at all - I have some expertise in this area. Rather than jumping down my throat assume good faith - actually advocated for tables to be kept but in an accessible way. It's been said a dozen times, for clarity I'll say it once more, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't mean things are right elsewhere. If everyone was diving off the side of a cliff despite signs saying it was dangerous, you don't justify doing it yourself by saying "other people do it so its fine". No you do it and except the consequences if things go wrong. Well its a similar situation here - I didn't decide how things should be done, wikimedia (the parent organisation of wikipedia) adopted accessibility guidelines to respect inclusion which is protected in many legislatures and countries under antidiscrimination law. In the UK for example there is a requirement for all public organisations to have web accessible content. As for threats they've now been hidden but you can see in the talkpage history that several edits had to be redacted. Finally, you say minimal improvements to a minimal number of disabled editors but worse for others without siting any examples. Abbreviations are unhelpful when they are done for purely aesthetic reasons. Furthermore, the use of multiple colours doesn't work well, as someone demonstrated below where the contrast is not high enough on some of the colour combinations. These standards are being rolled out across all wikipedia pages - it will take time as most casual readers/editors aren't aware of the wikipedia guidance on accessibility. The crux of the matter is that the accessibility changes make a HUGE improvement to web accessibility with little/no impact on people who do not have a visual disability. Unless you can be very specific where the changes don't do that, its likely that they will succeed no matter how many people should loud and say they don't like them or everything needs to be consistent (it will be don't worry). And if by some miracle, you find a reason why the changes are bad for accessibility then you will need to bring that up at MOS:ACCESS, but based on current guidance which is in line with the law and best practise, the current guidelines favour the current iteration of the tables, if they have to exist at all. I'm bored of explaining - please do your research and wait now for things to conclude. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Myself and others have mentioned why this is less accessible than it was before, and I've even explored possible solutions below. Please read what's been written in relation to this. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I though the question was first pointed to me; so I'll answer, if belatedly; that I came upon the edit request here while browsing through CAT:ESP (and answered it, [9]); looked at the article, and in my judgement the whole table was inappropriate so I removed it. Of course that was challenged; so per WP:BRD we're having a discussion, and well I'm not bothering to fix other articles until this discussion reaches a clear consensus, lest the same exercise need be repeated again (I have better things to do, for ex. creating articles about subjects where I have some relevant expertise). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Im not reading all of these conversations but abby marie cole is speaking facts. Especially the fact that you removed the highs and lows...the level of unprofessionalism. In your words, “this in enclopydia, not a fansits” SO WHY ARE YOU PUTTING OUT FALSE INFORMATION LOL? fucking hell is it so hard to change it to the old one. where it was actually accurate? Mizluh (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of Dispute Resolution

Please note I have now taken the discussion above at All options, redux to Dispute resolution. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Spa-Franks - the motion was closed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2) because there is already a dispute resolution process in progress here. There are already multiple administrators involved in the process - please wait for the discussion to run its course. We all need to find a compromise going forward that balances factual information with respect for the MOS on accessibility. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Spa-Franks - I don't entirely understand what sort of dispute resolution you were requesting. This dispute appears to have been going on for more than a month, with multiple administrators already involved. Was there something specific that you were asking, or are you dissatisfied with the way that User:Deepfriedokra and User:Black Kite are handling things? If you are dissatisfied with administrative action, you can always request community attention at WP:AN or WP:ANI. I don't know exactly what the dispute is. I think it is about the format of the table, and I know that disputes about the formatting of tables are absurdly bitter. In any case, I think that this dispute probably is ready to be taken to WP:AN and for the community to impose Community General Sanctions that would allow uninvolved admins to hand out multiple topic-bans. That is likely to happen anyway, but if you don't want that, my advice is to be civil and maintain a low profile and it may delay if not avoid the general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Robert McClenon:. I have no interest in this or any content dispute. I SP'd the talk page due to personal attacks, threats, and copyvios. I blocked the users who did those things and revdel'd. I opined as to the desirability of complying with, in particular, MOS:ACCESS. The other side of the dispute see little if any value in complying with WP:MOS. I declined edit requests not based in reliable sources and expressed the opinion that there is no need to update the content in a play-by-play manner. They want to make this page like the one's about the other Drag Races. There are, I suppose, other issues that Spa-Franks can better address than I. I have said all I intend to about this page and have no interest in it. Why this page out of so many has become contentious is beyond me. While I acknowledge the importance of MOSACCESS, I also acknowledge the desirability of conformity among pages about the same subject. Good luck, Robert. I do not envy you. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra - I don't need sympathy. I am not dealing with this dispute either. I mediate content disputes, but only when the editors are willing to be civil and discuss content, and this dispute is already out of control. It is Someone else's problem, and that makes it almost invisible to me also. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Deepfriedokra I feel slightly responsible as it was me trying to make the tables more accessible that resulted in this debacle. I had discussed it at the project page for a different season previously and perhaps naively assumed people followed MOS. Genuinely hadn't expected it to be the problem its become or that people would get so heat up over some summary tables. I do believe I was in the right for following the rules and guidance but against the current strength of feeling, I don't see how any ruling to follow MOS:ACCESS would stick without topic banning tonnes of editors or without there being permanent page protections of some sort. Removing the tables would almost certainly result in them being re-added, and unless all of them were changed to a different format at the same time, I fear they would be reverted. I'm fairly certain I personally haven't edit warred etc and wouldn't want to be topic banned for trying to enforce MOS. Although its fundamentally incorrect, and an affront to accessibility, if its the easiest thing to do then I would say compromise by different information solely conveyed by colour and leave it at that. Allow editors to fansite the pages - there is more significant work/editing to attend to and I don't want to be anymore of target than I already have been for the amount of vitriol and I've had levelled at me. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lil that by this point it probably isn't worth the effort (or at least not at this page - a more centralised, and less prone to disruption, discussion, maybe?), especially if we're going to keep getting bombarded by people who have no wish to abide by our policies; however much those tables rightfully deserve to go; and however much this is WP:FANCRUFT... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If the issue has to do with the colors in the tables, then I have known since the 1980s not to rely on color as the sole means of distinguishing between items of visual information, both because some people have difficulty distinguishing colors and because some display devices had difficulty displaying colors. Maybe this is a case where improved technology has caused a new problem. If so, this dispute about color may be as bad as arguing over how to spell colour. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

, in a nutshell, I wanted editors to use "Scope" in table formatting, avoid abbreviations and reduce the reliance on colour. There are some blatant abuses of colour that are both wrong for colourblind readers and then also fail something like JAWS which are probably the worst offending elements. The trouble is the opposition to the changes is 99% of the time based on "I don't like the new format" or "the new format doesn't match other articles". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I really, really do not care. If people wish to disregard the WP:MOS and WP:RS, then there is nothing anyone can do through discussion or persuasion. Whether it is worth raising this at WP:ANI not as a content dispute, but a refusal to follow WP:MOS and WP:RS, with the attendant behavioral issues, is not for me to decide. Please feel free to quote my talk page comments. Please do not drag me into this quagmire any further. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused - is there a process ongoing or not at ANI, and if there is can someone link to it? Spa-Franks (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks:, I filed an ANI originally which brought Deepfriedokra and other admins to this page. The discussion above at #All_options,_redux is the attempt at dispute resolution. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the thread was archived without further action; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#MOS:ACCESS_violations_again_at_RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_1)_and_RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain why you always have to have the last word in these discussions @RandomCanadian? Please let the grown ups talk, and resolve this like has been requested of you several times. So many of your comments here have been ridiculously pointed, condescending and unnecessary, but please, go ahead and apply this same fervour to the talk pages of every other season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.69.16 (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be civil, please... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Been nothing but civil to RandomCanadian for the past several weeks now! It's the extreme personal attacks, micro aggressions against me and several other users (where complaints have not been taken seriously - see above sections), and the micromanagement of almost everything that goes on here, while that same energy is not being applied in other situations that is vexing for me! Being civil applies in both directions, I sure hope, because they certainly have not been either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.69.16 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Spa asked for a link to the discussion. I obliged. That's hardly "me getting the last word". No further comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

While I do not wish to sound rude or anything, I do wish that RandomCanadian would stop responding to edit requests when they have been told not to as they do not have the permissions to edit the page, so that is what I think this person was trying to convey. 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I likewise never really intended to get involved here - I believe that the articles are better off without the tables, and was going to start a general RfC on the matter for all reality TV shows, but given the strength of feeling here I wonder whether such a proposal has any chance of passing. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For the above persistent requests: 1) removing (or at least marking as answered) duplicates is non-controversial, as they won't get answered any faster [only the first one gets linked to from the category] and they just make clutter. 2) I do not see anywhere saying that non-admins can't answer requests if they're obviously not going to be done - this is also a sign that maybe your requests aren't "non controversial", as clearly explained in the instructions for making such requests. @Firefly: It might pass, but then again it might be more trouble than it's worth... Which although a sad conclusion is probably the most pragmatic solution. Also keep in mind that there are some signs of socking and block evasion here (although it's so far been minimal, except for that episode when this had to be protected). Anyway, hopefully, we can now end this saga without being further harassed. Should I post a request at AN/C for the above discussion to be closed? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Regardless of any discussions above on the formatting of progress table (disputed above), and regardless of particular challenges, the page is now outdated and is incorrect to say that the top four's positions are "TBA". Hence, the following changes need to be made:

• The series was won by Lawrence Chaney.
• The runners-up were Bimini Bon-Boulash and Tayce.
• Ellie Diamond finished fourth.
• Episode titles and airdates (11/18 March) for episodes 9-10, which need to be included in the list of episodes below episode 8, even without the usual summaries: Episode 9 was titled "BeastEnders" and Episode 10 "Condragulations", both of which are listed on BBC iPlayer.
• Ignoring the under-dispute progress table for now, the lip sync table should now include the following:

9	Tayce	vs.	Ellie Diamond	"Last Thing on My Mind" (Steps)	None
10	Bimini Bon-Boulash vs. Lawrence Chaney vs. Tayce			"I'm Still Standing" (Elton John)	Bimini Bon-Boulash
					Tayce

All of these do not need a secondary source: the primary source of the episode itself is considered sufficient. This is a long-standing convention. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Administrator note  Not done as this page is no longer protected, please be sure any contentious edits have a consensus via discussion before (re)adding. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sister Sister

Please wikilink Sister Sister to sister Sister.Naraht (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Grayscale

Keeping in mind that I still think that all elimination tables should be eliminated from this and all related articles as being unecylopedic, let's talk about grayscale. Who are these Wikipedia readers who can't see any colors?

• There are the occasional users who use monochrome computers (digital ink e-readers, laptops that use reflective LCDs to save power), but they are prety much used to not being able to see some things on the web (Fun fact: with some versions of Microsoft Plus! on some monochrome systems the splash screen that you see when Windows boots says "Microsoft Pus! without even a gap where the "L" goes).
• There are the totally colorblind. This is a rare condition, but making web sites that don't accommodate all of the different ways someone can be vision impaired -- including total colorblindness and total blindness -- is illegal in the US under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it. This resulted in Target paying out roughly ten million dollars.
• Finally, we have the totally color blind user who most likely lives in your home: The monochrome laser printer. Yes, people do print out Wikipedia pages, and yes, a boatload of them do so on monochrome laser printers. We should accommodate those users as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Shared opinion about the tables in mind, but to add the obvious omission is users who are entirely blind, for whom a table is probably not the most convenient format anyway, let alone a table where some information is presented solely via colours. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's illegal to have a Drag Race Wikipedia page with colour in it then how come none of us have gotten arrested yet? 🤔51.37.186.36 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh my GOD, I spat out my drink reading this. You've got a point, you're an icon, you're a legend and YOU ARE the moment. --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

About the disabilities laws, very interesting point! I wonder which countries laws should articles adhere to? They wouldn't necessarily be identical across jurisdictions, so what do we do on occasions where they would contradict each other? I think there was discussion on the CANDR page about not being certain about what country of origin the series had 🤔 I know the part about the printer is a joke, but seriously speaking, if someone is old enough to still have one, how likely is it that they're watching reality TV about drag queens 🤣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.245.98 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hosted in the US; therefore US laws (for better or for worse, copyright being one of the issues where this is "worse") are the main ones. Not that web (and general) accessibility laws are unique to the US. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm not sure what hosted in the US means, I'm able to access it in Europe at the moment, but there have been occasions where it's been unavailable. I wonder if anything like that exists to the same extent in Europe, I've certainly never encountered or had to deal with it anyway if it does! Considering there have been several disabled contestants on the show over the years, you'd think they'd be more mindful of accessibility! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.245.98 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia's servers are actually owned by someone else and we buy hosting services. Thus we could, if needed, quickly buy hosting from someone else.

