Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race season 8/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request

Naomi Smalls was high on the Book Ball episode, she clearly had really good critiques and didn't have any bad critiques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DopleDouger (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Naomi's real name is Davis, not David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.8.249 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

the Faith Evans song that was played this week was the FreeMasons Remix! :)--86.99.45.242 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't put on Notes of the episodes something that hasn't been transmitted yet. We are not sure if Naysha returns. Besides, it's spoiler. You forgot to add Morgan McMichaels to the list of special guests in episode 1!--151.253.69.74 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Naomi Smalls was SAFE. She was not high NOR was she low. If you look back at season 7 of RuPaul's Drag Race where they had 12 competitors in episode 3. Only ONE contestant performed low. And in this instance, for Season 8, the low performer was Robbie Turner. Seansporbert (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mate, as was said by another user, "By default, three queens are placed high and other three are placed low. Naomi got worse criticism than the other top 3 girls and was the last one to be called, so she was in the bottom 3. please stop changing it" Oath2order (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

But her criticism wasn't even on her outfit. The worst criticism she got was the way she was carrying the boat, & seemed tired. They even praised the design of the boat itself, and the other contributor to her ranking (her photo) was also praised. She was HIGH. It's also been established that call-out order doesn't determine if one is HIGH or LOW or not. Ificannotlove (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, should we just agree that she was safe? Oath2order (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with that if she hadn't been called out to stay on stage. I stand by her being high due to the critique she got, while heavily made, wasn't even about the thing she was to be judged on-- her photo, outfit & boat. Ificannotlove (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ificannotlove as the five queens called safe are the ones listed as SAFE, as the seven other contestants remained on stage, they receive either HIGH or LOW scores and a BTM2. Naomi cannot just be SAFE since she remained on the stage. In my opinion, the critiques she received were favourably positive, so I would change Naomi's outcome to HIGH. Lauralimilein (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In Untucked Naomi, Robbie, Naysha and Laila agreed that based on the critiques they got, the bottom 2 was a combination of the 4 of them. Naomi was considered LOW this week, however criticism on the main show seemed to be imbalanced. I feel like if the queens behind the scenes agreed she was LOW, we should go with that. There are times when the show does not follow a set 3 high 3 low pattern such as Season 5, Episode 3 (12 queens, bottom 4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.192.50.248 (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

After seeing the preview for the next episode, where Laila states that the bottom two was a toss-up between herself, Naysha, Robbie and Naomi, I think Naomi's critique would be LOW. Lauralimilein (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Laila also critiqued Naomi personally when they were on the stage. Her word is not the judges'. The judges' words themselves praised Naomi for both her boat and her photo, which is what they were supposed to be judged on. While they seemed adamant about their critique, the only one she actually got was about the way she lugged the boat around. Because of this, it still appears she should be HIGH. It mirrors season 5, where Ivy Winters was critiqued by Santino for not bringing trash to her outfit, though she was still considered HIGH as well.Ificannotlove (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Low She didn't receive good responses neither from the judges nor from fellow contestants. She was called out in fourth place, after the best of the week.--HC 5555 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Michelle said her boat was "beautifully-decorated", and her photo was very well-received, both of which determined her placement. Call-out order doesn't determine the top or bottom, either-- Pearl was first to be called SAFE In the Hello Kitty challenge. Carmen Carrera was the last called safe in Ru Ha Ha, left on stage with the bottom 3, but still received a HIGH placement. Ificannotlove (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Everyone except you agrees she was Low. The contestant herself admitted on latest Untucked that she was very close to Bottom 2 in the first episode.--HC 5555 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't put on Notes of the episodes something that hasn't been transmitted yet. We are not sure if Naysha reurns. Besides, it's spoiler.

You forgot to add Morgan McMichaels to the list of special guests in episode 1!--151.253.69.74 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Naomi Smalls was SAFE. She was not high NOR was she low. If you look back at season 7 of RuPaul's Drag Race where they had 12 competitors in episode 3. Only ONE contestant performed low. And in this instance, for Season 8, the low performer was Robbie Turner. Seansporbert (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mate, as was said by another user, "By default, three queens are placed high and other three are placed low. Naomi got worse criticism than the other top 3 girls and was the last one to be called, so she was in the bottom 3. please stop changing it" Oath2order (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