Wikipedia's primary servers are in Ashburn, Virginia (Washington, DC area) with secondary servers in Carrollton, Texas (Dallas-Fort Worth area) if the primary servers fail. Thus the servers as well as the headquarters are located in the US and are subject to US laws.

We also have caching servers in San Fransisco, Amsterdam, and Singapore. These mirror the main servers and exist to give users in the far east, Europe, and the US west coast faster service. In theory, if we broke a law that exists only in the Netherlands or Singapore those governments could shut down those local servers, which would make Wikipedia a bit slower for the hour or so it would take us to buy caching services somewhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a server for Wikipedia! Are you a moderator there? I don't pay for a subscription, so I'm not sure if I would be able to buy any hosting services too, but I think I would enjoy it anyway as a free user, you make it sound fun. I think the Netherlands one would be suitable for me to join and learn more about the Wikipedia fandom. We have servers for different Drag Race franchises too, you should join one and spend time getting to know our community going forward if you're planning on being a permanent fixture! There was already a huge furore about you and the others here all over the internet last week, so I'm not sure you'd be well received just yet, but it would be worth joining and taking part, just to get to know people and apologise for some of your actions of damaging the community, we're all a lot of fun, and I'm sure you could become one of the common links between the Drag Race and Wikipedia servers if you wanted to! Would you be able to send me the invite link if you don't mind, you can do it here, I haven't been able to find any kind of DM system on here yet. Thank you so much for this, it's nice to have made another new friend here!78.152.245.98 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not a "moderator". I am an engineer (not employed by the wikimedia foundation) who understands how website hosting works. This is not the right place to discuss this, but you don't seem to understand what a server is (every website has one) or what hosting is (it isn't something that you the website user pays for but rather something the website owner either pays for or provides themself). If you want to learn more, I suggest that you go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and ask "what is a webserver? What is hosting?".

Hi! I do know what a server is, I'm a member of several and even a moderator on some myself. There are definitely some websites that don't have servers, I have a lot of interests and haven't been able to find a server to discuss every single one of them, they might be available on different apps maybe. I know it is difficult to run a server though, so that is one of the reasons why I haven't created some for things that I would definitely like to discuss with friends online. Please let me understand though, you say that you're not a moderator, but you're here trying to enforce rules, is that not what is meant by moderation, and usually against the rules of most discussions, is that not also the case on Wikipedia?78.152.245.98 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop this inaccuracy

The new format isnt just ugly, its also not unformative. The others didnt place safe, whats the use of the high placement then? This is not true. This isnt love for the arts when one person wins and the others are safe. No. Fix this immidiately. No one asked for this. P.S the drag race producers will probs tell u to fix this since its well...doesent say the true stuff Mizluh (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This new table is factually inaccurate and uninformative. Feels like a dictatorship by few which does not make things clearer, more accessible, or more aligned with Wikipedia's manual of style. It's only causing more problems. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Also woops i spelled informative wrong

Mizluh (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• also not informative Mizluh (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cyruslcohen556: Yes, it is a complete dictatorship. Especially by how some people are talking it is clearly homophobic, how they have taken the issue with this particular page and left the articles which initiated this sort of table formatting. Survivor, Dancing with the Stars, Top Chef etc which are mostly catered to heternormative audiences are completely ignored here and every time you mention similar discussions on those pages they slap you with a "other things exist" argument. I mean, c'mon on now, if they wanted to bring a change they would tackle the source of the issue not the 'Series 2' page of an international iteration of the franchise which has a handful of editors. They want to start conquering small and gain momentum. They are scared to post on the US versions because those editors will absolutely destroy this discussion. --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Solution for MOS:ACCESS

If the main issue is that screen readers cannot interpret differentiations in color between SAFE (white background) and SAFE (beige background), we should just establish a written demarcation that clarifies who received critiques. I think color can remain in place for those who benefit from it (people with dyslexia and those who are partially blind), but that does not need to be the sole way to convey information. The Amazing Race uses symbols, underlining, and footnotes in their tables. I recommend we consider something similar. But eliminating color because of the manual of style is ableist as some people do rely on it and therefore violates MOS:ACCESS. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (5)

It seems to me and everyone else viewing this talk page, that this dispute is not going to be solved any time soon, so until it is, let’s keep the page the same as all the other Drag Race articles until a consensus is reached.

Please could you update the Contestants and Contestant progress sections to look as follows. Lauren-mae69 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The version you have would make a great placeholder as it conforms to the other Drag Race pages. Minimal disruption to the community while this gets solved!Spintrues (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use edit requests to ask for a version for which there is no current consensus... No comment on the first table. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Contestants

Contestants of Drag Race UK Series 2

Contestant	Age	Hometown	Outcome
Lawrence Chaney	23	Glasgow, Scotland	Winner
Bimini Bon-Boulash	26	Norwich, England	Runner-up
Tayce	25	Newport, Wales	Runner-up
Ellie Diamond	21	Dundee, Scotland	4th Place
A'Whora	23	Worksop, England	5th Place
Sister Sister	31	Liverpool, England	6th Place
Tia Kofi	30	Essex, England	7th Place
Joe Black	30	Brighton, England	8th Place
Veronica Green	34	Rochdale, England	9th Place
Ginny Lemon	31	Worcester, England	10th Place
Asttina Mandella	27	East London, England	11th Place
Cherry Valentine	26	Darlington, England	12th Place

Contestant progress

Summary of contestants' progress in each episode

Contestant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Lawrence Chaney	HIGH	LOW	WIN	WIN	WIN	BTM2	LOW	HIGH	HIGH	Winner
Bimini Bon-Boulash	BTM2	SAFE	HIGH	HIGH	WIN	WIN	SAFE	WIN	WIN	Runner-up
Tayce	SAFE	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	HIGH	BTM2	BTM2	BTM2	Runner-up
Ellie Diamond	HIGH	HIGH	SAFE	SAFE	LOW	SAFE	HIGH	LOW	BTM2	Eliminated
A'Whora	SAFE	SAFE	HIGH	HIGH	WIN	LOW	WIN	ELIM		Guest
Sister Sister	LOW	SAFE	HIGH	BTM2	LOW	SAFE	ELIM			Guest
Tia Kofi	SAFE	HIGH	BTM2	SAFE	BTM2	ELIM				Guest
Joe Black	ELIM				ELIM					Guest
Veronica Green	SAFE	WIN	HIGH	LOW	OUT					Guest
Ginny Lemon	SAFE	SAFE	LOW	QUIT						Guest
Asttina Mandella	WIN	SAFE	ELIM		OUT					Guest
Cherry Valentine	SAFE	ELIM			OUT					Guest

  The contestant won RuPaul's Drag Race UK.

  The contestant was the runner-up.

  The contestant won the challenge.

  The contestant received positive critiques and was ultimately declared safe.

  The contestant received critiques but was ultimately declared safe.

  The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared safe.

  The contestant was in the bottom two.

  The contestant was eliminated.

  The contestant was in the bottom two, and decided to quit the competition.

  The contestant was forced to withdraw from the competition after testing positive for COVID-19.

  The contestant was not voted to return to the competition after the COVID-19 filming hiatus.

  The contestant returned as a guest for that episode.

RandomCanadian, the mods have asked you time and time again to not respond to edit requests as you do not have the permissions to edit the page yourself. 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is literally the perfect layout for what the page should look like. This page has been ruined since the mods took over it by firstly over-simplifying the “Contestant Progress” chart, and now not even bothering to edit the page. It is now two episodes behind, whereas if it was left alone it would have been up-to-date within 10 minutes of the final episode.

It has become an utter joke at this point. Abby Marie Cole (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been told time and time again that edit requests should be used for non-controversial things. And yet, despite clear controversy about your preferred table format; here you are, requesting it be added back in. Please read WP:CONSENSUS instead of making more edit requests. They're unlikely to be acted upon. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask, what is “controversial” about the table? All it states is what clearly happens in each individual episode in FULL detail. The table which remains on the page currently lacks information and is of unnecessary size. Abby Marie Cole (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Administrator note  Not done as this page is no longer protected, please be sure any contentious edits have a consensus via discussion before (re)adding. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lauren-mae69, it's hard to think of a combination that is LESS compliant with accessibility guidelines than black on siena, which you have for "Eliminated". It fails the contrast test miserably. See the Snook Colour Contrast Check--it's barely legible for someone with decent eye sight. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bimini Bon Boulash hometown

Saw this article online and noticed it mentioned BBB's hometown was in fact Great Yarmouth and not Norwich as previously stated. Once the article is unlocked, I suggest we change this information.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-56538380

- XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

She said Norwich on the show so Norwich will be kept. --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Expediting the Prolonged Debate

The season is now over, and the debate surrounding the proper format for this page must now be expedited. For those currently keeping this locked, please look at and respond to every comment. It is clear that certain lines of discussion are not even being seen or addressed. If you are committed to handling this page, please spend the time doing so. Otherwise, let someone else take over. Solutions for accessibility have been proposed and multiple people have stated that the current table violates MOS:ACCESS. Additionally, it has been commented on by myself and others that the double-standards for this page and the Drag Race franchise more broadly in comparison to other, similar pages seems potentially homophobic. If you are committing to taking care of this page and making it the best it can be for our readers, spend the time and do the work.Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of this thing called patience? Also, on Wikipedia, there is no deadline, so we really don't care whether the season is over or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cyruslcohen556: Have said for ages the debate should be expedited, because it is trying to build a new consensus. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:It is not about whether the season is over. It is about a clear lack of consideration or time spent working through complicated and demanding topics. If you are not willing or prepared to deal with this, let someone else do so. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks and Cyruslcohen556: If someone would like to update this page - RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)/temp with the final results - then I will update it. Obviously, please use the table format existing on that page for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Cyruslcohen556: Do you have any proposals to reach a compromise? I would be interested in seeing some of your examples or hearing what you have in mind. Please include anyone else in the discussion that you wish. Chase | ^talk 18:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I've retired from Wikipedia editing as a result of the mishandling of this page. @Spa-Franks has proposed some accessibility solutions above that I completely agree with. I think the main issue now is not one of accessibility or format, but just finding sources for every episode that verify the top 3 & bottom 3. Once that is done, I think/hope those who locked this page would consider returning it to normal. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Links

Can someone please link Ellie Diamond and Veronica Green in the table? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove some of the restrictions on this page already? 5 days later we can't even add a couple links to the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite Could you please answer this edit request, not withstanding the laborious debate above? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I have to say though, I strongly suspect neither of those articles would pass an AfD. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, from past experience the articles/subject garners lots of attention from fans in support of them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Although also from past experience, non-winners in reality shows need other evidence of notability apart from the show, per WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree generally, but Green also has All Together Now in her resume, so passes WP:ONEEVENT. Also note that one event can be circumnavigated, such as WP:ESC. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template usage

I'd prefer that however things are finished in terms of how the view works, I'd prefer that the templates Template:DragRace for things like win and btm2, etc. be used like they are in RPDR season 1.Naraht (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Amend link to WOW Presents plus

The article should change the link from [[World of Wonder (company)#WOW Presents Plus|WOW Presents Plus]] to [[WOW Presents Plus]] Naraht (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition of links

Hiya, just thought it'd be useful to add the links to Asttina and Cherry's pages on Wikipedia to the list at the top, in line with the other contestants :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottoch (talk • contribs)

More specifically, sounds like this person wants to wikilink Asttina Mandella and Cherry Valentine in the table in the "Contestants" section. Seems reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ground rules

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is being restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE because (1) this RfC was not concluded, and (2) a close request lingers at WP:AN/RFC and (3) there is a request for an update on the outcome of this RfC on the current talk page. Another preamble is necessary to re-iterate that, despite appearances, RfC's such as this are not voting on an outcome and that decision-making in these discussions is not a democratic process. As the closer, it is my job to evaluate the number and the content of opinions expressed. Wikipedia decision-making is via the consensus of participants but assessing consensus is not merely a matter of counting noses: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Unfortunately, and contrary to the "Ground Rules" that were established, a number of arguments expressed below firmly fall into one or more of those categories of "irrelevant arguments". The remaining arguments fell almost entirely into either favoring Option A (the original table) or Option D (no table). The opinions in favor of the other two options were such a small minority that they cannot be considered as the consensus position. The arguments in favor of the original table can be summarized as personal preference, that the information contained in the table was valuable, that the information contained in the table was not available elsewhere, or that the information contained in the table was easier to understand. The arguments against any table can be summarized as the table's presence attracts disruption, that the information contained in the table was already presented adequately in prose, and that the table itself failed accessibility standards. Of all these arguments, the disruption and accessibility arguments must be given precedence due to our existing policies and guidelines. The arguments that the existence of similar tables in similar articles favors retaining a table in this article can be understood as pointing to a silent consensus at a level above the individual article. The discussion below is, however, an explicit consensus that overcomes whatever may be presumed about this type of article in general. Taking all this into account, both the quantitative and qualitative grounds previously established for evaluating RfC's require recognizing that this discussion represents a clear consensus to remove the contestant's progress table from this article. Whether this outcome should apply to similar articles would need to be addressed through the normal editing process at either those articles or at another appropriate forum. Options for such fora include Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, or Wikipedia:Village pump. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with rules governing content, sourcing and conduct. Since there are editors here who have not read the WP:Five Pillars, I will present some of them.

• WP:CIVIL We discuss content and sourcing, and other important aspects of editing while treating one another in a courteous and respectful manner. we do not insult or harangue one another. We do not call upon other users, and I quote, to "commit suicide. We do not ascribe ulterior motives to other editors. If I see such conduct, I may block without further warning.
• WP:COPYVIO Content copyrighted elsewhere is not suitable for Wikipedia. This includes lyrics and blog posts. Content must be public domain, GFDL, or creative commons. If there is no indication of copyright on the source, we presume it to be copyrighted. If I see such conduct as adding material copyrighted elsewhere, I may block without further warning.
• WP:Verifability "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." This is a complete statement. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. To the above, since the locus of the dispute was a table (or a few of them, actually), I'll point out that guidance relating to tables and formatting is situated at MOS:TABLE. Of particular interest to us are the following extracts from related policies:

• MOS:COLOUR "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information."
• MOS:ABBREV "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper."

And in addition, I'll remind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning there are some things which it is not; and we should try to avoid going into too much detail about a subject. To quote, "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject." Hopefully this guides further discussion to a less adversarial conclusion. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Some (not just one) editors have claimed that various edits are either required by or forbidden by:

• MOS:ABBREV
• MOS:ACCESS
• MOS:COLOUR
• MOS:TABLE

The opposing editors tend to simply ignore such arguments. Either there are violations, in which case the editors doing the violating need to follow MOS, or there aren't, in which case the editors citing MOS need to knock it off. Not sure how to put the above into ground rules format, but it's annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks y'all. I'll add that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we must not provide updates about a contest based on what someone saw in the show. What I said about sourcing still holds. It will not necessarily be updated "promptly". Wikipedia is not a fansite. It might or might not be best and least disruptive to fill in any tables after the contest is over and covered in reliable sources. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Please do not add duplicate requests. Please read prior requests and see if your suggestion has already been dealt with. Duplication just slows down the process of sifting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

All options, redux

Basically, we have to choose between a few table formats (including the "no table at all" option) to see which one best meets these guidelines. We have, in summary, the following options:

A) Formerly in article

Summary of contestants' progress in each episode Contestant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lawrence Chaney HIGH LOW WIN WIN WIN BTM2 LOW HIGH HIGH Winner Bimini Bon-Boulash BTM2 SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN WIN SAFE WIN WIN Runner-up Tayce SAFE BTM2 SAFE SAFE WIN HIGH BTM2 BTM2 BTM2 Runner-up Ellie Diamond HIGH HIGH SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE HIGH LOW BTM2 Eliminated A'Whora SAFE SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN LOW WIN ELIM Guest Sister Sister LOW SAFE HIGH BTM2 LOW SAFE ELIM Guest Tia Kofi SAFE HIGH BTM2 SAFE BTM2 ELIM Guest Joe Black ELIM ELIM Guest Veronica Green SAFE WIN HIGH LOW OUT Guest Ginny Lemon SAFE SAFE LOW QUIT Guest Asttina Mandella WIN SAFE ELIM OUT Guest Cherry Valentine SAFE ELIM OUT Guest   The contestant won the challenge.   The contestant received positive critiques and was ultimately declared safe.   The contestant received critiques but was ultimately declared safe.   The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared safe.   The contestant was in the bottom two.   The contestant was eliminated.   The contestant was in the bottom two, and decided to quit the competition.   The contestant was forced to withdraw from the competition after testing positive for COVID-19.   The contestant was not voted to return to the competition after the COVID-19 filming hiatus.   The contestant returned as a guest for that episode.

B) Currently in article

Summary of contestants' progress in each episode Contestant Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7 Episode 8 Episode 9 Episode 10 Lawrence Chaney HIGH LOW WIN WIN WIN BOTTOM 2 LOW HIGH HIGH WINNER Bimini Bon-Boulash BOTTOM 2 SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN WIN SAFE WIN WIN RUNNER-UP Tayce SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE WIN HIGH BOTTOM 2 BOTTOM 2 BOTTOM 2 RUNNER-UP Ellie Diamond HIGH HIGH SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE HIGH LOW BOTTOM 2 ELIMINATED A'Whora SAFE SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN LOW WIN ELIMINATED Sister Sister LOW SAFE HIGH BOTTOM 2 LOW SAFE ELIMINATED Tia Kofi SAFE HIGH BOTTOM 2 SAFE BOTTOM 2 ELIMINATED Joe Black ELIMINATED ELIMINATED Veronica Green SAFE WIN HIGH LOW OUT Ginny Lemon SAFE SAFE LOW QUIT Asttina Mandella WIN SAFE ELIMINATED OUT Cherry Valentine SAFE ELIMINATED OUT   The contestant won the challenge.   The contestant received positive critiques and was ultimately declared safe.   The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared safe.   The contestant was in the bottom two.   The contestant was eliminated.   The contestant was in the bottom two, and decided to quit the competition.   The contestant was forced to withdraw from the competition after testing positive for COVID-19.   The contestant was not voted to return to the competition after the COVID-19 filming hiatus.   The contestant returned as a guest for that episode.

C) My compromise proposal

Summary of contestants' progress in each episode Contestant Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7 Episode 8 Episode 9 Episode 10 Lawrence Chaney SAFE SAFE WIN WIN WIN BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE SAFE WINNER Bimini Bon-Boulash BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE SAFE WIN WIN SAFE WIN WIN RUNNER-UP Tayce SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE WIN SAFE BOTTOM 2 BOTTOM 2 BOTTOM 2 RUNNER-UP Ellie Diamond SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE BOTTOM 2 ELIMINATED A'Whora SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE WIN SAFE WIN ELIMINATED Sister Sister SAFE SAFE SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE ELIMINATED Tia Kofi SAFE SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE BOTTOM 2 ELIMINATED Joe Black ELIMINATED ELIMINATED Veronica Green SAFE WIN SAFE SAFE OUT Ginny Lemon SAFE SAFE SAFE QUIT Asttina Mandella WIN SAFE ELIMINATED OUT Cherry Valentine SAFE ELIMINATED OUT

D) No table at all

Now if I do a quick analysis, A) fails ABBREV, COLOUR and NOR/V; B) still fails NOR/V and has too many colours so is a wee bit on the distracting side. I am of course for either C), since even if it might be redundant with the episode summaries it is "useful" to our readers [and well I don't know if consistency on similar articles for other series is also to use a table - is there any GA/FA class article about this kind of thing?]; or D) since well in addition to being redundant it looks like FANCRUFT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• To be fair, on first ending upon this article, my first reaction was to completely remove the table, and Firefly has a point that "we shouldn't make content decisions to appease potentially disruptive editors", so my first preference is indeed option D (and yes consistency between similar articles is perfectly reasonable so whatever we decide should apply elsewhere too - if that requires an RfC somewhere to override what appears to be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, fine by me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• While I fully support these changes in principle I think it would be best to either update or remove all of the 'progress' tables for all the RuPaul's Drag Race articles together. If we change this one alone, we'll be giving ourselves a Sisyphean task of reverting people who update it "to match the others". I agree that the tables come perilously close to fancruft and so would favour option D of complete removal, or a backup option of not including them until the series has concluded. They also seem to attract a ridiculous amount of silly edit warring during the run of a series, and much of the information in them isn't cited to reliable, secondary sources (this in turn probably leads to much of the edit warring). Whether we need a discussion at the WikiProject or an RfC I do not know, but I think a wider discussion around stripping much of the cruftiness out of the series articles is warranted. For what it's worth, I think the episode summaries are likewise full of things that do not belong in an encyclopedia. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• As I'm not here to decide consensus, I can opine. Can we just not have the table? Wouldn't that alleviate WP:MOS-soup concerns? Wouldn't it be less fancrufty? Do w really need a blow-by-blow account? I think D no table would be a great choice. I know we like consistency between like pages, but must we follow bad example as slaves to consistency? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, the only reason I suggested a broader goal of changing them all together was to minimise disruption caused by people EW-ing this one to match the others. Then again there are solutions to that issue as demonstrated here, and on reflection we shouldn't make content decisions to appease potentially disruptive editors. Agreed that ridding the article of the table is the best plan, and perhaps the first step toward a general cleanup. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support A. The key is clear and the colors/abbreviations make sense. Whether someone was given critiques or not is important. Whether those critiques were positive or negative is important. The order in which they are called safe at the end clarifies who is top and who is bottom. I would Appeal to tradition and stress the importance of consistency. The table in A is not remotely distracting or confusing. Abbreviations serve an important purpose and the meanings of ELIM and BTM2 are both intuitive. More of my thoughts are mentioned below. Regardless of what is decided, please update the factual information that is not being contested soon as it is now nearing a full week in which this page has contained outdated information. Thank you all very much for your work and your commitment to making sure this page is as helpful as possible. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removing the tables from this and all related pages as being unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets. Let them fight about it at [ https://television.fandom.com/wiki/Television_wiki ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support D per the actual rules of wikipedia is for. However if summary tables for a programme are considered appropriate then support B. There are a huge number of reality TV programmes so I do think that ultimately it will be difficult to stop them being added across the board, either at this or other franchises. That said, the lack of consistency, adherence to MOS and silly deviations isn't acceptable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• SUPPORT C OR B The information is useful, and D comes with the downside that these pages will probably lose a lot of valuable editors. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by option D leading to a loss of editors. Surely if people want to edit the article, they'll edit it. If people were only coming to the articles to update the tables, then sure, they won't come to update them any more... but in that case they weren't editing the rest of the article anyway. Or am I missing something? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Following up on this discussion to say that the new table is even more inaccessible than the original one. It is difficult to read and interpret without any demarcations between QUIT, ELIMINATED, and OUT. Also, if this is going to be the new standard for reality television competitions, it must be changed on every single reality television competition's page. I personally do not want to spend the hours doing that, but, if you do, go for it. I imagine it will take an absurd amount of time, and ultimately just make the website less useful for audiences. As for the comment that this change will discourage contributors, I completely agree. I would stop editing altogether in all likelihood. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  How is it less accessible? You do not need different colours when the information is conveyed textually. In fact, "quit", "eliminated" and "out" are pretty much the same thing (i.e. the contestant, in some way, did not take further part in the competition). Are you saying that we should use colour to convey information? How many times do we need to point at MOS:COLOUR and how colour should not be used to convey such information? Note that too much different colours is also distracting... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Less accessible for anyone with dyslexia or partial blindness. I understand it's a part of the manual of style, but I'm telling you that's ableist. For many, color is key to reading comprehension. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support D or failing that C. The current tables are a mess of color Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support D or if we have to have a table, then C. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a reality show fanpage. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A. Whilst "other stuff exists" is apparently not a valid argument (whereas I personally believe precedent is very important), the whole argument here appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not just other series of Drag Race that have such charts in these formats - The Apprentice (British series 10) for example is another one with a very similar chart - and if a new precedent is going to be set, then it needs to be done elsewhere, and not on the talk page of one specific series of one specific show. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit - not just TV shows either: have just realised that the same arguments about access and readability could equally apply to EVERY table of results in WP:F1 too, such as 2020 Formula One World Championship, and every driver and car page for all 71 years of the sport. This is the wrong place to establish a new precedent. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The F1 Championship table is easily readable and passes MOS:ACCESS. But I don't think that's a good comparison anyway; in an F1 season each race is notable in itself (they have individual articles), the points gained in each race contribute to a total and so the table in 2020 Formula One World Championship is a summary of that information. Whereas here, there is only really one piece of information in each show before the final that is relevant to the overall result and that is "who left the show?", so you could argue that the extraneous information isn't really useful and it could be presented as a simple list. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comparing a reality TV show to F1 is really taking the cake here. And the information in those F1 tables is not, unlike in option A, colour dependant (and in addition, those tables have proper legends and colour is not also used with annoying and excessive contrasts) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