But her criticism wasn't even on her outfit. The worst criticism she got was the way she was carrying the boat, & seemed tired. They even praised the design of the boat itself, and the other contributor to her ranking (her photo) was also praised. She was HIGH. It's also been established that call-out order doesn't determine if one is HIGH or LOW or not. Ificannotlove (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, should we just agree that she was safe? Oath2order (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with that if she hadn't been called out to stay on stage. I stand by her being high due to the critique she got, while heavily made, wasn't even about the thing she was to be judged on-- her photo, outfit & boat. Ificannotlove (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ificannotlove as the five queens called safe are the ones listed as SAFE, as the seven other contestants remained on stage, they receive either HIGH or LOW scores and a BTM2. Naomi cannot just be SAFE since she remained on the stage. In my opinion, the critiques she received were favourably positive, so I would change Naomi's outcome to HIGH. Lauralimilein (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In Untucked Naomi, Robbie, Naysha and Laila agreed that based on the critiques they got, the bottom 2 was a combination of the 4 of them. Naomi was considered LOW this week, however criticism on the main show seemed to be imbalanced. I feel like if the queens behind the scenes agreed she was LOW, we should go with that. There are times when the show does not follow a set 3 high 3 low pattern such as Season 5, Episode 3 (12 queens, bottom 4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.192.50.248 (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

After seeing the preview for the next episode, where Laila states that the bottom two was a toss-up between herself, Naysha, Robbie and Naomi, I think Naomi's critique would be LOW. Lauralimilein (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Laila also critiqued Naomi personally when they were on the stage. Her word is not the judges'. The judges' words themselves praised Naomi for both her boat and her photo, which is what they were supposed to be judged on. While they seemed adamant about their critique, the only one she actually got was about the way she lugged the boat around. Because of this, it still appears she should be HIGH. It mirrors season 5, where Ivy Winters was critiqued by Santino for not bringing trash to her outfit, though she was still considered HIGH as well.Ificannotlove (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Low She didn't receive good responses neither from the judges nor from fellow contestants. She was called out in fourth place, after the best of the week.--HC 5555 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Michelle said her boat was "beautifully-decorated", and her photo was very well-received, both of which determined her placement. Call-out order doesn't determine the top or bottom, either-- Pearl was first to be called SAFE In the Hello Kitty challenge. Carmen Carrera was the last called safe in Ru Ha Ha, left on stage with the bottom 3, but still received a HIGH placement. Ificannotlove (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Everyone except you agrees she was Low. The contestant herself admitted on latest Untucked that she was very close to Bottom 2 in the first episode.--HC 5555 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Episode 3 leaked: we now know what happens

Edit ban should be lifted. It was Naysha that came back. And Cynthia Lee Fontaine goes home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.111.3 (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Bob wins the main challenge with Thorgy and Acid Betty ranked high also. Bottom three was Cynthia, Robbie, and Derrick Barry. Naysha, Kim, Chi Chi, and Naomi were all safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpdrobsession (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 spoiler dispute

Please, discuss things here:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This is all I found on spoilers: Wikipedia:Spoiler

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Episodes that leaked are not broadcast delays and thus should not be added into the Wiki page. Penguin888 22:02, 20 March 2016

You haven't given any official Wikipedia policy that says we cannot upload spoilers that haven't aired yet. Jwebbs913 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't given any official Wikipedia policy that says we can upload spoilers that haven't aired yet either. Penguin888 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The official policy on spoilers makes no mention of unaired content, thus it is a safe assumption that, so long as the content is verifiable, it is fair game. Given that you are the one reverting the edits on the basis of a supposed unaired content rule, the burden of proof is on you to establish that I am in the wrong and you have failed to do so.Jwebbs913 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The official policy states none of that, so the burden of proof is on you to establish that it is okay to spoil future episodes through leaks Penguin888 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The burden of proof falls to whoever is adding the material. If its not from a reliable source then it cant go in. Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Amortias that is where it seems to become somewhat complicated. Other episodes added are rarely sourced because people just use 'I saw it on TV' as a source. In this case, it's 'I saw the leaked episode on YouTube' source. I think this debate between the two isn't whether the information is fake or not, but if it's 'fair' to spoil the not-yet-aired episode for unsuspecting readers. Azealia911 _talk 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the leaked episode so I know the information is accurate. However, I don't think it's okay to spoil the episode since it hasn't aired and not everyone has seen it yet. Penguin888 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Does a leak count as a reliable source? I'm reluctant to put it in since the episode hasn't aired and thus, some small editing changes can be made between now and then. Plus, I don't think it's okay to have leaked spoilers in a wikipedia page when it's used by most casual fans to catch up with what has happened, not to gain information on what's going to happen. Penguin888 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If its been shown on TV you would be ale to use the aired date and the other information about the show to confirm it, the fact its been leaked on some website somewhere would not be a guarantee its the final footage or therefore accurate. Per the policy on spoilers we will host things that are spoilers. Amortias (T)(C) 22:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say a leak is reliable if they are able to prove said leak through screenshots and not vague spoilering (ie., Queen X wins a challenge on a runway that involves drag). Since the information is verifiable (see here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR), I think it's safe game. Jwebbs913 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting this on the right track: What I am reading above is spoilers are okay. Now it is about the quality of the source(s). Please continue to discuss...