For many, especially in the LGBTQ+ community, Drag Race is our version of sports. So I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Except F1, when it happens, is in major newspapers all around the world and there's an absolute boatload of coverage about it, including from very broad papers (the Guardian usually keeps a live blog; BBC has a whole section about it; of course the regular sports networks; ... - and as you can see it's generating coverage even well in the off season [and, to be fair, it also involves very much larger sums of money than this...]). This reality TV thing in comparison is very niche, LGBT community and whatnot notwithstanding (seems very much like special pleading to me).

Anyway that is simply deflection from the issue, which is that those colours, whether they are a "key" to comprehension or not, are being misused, partly because some information is conveyed only via colours (MOS:ACCESS, again) and partly because some of the information so conveyed is not really encyclopedic or verifiable (WP:FANCRUFT, again). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The deflection here is focusing on the comparison when it's not the main crux of my argument, which is this is the wrong place to go about setting a new precedent. This discussion belongs at WP:TV or WP:RPDR. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the F1 tables are known to fail the access MOS such as this FA nomination for 1982, so it is a perfectly valid comparison. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. And I'm sorry but just because you (RandomCanadian) do personally not see 'boatloads' of coverage, it doesn't categorically mean it isn't there. RuPaul's Drag Race receives a copious amount of coverage, sounds to me like you need to broaden your horizon. I think it's quite suspicious that you fundamentally believe the table should be a certain way because of how you perceive it (and then shoehorning in policies to try and back it up) aligns with you thinking that this reality TV show is insignificant, purely because you assume so? Hmm. Ellis.o22 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect Ellis.o22. Accessibility is not negotiable. The wikimedia foundation agreed that no consensus can overrule accessibility because it is too important. There are two seperate questions at play: 1) are the high/low placements relevant, 2) the table format. The latter is not negotiable - it is not any more difficult for you to find out who won each episode than it was with the old table format. As for the high/low placements, they are a source of edit warring and synthesis. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

But how to do you define accessibility? As explained above, this is absolutely not accessible for all people and is quite ableist. This conversation being exclusively centered around policing Drag Race also feels homophobic. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the way this is going down and the attitudes of the minority group (Lil-Unique, RandomCanadian) trying to alter the space by blocking users and hypocritically accusing people of ableism is reminiscent to me of every time I've seen LGBT people in LGBT spaces irl be policed and told how to act by a non-LGBT group.51.37.186.36 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The deflection about how popular this is is being repeated; and my arguments stand. There simply is not as much coverage as for F1 (which is covered by local, regional, national and international news outlets repeatedly, both during and outside of the competitive season - I haven't yet seen any coverage of this beyond [niche] entertainment magazines and websites). That's a fact.

As for "this is not the proper venue" - that is a procedural argument, and in this case, besides ignoring that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, it is also wrong - see, there was a notice left and WP:RPDR; that there's a discussion at ANI; and anyway having this at an article is better so we can focus on a specific example - once this discussion is over it shouldn't be too difficult just changing all the other articles to match (unless we get edit warred by people who are WP:NOTHERE and willing to ignore this discussion, but that's another issue)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And well since F1 is (and sports in general are) a whole different thing, an example of TV series which had/have broad coverage (and a pop culture impact to match) would be something like American Idol or Star Trek. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support C. I have been trying to get rid of the "Highs" and "Lows" for years for the same reasons that have been stated above and as they are never verified information, but believe the table is useful to the overall understanding of the information that is given within the article. Please see here for my original discussion. Thank you, Chase | ^talk 02:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A. I support the inclusion of a table in general, since tables are an organized way to present knowledge. I support version A of the table because it is nice and compact. In my opinion, it is easy to glance at it and see the relevant information. The columns on the other two tables are a bit wide, making the information harder to see at a glance, taking more brainpower and processing. I am not a fan of the pastel colors in table C -- I think the bright colors in tables A and B are better. They offer more contrast, which again makes it easier for a person's brain to process the knowledge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support C. Table is useful but should be at-a-glance-able, and too many colors distract from this. By the way: is there a good reason why you're using all caps? Also, "Safe" can probably just be a dash (Template:Sdash) to bring more attention to those not safe. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A tbh. It wasn't broken, why bother fixing it. The new suggested ones leave out "high" and "low" critiques as well that are key parts of the competition process. Can all us gays please come together as a community to overthrow the monarchy and restore the contestant progress tables to their former glory? 51.37.186.36 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Edit made in evasion of a block

  They were broken - they don't adhere to MOS:ACCESS which is non-negotiable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  How is it "non-negotiable" when so many other pages for competitions do the exact same thing? 51.37.186.36 (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's cause they all are wrong, too. The fact that nobody noticed it is an altogether different problem. The fact the when one notices it we need a massive discussion with plenty of people saying "but it's done elsewhere" is another problem. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support D – As I said earlier in WT:TV: "..."contestant progress" tables violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:FANCRUFT(not to mention WP:V), and every reality TV show that has them should have them removed". It will never happen, as the reality TV editors have decided via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that such things are fine and dandy, but if we actually followed Wikipedia guidelines, they would all go, replaced by a short section of (secondarily sourced) prose on who the winner(s), and maybe who the runner(s)-up, were. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support A -- Looks like this key information is being unrightfully being fancruft. Candyo32 04:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  It violating MOS:ACCESS is a perfectly valid reason to not like it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  This current version violates MOS:ACCESS as well, which myself and others have commented on. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support A. As the creator of the original table on the season 1 US page I feel like I should at least give an opinion. I feel like the inclusion of a table at all is necessary. Though this is not the same format as the original table, this has been the table for years and I am unsure why it suddenly needs to change. It gives a lot of the information about the season in a clear and concise way that people understand and are used to. Eagle2ch (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Eagle2ch: AS the original created, then you know how hard it is to know exactly who is high and low. Which is my main concern with the original table. I have seen many disputes about which contestants deserve a high and which deserve a low, and this is solely because the audience is having to interpret from the show what these are. No where in the series does rupaul state that "these contestants are high and these contestants are low". For this very reason, this should not be included at all because it violates WP:OR. Yes, there are sources that state which contestants did better and which did not, but those are also interpreting from the "tradition" of the show. You could find articles that contradict those same articles saying these contestants were in the top. The table as it is with the colors also fails MOS:ACCESS, but that is not my main concern with the table. The fact that there are multiple concerns and no one wants to address them that actually edits the article is concerning. Just because it is the way things have "been done" and have worked on many pages, does not mean they should not change now. If that were the case, wikipedia would look very different and not in a good way. Chase | ^talk 00:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Except that the tables are sourced directly from the episodes themselves. A quick snapshot of Series 6 and 7 of the US version even goes as far to cite the specific episodes. This is not saying "other stuff exists" (which I notice seems to be bandied about unduly) but more that it's clearly been considered acceptable to directly source the episodes. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Spa-Franks: That is exactly my point. If the show is the main source for the table, which I am okay with, then the highs and lows are incorrect because never does the host specify who is high and who is low individually, he just states this group is either high or low. To get the highs or lows, the audience must intrepret from critques whether they are high or low and this especially violates WP:OR. Chase | ^talk 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It would only be OR in the case of anything other than crystal clear, in my view. This is something I said after Episode 5 of UK S2 re A'Whora - I felt safe was better as she was praised by Norton for her outfit, but I understand the argument: most times, RuPaul selects 3 and 3 from the group of queens - 3 "tops" (1 win, 2 highs) and 3 "bottoms" (2 lip syncs, 1 low), which doesn't really leave much to OR or to interpretation? Especially in cases such as Darienne Lake on US Series 6 Episode 4, where she is universally panned by the judges but survives? Plenty of examples of that on both sides of the divide. I would generally not be against a greater use of "safe", but I'm not sure OR is massively relevant here. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Spa-Franks: RuPaul never states who is the tops and who is the bottoms, beside the winner and the bottom 2. The other 3 are up for interpretation (taken from the critiques), on whether they are tops or bottoms. Even if a contestant solely gets praise, you have to interpret that they are in the top. This is WP:OR. Without RuPaul specifically stating "insert contestant's name here", 'you are in the top' or 'you are in the bottom', it is undeniably WP:OR. Chase | ^talk 01:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support A. The Drag Race wiki articles have been formatted that way for years, and it offers the most information at a cursory glance. RuPaul himself specifically states the tops & bottoms of the week, and it's used on other Drag Race-related pages and articles as well. The current option that's on the page doesn't look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.2.86 (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC) — 184.147.2.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply to 184.147.2.86: Let's be clear though, RuPaul does state that a specific group is the tops and bottoms, but does not say which individuals, besides the one's up for elimination and the winner of the challenge, where the other falls on the scale. It might offer the "most information", but it is not the most accurate information. Chase | ^talk 16:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to CCamp2013, not having LOWs and HIGHs in the template would be less factual and less accurate. The show displays a clear difference between queens who are considered safe and those who aren't. It doesn't need to explicity be written in crayon for the meaning to be understood. Auror Andrachome (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Auror Andrachome: Actually having them would be less accurate and less factual because it is not a fact who is in the top and who is in the bottom other than the winner of the episode and the bottom two. The rest is WP:OR because you have to interpret from the critiques whether they did good or bad. Chase | ^talk 01:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

*Support A I suffer from dyslexia and deuteranomaly (colour blindness) and the different colour coding makes it a lot easier for me and others with the same issues to understand. The RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) table is a lot clearer to me and is most likely to other colour blind readers too. Lauren-mae69 (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCK of a banned user

Support A The Compromise table implies that Ellie Diamond had performed the exact same in every challenge when there were clear instances of her performing well & poorly in challenges. The compromise takes vital information away from readers about the queen's performance throughout the show. Charleealex (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Support A The compromise table is not factual. And I'm not understanding the arguments for wholly removing the table completely. The HIGHs and the LOWs are necessary to have in the table, as they are part of the show. RuPaul very clearly designates the queens as 'TOPS' and 'BOTTOMS' of the week. He designates girls as safe. This is completely clear-cut and understood by most fans. If RuPaul does not call a queen safe, then she is either a TOP or a BOTTOM. The prior template gives a clear indication of how contestants progress through the show. The template has never been an issue up until now, and the reasons for changing the template are just very unconvincing. @RandomCanadian I need a better reason than you simply not liking the colors. Auror Andrachome (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Support A the fact that this page has had to be protected and there are swaths of editors requesting the old style is indicative of consensus, regardless of what a minority few editors believe. The fact that those editors haven’t read this (incredibly long and tedious) page and linked to a million wiki guides doesn’t mean their opinions are any less valid. This is tyranny by the few and pedantry. If access is an issue, create an alt-text for screen readers. Done. There is actually OVERWHELMING consensus for leaving things as they were, but will certain egos accept that? Probably not. This whole thing is not helpful for Wikipedia as a whole or this page in particular. 69.121.135.77 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC) — 69.121.135.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE (and Wikipedia is not a democracy), and an unsubstantiated appeal to tradition is not a valid argument in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support C: C is the only option table that meets guidelines, per RandomCanadian's comments. As well, Ru does indeed designate highs and lows in every episode, but that’s not relevant to the page. At the end of the day, as long as you’re not the winner/in the bottom two, nothing happens to you. You don’t have to lip sync for your life, you don’t get eliminated, you don’t win anything, you’re just safe. That’s why I think C should be implemented into the article. Update: I’m also not opposed to Option D, and I think that’s a good alternative. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC) (updated 13:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC))

• Comment: as for the "highs" and "lows", they may be Original Research (and that is a separate debate) but I don't think they are fancruft. Fancruft says "when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole" but it appears to be established that labelling everything as safe would affect this as a whole, judging by what appears to be a consensus: for example Ellie Diamond's record would look a lot worse than it was, and there would be very little distinction between Bianca Del Rio and Courtney Act in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6) which would not be a factual assessment of the series as whole. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Spa-Franks: I am confused by you stating that highs and lows may be WP:OR and that they are a separate debate, but then you continue to advocate for them? Either way, I will address the latter part of the comment and say that we are not here to make anyone's track record better or worse. We are not here to distinguish between Bianca Del Rio and Courtney Act in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6), because one of them won the season, which is stated in that article. I am not sure what else you want to distinguish between them? I will say, one had 3 wins, the other had 2 wins, so is it safe to state that the winner, Bianca, did better? I am not sure the point you are trying to convey with that comparison. Ellie Diamond's track record would accurately represent what she did in the season, she was safe until the end where she was in the bottom. If you are not in the bottom, or the top, you are ultimately safe, it does not matter in the competition whether they did well or not if they are not these two categories. This is a mute point anyway because to get to the conclusion of high or low, you have to interpret from the critiques whether they did good or bad and that will differ from person to person (which has led to edit warring I have seen first hand of people saying "they were high, not low", because that was their opinion based on the episode). All of this makes it Original Research and whether adding it or not makes it more accurate or not does not matter because there is no basis other than opinions to make it more accurate. Chase | ^talk 01:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: - apologies, may not have been clear enough. What I am saying re the highs/lows: they may be OR (I don't think they are), and that may be grounds for exclusion; they are definitely not fancruft. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The point you make is that not including them somehow materially affects the assessment of the series. I don't think anybody beyond dedicated fans of the subject would, in 10 years time (WP:10YEARTEST), really care about this - in the end the only really important information is probably who finished in what order. To take an example with which you're likely familiar (judging by your username); we don't have lap-by-lap (i.e. "blow-by-blow") graphs of F1 races - we have results (qualification and race) in tabular format, along with a short (a few hundred words) prose summary. Now I don't know if we have an FA example to show this, but extending the principle here; this same type of information can be handled with the simple table in RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#Contestants and some prose summary; which will also avoid all of the pointless messing about (they even feel the need to miss with it here on the talk page!) by FANCRUFT editors (they're now even suggesting a duplicate article (CSD - A10 if that happens) as a CFORK to put in their preferred version)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not only have you made what I consider to be a personal attack towards me by targeting my username, but you haven't even bothered to read the page you linked to...! Every F1 race has a "lap leaders" chart in the infobox. As for the 10-year test, go ahead and change the page of US series 3, that's 10 years old now, and see what reaction you get there. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if you took it that way, I just assumed you're interested in motorsports because your username is obviously derived from a well known circuit; so I tried to make an example. The lap leaders chart is hidden as a collapsible and contains far less detail than the tables here or the kind of "lap-by-lap" chart I was actually thinking of, ex. this. Anyway, that'll be all. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You're making massive (and incorrect) generalizations when saying "I don't think anybody beyond dedicated fans of the subject would, in 10 years time (WP:10YEARTEST), really care about this - in the end the only really important information is probably who finished in what order." The first season of RuPaul's Drag Race premiered over 10 years ago, but the table on that page still includes HIGH/LOW placements and is presently referenced as a cultural and historical record. To reiterate what many others have already stated, this current table is not accessible to all people with disabilities and the HIGH/LOW demarcation is useable for screen readers. It & the color-coded demarcations are actually quite helpful for many who suffer from dyslexia or partial blindness. We can make them more heavily contrasted to aid in that, but color is not inherently inaccessible. Rather the opposite is true. As for the debate surrounding WP:OR, RuPaul's Drag Race began as a parody of America's Next Top Model & Project Runway, and their HIGH/LOW format is directly attributable to Project Runway. Please explain to me why Project Runway's tables, with barely any sources for the entire page, are allowed to look the way they do, but this one must be changed. The Wikipedia pages for the American iteration of this show use sources from Vulture in their tables. There are verifiable recaps that can be sourced from Vulture for this page too. It is not original research. It is plainly stated by a respected, popular outlet. If you need additional sources, Screen Rant publishes Drag Race recaps as well. So do The Spool, TVLine, and Xtra Magazine. I'm going to preempt you or another contributor saying that you don't know of these publications by saying: others do and you are not the only arbiters of reliability. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Any response @RandomCanadian? @Lil-unique1? @Guy Macon? @Deepfriedokra? I and others have stated over and over again that this page is in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility as it currently stands and no one has even bothered to comment or refute what we are saying. Please read everyone's points. It does not take long. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There's this thing called WP:DEADHORSE... Your arguments all conveniently ignore how the existing table is even more so violating (for all the reasons stated) - but obviously you love it so much there's no point arguing about it, especially since you are not proposing a valid alternative, nor refuting arguments which don't have anything substantial and policy based and instead dwell on ad hominems and whimsical accusations of dictatorship. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian I really don't believe you read what I wrote if this is your response. I have proposed alternatives that have been entirely ignored again and again with no justification as to why they cannot be implemented. This current page is missing critical information and is currently inaccessible to many individuals who have commented directly about why it needs to be changed to how it was prior. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever y'all decide is fine with me. I gave up on these content MOS issues long ago. I just came to deal with the problems that I dealt with-- the copyvios, personal attacks, the threats. I said all about the content MOS dispute that I care to. Then I bowed out. Amazed y'all are still fighting about this. If NPA is being violated, those should be reported at ANI. We asked dispute resolution to settle the matter, but this page is too toxic. The disputants too intransigent. And I'm not going to argue for the sake of argument. My accessibility issues are not related to the color scheme, a text reader, or a phone, so I really could not judge MOS:ACCESS compliance on my own. Whatever a consensus determines is fine with me. Thanks! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have already responded. it length. Nothing anyone has written has in any way changed my opinion, which is:

• I have read the entire history of this page and associated talk page. I do not see any prospect of the participants working together.
• We should remove the "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections as being unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets. Keep the "episodes" sections for now but if a fight breaks out over the episodes sections nuke them as well, keeping only the parts starting with "Guest Judge".
• The participants here should completely stop making accusations of any kind against other participants. Either you have a case and can back it up with diffs -- in which case you should file a report at WP:ANI -- or you don't, in which case you should shut up about it and only talk about article content.

Please don't expect me to chnage my mind on any of this unless you have a much better argument than anything I have seen so far on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. très éloquent. And also, since I was dragged kicking and screaming back into this cesspit, I concur. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon @Deepfriedokra, then please go change all other Wikipedia pages for each iteration of this franchise. If you cannot justify doing so, please explain why this page is any different. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "please explain why this page is any different", these unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets should be removed from this and from all similar Wikipedia pages. The fact that the basic table format was cut and pasted to multiple pages does not make it any less encyclopedis or any less a vandalism/disruption magnet. You might also want to read WP:OTHERCONTENT for an explanation as to why your argument is invalid. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian the same should be addressed to you as well. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've written above, I'm past the point of caring about this; you should too. It will be changed on other pages too, if necessary, once this discussion reaches its conclusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian I'm not past the point of caring about inaccessibility. Disabled people should be able to engage with the page, and the information presented should be as factually correct as possible. If you disagree, I question why you've pushed so hard for these changes up till now. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Read the page I link again, please, clearly a re-read would not be a bad idea. The current version in the article does not violate MOS:ACCESS by relying on colour to convey information; and does not use excessive unprofessional looking colours which violate MOS:COLOUR, so as far as I am concerned, it's AOK. I do not wish to continue engaging in fruitless back and forth (as Guy points out), so I will not answer further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you also re-read everything that has been written on this talk page. No need to continue a back and forth that will only give each of us headaches. But I will not be quiet as to the ableism taking place that violates anti-discrimination laws. I don't see how you can suggest this debate has reached a natural conclusion when the community involved has continuously been articulating complaints as to the present state of the page as well as how this dispute has been handled. I hope you have a good day and consider how the current version of the article does in fact violate MOS:ACCESS. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you retract part of that last statement. See WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at all a threat. Merely reiterating a point made by @Lil-unique1. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"I didn't decide how things should be done, wikimedia (the parent organisation of wikipedia) adopted accessibility guidelines to respect inclusion which is protected in many legislatures and countries under antidiscrimination law. In the UK for example there is a requirement for all public organisations to have web accessible content." Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Cyruscohen556 do not drag me into your comments which misconstrue the points I have made. The Wikimedia foundation has clearly decreed what it has deemed accessible standards per MOS:ACCESS which clearly state that colour CANNOT be the only distinguishing factor in providing information. There is no debate about what does and doesn't constitute accessibility - there are web standards which is what technology is capable of. The end goal is to create the best possible scenario whereby the article has the least possible disruptions for as many people as possible. The older format violates MOS:ACCESS and disadvantages a particular group of readers significantly and materially. The newer format might disadvantage a small number of people but the impact is much less and so overall the net impact is better. I've already said that the abbreviations thing is comprisable but the issue around colour is not. I've sat back and watch SPA accounts pop up of nowhere and repeat similar arguments stating "its not fair", "other articles can do what they like" etc and very few comments work constructively towards meeting web accessibility. The default position is ALWAYS to strive for what it set out in the manuel of style not the other way around. The arguments about ableism are not 100% accurate - the accessibility legislation is proven by law and tonnes of experts. There are multiple experts out there, as well as tonnes of resources on the general web. I agree with Guy Macon, either everyone compromises or the tables will be lost all together. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Lil-unique1 Nowhere do I suggest that color be the sole indicator of information. I agree that is inaccessible and in violation of MOS:ACCESS. Please do not misrepresent what I have been saying for the past many weeks. I do believe that there are ways to make the page accessible for everyone, including those with dyslexia and partial blindness who are currently not being considered in this discussion. As I have said multiple times, please read the entire page as I and others offer solutions to guarantee no one is discriminated against on the basis of ability. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Cyruslcohen556 There is a lot going on this page - I've skim read much of it but to be honest it is easy to miss useful suggestions. Might I suggest that you mock up a table that you think represents a good comprise at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)/Compromisetable since you are so sure there is a compromise which satisfies all interested parties. I'll certainly comment on what I think and I'm sure Guy Macon will comment too. What I will say is the "highs" and "lows" will need to be sourced. If they have not received coverage from secondary sources then they are not encyclopedic and don't belong on wikipedia. We need to be able to separate the content from the accessibility issues if we are to be able to keep the tables in some format. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