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire episode was uploaded to OutTV's Youtube page (the Canadian distributor of the show). I have seen the episode and I have also provided a link to an imgur album of screenshots from the episode to verify that those events did in fact happen as spoiled in the Wiki page. Jwebbs913 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Leak is not reliable unless a link with the full material is available on a reputable site. Screen-shots per se, expecially on imgur where people can upload anything without any kind of verification, are susceptible of tempering.GlassFold (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jwebbs913, you've been reported at the edit-warring noticeboard for your 12 reversions in the past day on this page. I'd tread very carefully when making another reversion, like you did here. Also, yes, we've established that the spoilers are ok for inclusion, but you need to accompany the information with a reliable source to back it up (before suggestion, a link to the YouTube leak, a Reddit page or any forum is not acceptable.) Azealia911 _talk 23:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the imgur album with comprehensive screencaps of the episode: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR. The video has since been returned to private on OutTv's channel, however. Jwebbs913 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

These are wholly unreliable. Not only are they imgur images that a fan uploaded and could have reaked havoc on in photoshop, they're screenshots of a fan-uploaded YouTube video, even worse. Seriously, what's the harm in waiting little over 24 hours, in which time the episode will have aired and this can all be re-added without hassle? Why the rush? Azealia911 _talk 23:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to be blithely unaware of it, OutTV (and OutTV On Demand) is the Canadian distributor of RuPaul's Drag Race, not some "fan-uploaded YouTube video." Jwebbs913 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Attached is the entirety of the episode. Verified. Upon you all hopping off my ass about the credibility of my sources (which tbh I doubt an RPDR fan would take the dedication to do such a comprehensive mock-up of what happened on the episode, let alone convince an entire group online), I will remove the link. Jwebbs913 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OutTV's Youtube page offer to buy the episode, not to watch it. It will avaliable from mondayGlassFold (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, Jwebbs913 is editing the page to include the spoilers when we haven't come to a mutual agreement about what to do with them yet or not. No sources are given, and Azealia911 said to wait 24 hours for the episode to air. Did I miss something? Penguin888 (talk) 3:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

False. I am formatting stuff because of the back and forth. There is still one spoiler that has to be removed. Jwebbs913 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything should be spoiler free now, Penguin888. (All of my previous edits were reformating after your nonsense.) Good effort though. Jwebbs913 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I was checking the history of the page when I found that you added spoilers after the initial warning given to both of us and stated in the notes that we all came to the conclusion that spoilers were okay. Jwebbs913. I'm glad the page is back to the way it was before you started messing with it though, thanks. Penguin888 (talk) 3:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Penguin888, I have blocked Jwebbs913 for 24 hours for another revert. I do not care about what content was removed unless that removal was blatant vandalism. Please, Penguin888, do not revert any edit for any reason unless it is blatant vandalism. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we try to reach a consensus on what to do in the future? As Amortias noted, Wikipedia abandoned any policy about spoilers. The issue is not about the spoilers themselves, it is about the sources. I think there's already a policy about what a reputable source is, we should follow it, or at least return to the talk page when doubts about the source material arise. GlassFold (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Simple, if the episode actually leaks--which mind you, is not a rare occurance for RPDR-- and it's not a I have a friend of a friend of a friend who see only five minutes of a leak and it just so happened to be the challenge results five minutes and they can't even tell you anything about the episode other than tops and bottoms, and they can't even give you any sort of proof of any fashion, then it's fine. In this case it's quite clear that the episode was leaked early. If you want to be obtuse and be all well Imgur isn't a reliable source-- which I would agree is a valid argument, but then we are talking about D-list TV show about men competing against each other in wigs-- then that's on you. Jwebbs913 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

D-list or A-list doesn't matter, every article on Wikipedia is equal in respecting guidelines. Sources must be at minimum:

1. accessible by everyone to consult/verify/confute them;
2. reliable in the fashion that have been published on a known and established site. Forums, social networks, editable sites in general and similar DO NOT COUNT.