To be completely frank, I have been recommending solutions to both accessibility issues and secondary source issues for weeks to nothing but disrespectful and dismissive responses. I have no desire to do more work for others who should have been listening, monitoring this page, and implementing appropriate changes from the beginning. The suggestions are there. If someone else less burnt out from arguing with a wall wants to take over and implement them, I fully support them doing so. But no, I will not exhaust myself further than I already have to only continue being treated this way. Congratulations. I have given up on editing Wikipedia ever again. Cyruslcohen556 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing anything that gets an argument is such a dreadful idea. You can't just nuke things that someone has umbrage with. That would make things 10x worse, for sure, and quite how you fail to see this, Guy Macon, is beyond me. Too many editors believe nuking things first and asking questions later. Including on this page and the first series. It does seem as though any suggestion of compromise by myself or Cyruslcohen556 is shot down in flames, with others, it would seem, opting to want to control the narrative, shouting "other stuff exists" when it clearly doesn't apply here (potential job of a template, perhaps?) and misunderstanding of access and colour guidelines. When I took this to dispute resolution the response from RandomCanadian was they would refuse to engage with it as it was "too late". The guidelines say that formatting should not be the only way of showing something, not that colour shouldn't be used at all. The way F1 got around a similar issue is to add ^F and ^P where appropriate but they're having troubles with the speed of their rollout because of the sheer number of articles involved. You can see the "wrong" way at (eg) Mika Hakkinen and the correct way at the very bottom of 2020 Formula One World Championship. So saying "we should remove all bolding and colour" is a misunderstanding of the guidelines. There is no reason to remove bolding. In the case of safe with/without critiques, "SAFE¹" and "SAFE²" as footnotes ought to be fine. Changing the black in "ELIM" to white would sort the greyscale issue, and hey presto, issues solved in terms of the guidelines. And before anyone dares squeal "F1 is a sport so it's not a valid comparison" at me, it very much is a valid comparison as it relies heavily on tables and these have had access issues brought to our attention over the last year or so. I am a member of that WikiProject as well for good measure. The problem is one or two editors arguing vehemently to change the table, and however valid the arguments the implication is these are also issues at the other 22 RPDR pages AT LEAST. I am not saying "other stuff exists", I am saying "are you prepared to have this argument 22 times over?". I've had it with this discussion, quite frankly. Either change the table in line with the others, or, if you believe your arguments are that convincing, go ahead and change the other pages. I'm waiting. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

They (Guy Macon, Lil-Unique and RandomCanadian) do not want a solution that doesn't look like the only option they are prepared to accept. The table got changed regardless of a consensus. When was this dispute resolved that we are using the table currently on the page? Just so that it looks different from all the other pages until June? It clearly shows they want to be the executioner in this issue. The issues about dylexia and partial blindness are being completely ignored and when asked for response it becomes beating a dead horse. If people who initiated this dispute are not willing to hear everyone out and take account important accessibility guidelines then we can't have a discussion. Why is such behavior allowed and is there no way this debate can be moderated so everyone is heard equally? --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support A As someone who suffers from severe dylexia I am in favor of the table formerly in the article, the colors in the table and there use for HIGH and LOW placements were helpful for me to navigate and compare placements each episode. The current table does not portray key judging information from the episodes. I can see some users have voiced there concerns about being unable to access information on the page due to dylexia but it does not seem to be taken as seriously as the whiteknighting of 'colorblindness'. I do not know what it is like to be completely color blind but to disregard other reading disablities is not fair. Also, as a gay person watching editors 'who don't even watch the show' take an issue with this page in particular without taking a point with articles which initiated this sort of table formatting seems aggressively homophobic. Lastly I want to make a note that I have been holding back from particpating in this dispute because editors like Lil-Unique and RandomCanadian have made this entire discussion extremely uncomfortable to engage in, mainly due to their heternormative policing of LGBTQ+ spaces and the passive aggressive tone they take with other editors whose views may not align with them. I am not well versed in the Wikipedia moderatoring system but if many people are feeling attacked by some editors than we need to involve a high power of administrator to make sure a fair discussion takes place. --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Qiqi Minaj: Oh, please. Neither Lil-unique1 nor RandomCanadian have said anything homophobic. Playing the victim won’t get you anywhere. In fact, there is an administrator who is on their way to being desysopped partly because they assumed a discussion about their conduct as an editor to be racist, when no racist actions were said/done. I’ve known Lil-unique for a good 8 months and I’ve known RandomCanadian for a couple weeks, and I can conclude that they both are genuinely nice users who both edit to make Wikipedia as a whole better, and I would truly be shocked if they started making personal attacks, as you alleged. It doesn’t matter if editors of the page know the subject. If you think editors who are citing Wikipedia policies as a reason to alter the tables on a page is homophobic, you need to grow thick skin real quick. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: Oh please, yourself mate. You probably didn't even read what I wrote and quite honestly I do not expect you to understand. I said what I said and I am not the only one saying it. If LGBTQ+ people on the talkpage are constantly feeling attacked and cornered by the same editors then I am sure they are not all playing victim. A classical example of how you are more concerned about guarding your friends than trying to understand why many editors have raised complaints towards these editors. But of course since you've known these people for 8 months and a few weeks I am sure the rose-colored glasses won't allow you to expand your thinking beyond that of what your pals have allowed. I did not name you in this post and I do not want you whiteknighting someone else's behaviour infront of me. I am sure if they had something to say they are all more than capable. --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Qiqi Minaj: I read through the entire thread, RandomCanadian mentioned LGBTQ+ once, and Lil-unique didn’t even mention it. As well, I understand everything about your original comment. You suffer from dyslexia, you think the high/low placements are helpful, you think that having editors who don’t even watch the show trying to police the page is aggressively homophobic, you think that some editors have made this discussion too heteronormative to participate in as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and you think that we should get administrative attention to resolve these personal attacks. To debunk that: there is no requirement that you need to be part of the LGBTQ+ community/you need to watch the show to edit the page and participate in discussions. Now, I don’t find the discussion to be heteronormative at all, and I say that as an LGBTQ+ person who watches the show, and I do understand where you’re coming from. If you need to request administrative attention to resolve any personal attacks, there are plenty of noticeboards where you can voice your concerns. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, yep! You and your pals are right and we are ALL cuckoo crazy. Goodnight! 🤡 --Qiqi Minaj (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 8 May 2021

Please add the High and Low placements like every other Drag Race season. A lot of people go to this site to see where their favorite queens placed, you know? And every other season of Drag Race, international or not, shows each placement in full detail. 174.140.117.118 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

See above... this has been going on for ages and has now just petered out into nothingness. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the closure by an uninvolved editor of the RfC above RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 May 2021

The RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) 'Contestant Progress' (along with that of the first series) lacks consistency throughout the rest of the series. My changes would simply be to edit the chart so that it matches the charts of the US seasons please use this as a rough example of what the chart should look like. Taylveon (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: and won't be done. See the RfC above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2021

Per the closure of the RfC above, remove the "Contestant progress" table (and the section that goes with it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra and Black Kite:, you two seem to be the administrators most active here. Any chance one of you can take a look at this request? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Any update on the "debate"?

The debate over the tables has been going on for nearly 2 months now. The table now seems permanently changed to this format that is extremely different than any other drag race season page, as well as any other reality TV page. Any time people have questioned this they are usually told 1) to have patience and 2) are given vague, dark mutterings about how other reality TV show pages will be brought into line with this.

But the problem is the people who changed this page seem to more or less taken their gains and run, and there seems to be no actual "consensus" building or explanation of a final decision.

And a quick glance at other drag race page discussions there seems to be absolutely no momentum anywhere to change other pages to bring them into line with this page.

Maybe there are huge discussions going on somewhere about this, but it is starting to feel like this page was taken over by people who can't get support for their changes anywhere else, so they decided to hijack this page. And now we are stuck with this table not matching any others.

You would think that if the old format was as obviously against policy as some people have suggested, it wouldn't be so hard to bring all the pages into alignment with this page. 24.107.9.142 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, those advocating a change have gone from "not news, so we don't need to do it now" to "dead horse" as soon as the series ended. Which strikes me as acting in bad faith to make such a contentious edit in the first place. So no, nothing will probably be done. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess the next step is to get a close for the RFC? Numerically, "A" is the most popular response, but a "no consensus" close would also be reasonable. In either case, seems that the page should be returned to status quo ante and unprotected. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The above debate should be closed and changed back due to lack of consensus for the "new" method. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I agree... there should be a requirement for a compelling consensus based on policies and procedures to return an article to a state which goes AGAINST wikipedia manual of style. What is the point of having the MOS if people are saying you need a consensus to enact it. That's not how wiki works. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I could make out, these people were more interested that there was an edit war than the actual content of the page. There isn't going to be much of an edit war now the series has finished Yellowmellow45 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I can make out, that RfC was also subject to off-wiki discussions (canvassing?) like this and this - though there are some redeeming features such as this (I can't link any of these to an account here, so think we're fine as far as OUTING is concerned). @Deepfriedokra: Nothing that can be done with the mop about that, right? Anyway, yes, a request for closure, ideally from somebody who knows a thing or two about NOTAVOTE, would be timely; now that hopefully the disruption from "update this now" requests has died away. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Those Twitter threads don't look like canvassing at all, they're just recaps of the drama. And this show is popular in the gay community, so obviously a drastic change on a page for a currently airing season was gonna catch gay twitter's attention. Not sure what you expected..? 109.79.104.85 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(pretty certain that screenshots with names blacked out would have been far less inappropriate too, by the way.)109.79.104.85 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've left out some of the more explicit stuff (some, or at least one, of the account names looked similar to actual accounts who edited here). If you search twitter for "Wikipedia Drag Race" you'll also see disgusting stuff like this. I have no interest in engaging with Twitter trolls like that (hence why I'm on Wikipedia?), and the requirements for previous talk page protection clearly show there was something going on behind the scenes off-wiki. Fair to say that I've no reason to treat this as anything but a complete mess at this point; and hope the close of the RfC brings about a solid solution which we can then uniformly apply across the remaining articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

At this stage - uninvolved admin can make a decision and lets put this thing to bed. Whatever is decided will be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ For absolute crystal transparency - I've asked for an Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_running_RFC_at_Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2) uninvolved admin to resolve at the ANI noticeboard. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The notice above has now stood for five days and has been archived with no response. Now what? Spa-Franks (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC close

@Spa-Franks, Novem Linguae, Lil-unique1, Yellowmellow45, and RandomCanadian:, please see above. RfC restored from archive and closed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer, Deepfriedokra, Cyruslcohen556, and Guy Macon: pinging remainder of top tp editors for completeness and transparency. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing anyone has written on this page has in any way changed my opinion, which is:

• We should remove the "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections from this and all related pages as being unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets. Keep the "episodes" sections for now but if a fight breaks out over the episodes sections nuke them as well, keeping only the parts starting with "Guest Judge".
• The participants here should completely stop making accusations of any kind against other participants. Either you have a case and can back it up with diffs -- in which case you should file a report at WP:ANI -- or you don't, in which case you should shut up about it and only talk about article content.
• As can be seen here[10] this and all related pages have been an ongoing problem.

Please don't expect me to change my mind on any of this unless you have a much better argument than anything I have seen so far on this page.

Please don't ping me for further comments. Either follow my advice or don't.

Someone may wish to post an RfC about removng the "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections from this and all related pages.

That person will not be me. I have zero interest in a Wikipedia page about a TV show I have never watched starring a person who I never heard of before I was asked to comment on the fighting on this talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This table debate, and the tactics used in it such as long full protection and a controversial RFC close, really bug me. This is quite a bit of effort expended in order to make one article diverge from the de facto standard of many other reality TV show articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If the close is "controversial", no editor has mentioned that. I can understand "unappreciated" or "disagreeable" but I clearly laid out each and every standard and policy that I consulted and how they applied specifically to the discussion. That should be the literal opposite of "controversial" To characterize a close as "controversial" requires, well, a controversy. There has yet to be any dissent, let alone controversy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I would consider closing the debate and saying that option D should be applied a pretty controversial measure seeing as that clearly wasn't the consensus. That said, I agree however that there is no consensus. Me personally prefer consistency over correct wikipedia "rules" so if some people are so pressed over this issues then I would kindly suggest making these changes not only on every Drag race franchise page but also on every other reality tv shows page. We all know people are just waiting till June 22th to change this article to option A. --HoxtonLyubov (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree - objectively, there was no adequate consensus above for any option, let alone the nuke option, and nor do I agree with Guy Macon's (not pinging per their request) belief that nuking the whole thing somehow solves it. This began because of edit warring and it just so happened that the page was locked whilst the "new" version was in place. @Novem Linguae: has said, although I believe it's archived now, that without any consensus and with no suggestion of one in the near future, the table should snap back to its January/February version (albeit obviously with the rest of the series filled in), before all of this blew up. Too much time and energy has been spent on this now and I question the motives of some of the editors. Good faith becomes increasingly difficult to countenance in this scenario. The whole debate has stunk, from day one, of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and misappropriation of WP:OTHERSTUFF, as well as completely misunderstanding WP:FANCRUFT. No consensus emerged; it was merely that many of the offending parties lost interest the minute the final episode aired. Possibly even comes under WP:IGNORE given the one thing people can agree on is an accessibility issue and my attempt at compromise was not even duly considered. So, yes, closing it with option D is controversial. It's best that no change is made until a better solution emerges, and as you can see at this WT:TV discussion, there is no real solution here. Spa-Franks (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not following this discussion closely, but I don't see why this article shouldn't have a progress table like all the other RPDR season pages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with the close, then WP:AN is the venue to ask for review, if you have better reasons than the number of votes or misunderstanding of arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we unlock the article and just lock a subpage?

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race § Protecting_contestant_progress_charts

I'm not really sure if I'm going to articulate this well, but over at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race we've been complaining for a long time about vandalism to the progress tables. I've had to request page protection on many RPDR season articles for this reason. The WikiProject has discussed moving the contestant tables to subpages, which are then locked and transcluded to the season article. This would prevent vandalism because, even if unlocked, many passersby would need to know how to navigate to the subpage to make changes. We could lock the subpages to further decrease edit warring. Then, we could discuss progress charts on respective subpages and stop shutting down all editing capabilities to the entire season article. Thoughts?

Without reading many long discussions much more carefully, I'm not understanding why this article does not display a progress chart. This is very inconsistent with all RPDR season articles and many other Wikipedia articles about shows with a similar format. There's no reason for this to be so difficult... Could this possibly be a solution? Can any admins help with creating and locking subpages for transclusion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

CCamp2013 created Template:DragRaceProgressTable and inserted it into all the season articles from RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1) through RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13). Awhile back, Wugapodes proposed doing exactly that and started working on a similar template of their own (see this thread). It's a fine solution, and I think we should just use this method in all Drag Race season articles. Armadillopteryx 01:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Protecting subpages en masse is not a very sustainable solution imo. It works fine for a page or two that's experiencing specific, ongoing disruption, but doing it across roughly 20 articles with an indefinite number to come in the future creates a different, more complicated maintenance burden. Standardizing on a template not only reduces the number of pages that need protected, it also serves readers better by creating a unified look across the article series. That way, if colors need changed or features need added, only the template needs changed rather than an unknown number of transcluded talk subpages. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Contestant Progress

As in keeping with the theme of literally every single other series in the franchise, I feel as though a progress contestant progress table should be reintroduced, and it should bare same appearance as all of the rest. It’s not hard to create, it’s not hard to maintain.

It should be there for fairness, for the fandom, and most importantly - for the information. Anyone who now views this article will have no idea how the contestants performed week-on-week, which it the antithesis of a Wikipedia page’s purpose - not informing. Callum Hunt (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Callum Hunt: please see #Ground Rules, there is at this time consensus against the table on this page. See also #Bizarre -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 June 2021

the elimination table is missing from the page, every season of drag race has one and this one is not there 2601:8C0:100:E690:896B:BC80:522C:342F (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the section above (Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#Ground_rules) where consensus was found to remove the progress table. firefly ( t · c ) 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre

Why of all the drag race articles is this only one not to have a progress chart. These so called administrators claim to be doing everything by the book. But this is the only article in the entire franchise not to have a progress table? From what I can gather User:RandomCanadian and User:Lil-unique1 picked this season out of thin air? Why not broach this subject on the American season, which is the main show. I’ve read through this entire thread and non-administrators have made some valid points that have been shut down just because for some reason the admins that know nothing about the show think they know best. I think something needs to be done here, they either should all be removed (which is a stupid idea because that table is extremely helpful as HUNDREDS of users on this talk page have told you) or this article needs to be put back to how it was - Shontal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shontal Smith (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shontal Smith: It doesn't have one because the above RFC (#Ground rules) found a consensus for removing the table from the article. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: Yes but WHY this one in particular. There are about 50 other articles with this exact same format why have they only chosen this one to tarnish? It just seems completely odd and unprofessional. This is called the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, which is an absolute lie. It’s the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit if you’ve spent 20 years as an admin and decide what happens with what page without if knowing what’s going on!Shontal Smith (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Because someone started a discussion about this page, not about one of the 50 others. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: Yes but WHY, is what I want to know. The UK Franchise isn’t even the main franchise, why not start this on the Drag Race wiki project somewhere where it can be discussed on a wider scale. It’s silly really because this article now looks odd compared to the rest.Shontal Smith (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shontal Smith: perhaps because the editor(s) involved took an interest in this particular topic and due to a pile on the page ended up protected and we ended up where we are now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF re: "what about other pages". There's more to life than looks and appearances. These are the rules of wikipedia. If people don't like it, they're free to edit the fandom sites like Fandom.com or start a blog. It's really time to DROP THE STICK ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This craic about linking complex wiki rules that casual editors and followers of the talk pages often won't understand or be aware of, seems oddly aggressive to me? What is also really odd is why you seem to be unable to answer the question of why you chose this particular season to start this tyranny on, even when it was suggested that you go do the same on an older season (S3 was the specific one mentioned)? You've been called out about your strange policing of LGBT+ spaces before, and it is just so strange to so many of us, across the internet, as to why it can't go back to correct way, which the consensus was for. Why would the Canadian one (I won't dare ping him, he'll be reading this anyway, so there's no need) ask for votes on a new format, if the most wanted and chosen one won't then go on to be used?? That's what's incredibly bizarre imo. 86.42.192.158 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

But there isn't consensus for the table, there is consensus against it. Thats what #Ground Rules was all about. Note that consensus doesn't equal votes cast. Also courtesy ping in case you haven't seen it yet @RandomCanadian: -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though you have said that consensus does not equal a majority vote, I think it should definitely be taken into consideration the fact that Option A (11 supporters) got almost 3 times as many supporters as Option D (4 supporters) did. Including the few people who chose options B & C, that clearly shows that far fewer people are in favour of no table than are in favour of it. Even within Wikipedia's strange personal opinion of what consensus is (against the mainstream definition in fact). Make it make sense!86.42.192.158 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not, and haven't for a while, been watching this talk page. Editors complaining about consistency are free to take the five seconds it takes per article to select the relevant section, do Ctrl+A, and then backspace. Ex. here's a primer. Or start an RfC about the application of the RfC here to other pages. I have bigger fish to fry. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet here you are again! Can you repeat all of that using language that most of the people here would understand? RfC, Ctrl+A, and primer are all terms that I (and I'm sure many others) am unfamiliar with. Big, confusing, jargon filled phrases don't make you look any smarter, or more important, they make you look like one of BDR's opinions! It's exactly what I mentioned before about seeming oddly aggressive. I guess there's a reason neither BLH or Jackie won MC, you're actually not very congenial at all over there, are you!
I'm also really amazed to learn that Wikipedia has its own internal definition of "consensus" that is completely different to the actual definition of consensus (which is usually defined as something that everyone involved agrees on). When, where and how did they come up with a definition that goes against the usual definition of such a word, it truly makes no sense!86.42.192.158 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these are common terms (on wiki or as computer terminology in general). In any case: Ctrl+A; RfC; primer (4th meaning from the top). Or if I was being too indirect: if you don't like the inconsistency, there's nothing that prevents you from going to the other articles and removing the tables there, too, since they fail for the same reasons. As to the issue at hand, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you wish to content the result of the RfC, and you have stronger reasons than simple head count, and are unhappy with the given justifications, then you've already been told what the appropriate venue for making such an appeal is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see a progress table added for consistency with other Drag Race season articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: That ‘drop the stick’ comment is really stupid. As the IP user above said you have not and WILL not answer why this article has been targeted and the others have not. This debate hasn’t reached a ‘natural end’ because when this page is unprotected. Drag Race watchers like myself will just revert for consistency with other articles I’m afraid. Sometimes you have to back down at let those who know about the subject edit the pagesShontal Smith (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, just because other stuff exists or is produced differently doesn't mean that the changes to this article are incorrect. If loads of people jumped off a cliff but one person doesn't that does not mean that the one person needs to justify why they haven't or that the one person in question is wrong. Arguing that something should stay the same just because everything else is in the same format and goes against guidelines, best practise, and web accessibility won't wash. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shontal Smith:, To clarify some things mentioned above:

Firstly and most importantly, I have no opinion about the inclusion or exclusion of this table and the closing statement I wrote only summarizes the discussion. It is not my evaluation of the question proposed but my evaluation of the arguments presented.

Secondly, I am not an administrator on this project and neither are many of the people who participated in the discussion in the big blue box above. Complaining that some small group of admins have made an arbitrary change misses the point. This discussion was one between peers and the final decision, as explained in detail with links to relevant policies above, was evaluated by a peer. Anyone can edit but that doesn't mean that anyone can edit an article to say whatever they like at any time when there are very strong contrary opinions. It is impossible to expect agreement or unanimity in such a discussion and the processes we have developed as a community say that, even if there are people who are unhappy with the results of a discussion, at some point we have to draw a line under a disagreement and move on. The RfC process above is how we do that. If you want to participate in future such discussions, you are certainly free to. Who knows, spend enough time and you might well become an admin yourself.

Thirdly, the argument for consistency with other RDR articles was made several times in that discussion and was taken into account. As explicitly stated in the closing statement, consistency between similar articles is a reasonable goal but by itself cannot override the arguments given on a particular article's talk page.

Fourthly, The reason why this article is different has already been explained multiple times but to reiterate: this was the article that generated conflict so this article's conflict was discussed and put to an RfC. If another article related to RDR had been the location of the conflict, then the discussion would have taken place at that article's talk page. This means that this article is, yes, now anomalous compared to other related articles but that is not a bug, that's a feature. The discussion results reached here cannot be assumed to apply to other article without other discussions. If you want to raise this issue to a different location, there are links to other possible venues included above.

Finally: If you want to complain about the process or results, you are of course allowed to. Rejecting the help and guidance and explanations you've been offered just because you don't like such an outcome, however, makes it hard for your complaints to have any chance of changing anything. In other words, the question that we "...have not and WILL not answer..." has indeed been answered and, in point of fact, was answered before you started this current discussion. You may not like the answer but such dislike does not mean that this answer was never provided. I hope that helps explain this process and outcome. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The question of why this article in particular was chosen to have this battle on actually hasn't been answered yet. You're skirting around it and are actually still refusing to answer the question.

It has, in fact, been ongoing for several months, the question has been asked and left unanswered several times, and the same "oh it's been answered already" excuse has been given, again, several times. Please don't deflect, the implication that this article is an easy target for control was made clear long ago, there have been many topics of discussion about how easy it was to do it here, because there weren't many people keeping an eye on it. The suggestion to go carry out the same aggression on other articles of the franchise, for whatever unanswered reasons as it was started here, has gone unfulfilled as of yet. The level of control that you all want, for whatever strange reason, is not one that you will be successful in achieving. It's frankly abusive to allow logical reasoning, genuine discussion, and valid points, all go unanswered, to continue to say "oh just drop it", "oh consensus has been reached", "oh you're beating a dead horse", when it's not your community that is being oppressed, when it's not the history of your people that is facing real life damage being done because of the actions of a certain few people here.86.42.192.158 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You're operating under two flawed assumptions: 1: this article was "targeted". It was not. It was a location of disruption, as every single Ru Paul's Drag Race article has been. This is the one article where that level of disruption was randomly higher and thus resulted in the processes that have been meticulously laid out for your inspection. Go read those before you again claim that the answers are not available. They are. 2:Removal of one table from one article on a wiki represents an "attack" on a community. It does not. It is an editorial decision, nothing more. Speaking as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, there is nothing sinister about the removal of this table or else I would not have written the close. Claiming that this is an example of "oppression" is an insulting statement when seen against the historical backdrop of actual LGBTQ+ oppression (e.g., this, or this, or anything these people say, etc.). You are fortunate to be editing from a place where gay rights are very well-protected, so perhaps some scaling is at issue. The presentation of a reality competition show, however, is manifestly not an issue of actual oppression. This will be my last attempt at this page to clarify the close. If you are still upset, and can formulate an actually policy-compliant basis for objecting to the close, you may contribute to this discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s an absolute bloody waste of time trying to reason with any of you people, because like the IP above said, you skirt around the questions with confusing terminology and to be honest - you talk absolute bollocks. Myself and I’m sure hundreds of other editors will be restoring this page once it becomes unprotected. At this point it’d be better if you delete all the drag race articles rather than have them looking completely shit.Shontal Smith (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Attempting personal attacks and thinking you know anything about me Egg? Honestly? Are we really stooping that low now? You've literally just recently joined this discussion, clearly haven't been actually following it at all, or been a part of it since the very beginning, or you would actually understand the issues at hand here. I did not once say that the removal of the one table is an attack, I said that the personal comments that the Canadian one, as well as others, have made, were attacks. I (and many others) have brought them up with moderators before, and nothing came from them, because he brigaded his friends into closing them, and into doling out blanket bans to everyone involved. Still, the question of why this particular article was targeted, and why none of the others have been, has not been answered, you have literally not answered that question yet. It is also not up to you to tell a person who feels oppressed by people from outside their community, acting seemingly maliciously against them, that they are not oppressed. You do not for one second get to tell me that my feelings of oppression and bullying here are not valid causes for concern. If anything, you are just as bad as the ones doing the bullying, standing by and letting it continue, lying directly to our faces that the questions asked, about the reason for this whole débâcle in the first place, have been answered, when they have not been, pretending that discussions have come to a natural end when they have not, you just closed them whenever you saw fit, and then moved against the consensus that arose by the discussion. Honestly this looks worse on you.86.42.46.164 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The norm for closing discussions is having an uninvolved experienced editor (someone who has not participated in it, so as to avoid obvious issues of bias) take an impartial look at it. If you have legitimate concerns about the close not being valid in light of our policies and guidelines (which include that consensus is not a vote and that WP is not a democracy), you can make an appeal as described at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Note that some aspects, such as accessibility (a legal requirement) are not subject to consensus and cannot be overriden. As explained to you already multiple times. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Haven't you already been told a bunch of times to butt out of discussions when you're just there to antagonize the people involved and to stop micromodding? Seriously, you're here again, back to your old tricks, just stop it already86.42.46.164 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been told a bunch of times to drop the stick. Suggest you follow your own advice, and also that you stop making covert references to me and insinuating that my comments are personal attacks (quote: " I said that the personal comments that the Canadian one, as well as others, have made, were attacks."). This is a collaborative project. If you dislike the result of the RfC, you are free to make an appeal at the appropriate place, as I was politely trying to explain above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually! The fact that you just said that the above discussion was brought to consensus, but then go on to admit that the consensus was never even necessary, (apparently due to legal requirements?), literally makes your entire argument and intentions here fall completely apart! You genuinely do not have a single leg to stand on anymore, how fitting! Can someone more respectful and knowledgeable about this situation please confirm or deny that the consensus that was called for was actually never necessary? Or is this just another lie out of Random's mouth? With regards to this being a collaborative project (you commented in the middle of me making this current comment, so I'll add to it now), the very definition of collaboration is that the people involved work together, and not against each other, as you have been seen to be doing for months now. You have been the common thread in all of the trouble here86.42.46.164 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"The fact that you just said that the above discussion was brought to consensus, but then go on to admit that the consensus was never even necessary," - don't feed words in my mouth. I said some (not all) aspects are not negotiable. As far as I see, the discussion was not just about accessibility. Working together implies trying to find compromise, or at least following the accepted process and accepting its outcome (just as when you go to vote in an election, and then you accept the outcome even if your favourite candidate didn't win). Unless you want me to make a post demanding further community review of the RfC closure (I will do so if you ask, since further community input is not a bad idea), I will not answer further, since we've obviously hit a wall at this point in time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I will admit that I got a bit carried away in thinking that we'd finally come to a solution to all of this, so, sorry for that! Please make that post if you can, I'd certainly appreciate further input on this, too, especially since there's been quite some time since the last one86.42.46.164 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done [11] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why *this* particular page was hijacked is exactly *because* it's a smaller page compared to main drag race pages or pages like Survivor. It's a case of certain people knowing they could never get their changes accepted on a bigger article, so they chose a smaller one to act like petty tyrants. It's a case of a very small, pointless amount of power going to the heads of people who think editing Wikipedia is an actual job 24.107.9.142 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Checkuser note I've blocked the editor who started this section as a  Confirmed sock account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Also, please note that discretionary sanctions are in effect on that page. Please familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions system before commenting at the linked discussion if you are not already aware of them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This RFC is worth a look. One possible outcome is the deletion of hundreds or thousands of contestant progress tables project-wide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Episode descriptions

If there's no progress chart, can someone at least put the results of each episode in the episode descriptions? 2A00:23C6:4CA8:E701:DC13:248C:60D7:3E13 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The two that started it all

I see a lot of admins stating that this article in particular was changed because of people arguing, insinuating that a bunch of people had a problem with the table. In reality, however, only two people really had a problem with this. Everyone else was pretty much fine (if they weren't, there wouldn't be 13 US articles, 6 all stars, 2 Thailand, Canada, Down Under, Spain and Holland all using the old format, but that isn't an argument apparently). I don't want to come off as rude, but for all the edit wars that have happened over the years (which does happen, I'll admit, though not to this extent) it seems weird that "the two" have chosen this franchise to target, is it really because they know it wouldn't fly on a US article? I don't want to assume the worst, but some points have been made. Some have argued that these charts don't matter and aren't relevant enough to be on this page. I could see why you would think this if you've never encountered the Drag Race fandom, but contestant progress charts are a HUGE talking point in the fanbase, why else do you think there are all of these edit wars? Why else do you think multiple people have pointed out how this would be way more controversial on a US article? I haven't posted on here in a while as I used to be active in the beginning of this debate, but I feel like this needed to be said. 12BlueTrumpets (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

To re-add the contestant progress back onto the page as it was removed by someone 86.137.232.165 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Promotional poster?

Resolved

Anyone able to add a promotional poster image to the infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

I would like to request that someone could please write the contestant progress for RuPauls Drag Race UK Season 2. As a huge fan of Drag Race being able to see these stats is really helpful when making statistics. Thank you. Nathan. NathanSharpe2 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you NathanSharpe2 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Please can you add a Contestant Progess tab, as seen on the Series 1 page, for series 2 and possibly 3 in the future. 92.28.211.250 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See above - an RfC closed with consensus to remove the table from this article. firefly ( t · c ) 19:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

include high and low placements in contestant progress as it's not the same as being called "safe" KTB FTS (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Our WikiProject decided to remove high and low from contestant progress tables. The show doesn't appear to place people in these categories. This appears to be something that viewers invented, and there is disagreement over who receives what category, leading to unhelpful edit warring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

The lip syncs section I would like to edit to reflect the number of times a queen lip synced before elimination. 142.116.195.161 (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. Include reliable sourcing for your claim and it can be added in. — IVORK _Talk 04:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Contestants progress

Why does someone keep removing the contestant chart?!??? We need to know how the series went down what is the point of an encyclopaedia when there’s nothing in it Kaileywurly (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kaileywurly:, because a well-attended WP:RFC previously decided that the tables were too disruptive. Please read the previous discussions on this page for more and the RfC itself available at this link. I have no opinion on the tables or their usefulness but it is disruptive to re-add them without discussion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

why do the rest of the articles have tables then? seems stupid to me and I just looked at that discussion and most people wanted the table Kaileywurly (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kaileywurly:, to answer your first question, there is currently an active discussion about whether tables like these should be a default feature of articles like this. You can find the link to that discussion in the section immediately above this one. To answer the second question, the RfC process is not a voting process and the result of talk page discussions are determined by the strength of arguments, not merely by counting noses. The incongruity of that RfC result was noted by many discussion participants and it was for that reason that the ongoing discussion was started. Please feel free to ask for any further clarification here or at my talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, Since the discussion has since closed (Thanks to you again for posing this in MoS!), can we bring up the discussion to add back in a table on this page? It would follow the closed summary Barkeep49 provided that it "should be consistent across a particular show?" Not sure how that process would look considering the absolute war from the original discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.32.8 (talk) 23:49, July 18, 2021 (UTC)

To comply with the "consistent across a show" agreement, I think the discussion should be at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK and a new prototype table should be presented as part of the question. The table previously on this article and the one currently at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 1) I do not believe complied with WP:ACCESS so a new table suggestion is likely needed. I may be able to put something together tomorrow. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t want to sound off, but every other series has this progress chart and even if some may be ‘we’re just guessing’ the placement, it’s still very easy to place people. It’s not disruptive at all, it’s literally a chart showing progress in the show… Like every other show has. For example, the Great British Bake Off has one and they only really say who the ‘Star Baker’ is but the chart still exists and never changes, so just keep what we had already and stop changing it. MasonbingDW (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)