And I will add that many people saying something are not a valid reference on Wikipedia, despite the fact that they might be, and usually are, in real life. Perhaps you are confusing the two things. GlassFold (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And I've already posted links to the screencaps of the episode numerous times. (One more time for the kids in back: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR) It's quite clear that people are dismissing them without even looking at them on the basis of not wanting to spoil themselves. And given that there are not just one or two people that have seen the leaked episode, but rather a whole multitude (literally upwards of thousands) of them. Hell, even Penguin888 said he saw the leaked episode. I'm not even sure why the argument has devolved into whether or not the actual leaked episode constitutes as a legitimate source when the original argument was whether or not spoilers were fair game to upload. Jwebbs913 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You really don't want to understand. For the third time, Imgur is not a reliable source. Read the policy about what is reliable and what not. Continue to violate the policy and you will be blocked again and (hopefully) banned.GlassFold (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And I get that. However the fact of the matter is that they are legitimate screenshots. You can sit there and argue that Imgur isn't a reliable source-- which again, I agree; however, given the context....-- and that's hilarious since it doesn't really undermine the veracity of said screenshots and not to mention that that argument is predicated on the exact same ones used to undermine Wikipedia. And ultimately, I would say that unless you could reliably prove (which in this case, you can't), that those images were without a doubt doctored, then there's no reason to throw them out. Hell, there are currently spoilers on the page from sources that wouldn't even pass the reliable source test, but hey, keep ignoring Imgur. You can even look in the edit history of the page and find a link to the rip of the episode. I mean, it's on Google Drive so it's obviously not a credible source, but hey. ;) Jwebbs913 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how the "unverifiable spoiler" ended up being 100% correct BECAUSE IT WAS A VERIFIED SOURCE NOT A SPOILER (in that OutTV published the episode). So the argument that it wasn't broadcast is incorrect because OutTV did broadcast the episode by publishing it. Survivordebisthebest (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

i mean tbh it was just a big conflict of interests between certain editors not wishing to spoil themselves or others. you can really see it in the early comments. Jwebbs913 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ep 1

Derrek was low Naomi was high not the other way around MrMonsterBunny (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ep 4

I believe Acid was safe, just like the rest of her team. The challenge was judged by teams. Kim, Robbie, Naomi were high, Acid, Bob, Thorgy were safe, and Chi Chi, Derrick, Naysha were low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

^ Agreed with Acid Betty being safe. There was some negativity, but she was in the safe group and received a majority of positive comments from the panel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrippina Minor (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Acid got a negative pun before being sent back, so I would believe she was low, even if her team was overall safe.Ificannotlove (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

but following that line of thinking wouldn't Naomi just be safe then since she went back without a negative pun? i think since Derrick was the last to be called safe and it was clearly a decision between Derrick and Chi Chi, Acid should simply be safe. Jwebbs913 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Naomi, Robbie & Kim got an overall "good" pun before being sent back. They were the top 3. Unless you mean back in episode one-- in which case, Naomi was low because you cannot be just "safe" when they specifically called them out as the top & bottom of the week. Thorgy & Bob got a simple "You're safe" this week, and Acid & Derrick both got negative puns before being sent back, so both should be low. Ificannotlove (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

^But in the Untucked can see Acid Betty is preparing lipsync (being the only person on her team who does) , which means that received negative reviews ( low )

Thorgy is also preparing a lipsync in Untucked. They were all just paranoid at that point for some reason. Penguin888 (talk

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

Episode 4 was judged in teams and Acid Betty was safe. Not low. Devonruuurs (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terra ^❤ 05:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

Robbie Turner has his birth day the same day he won the challenge during episode 4, so shouldn't his age be changed to 33-34? (see the Untucked episode for further proof). 85.76.65.77 (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terra ^❤ 05:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Episode Summaries

Just a quick question, why is there no more epiosde summaries for each epiosde anymore? They're great for reminding people of the epiosde and why certain queens ended in their placements.

nobody writes them Oath2order (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

Please add the challenge prize for episode 7 it was 2 couture gowns from MountBatten Concepts Luish99 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ^❤ 12:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Naomi Smalls should be labeled HIGH for the Ball challenge. She received nothing but positive feedback from the judges and one of the members of the panel even said it was between Naomi and Kim Chi for the win. Regardless of call out order (which I don't think determines actual score) Naomi did not receive less praise than Chi Chi or Kim. 2606:A000:F607:7F00:116F:18D7:66AA:38DB (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ^❤ 01:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Snatch Game

Similar to how Stacy Layne Matthews in the Season 3 of Drag Race article is listed as doing "Mo'Nique (as Mary Lee Johnston from Precious)" in Snatch Game, Bob the Drag Queen's should say Uzo Aduba (as Crazy Eyes from Orange Is the New Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcambo (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Oath2order (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Realness link, episode 9

The "Realness" link leads to a different album when it should lead to the album by RuPaul at this adddress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realness_(RuPaul_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.13.254 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Done --Terra ^❤ 01:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Book Ball Episode

I think it was kinda obvious that Naomi was high in the Book Ball episode, which was episode 8.
She got no negative reviews and was excellent in the episode. While Chi Chi Devayne had a slight negative review
about her baby look. But I think that both of them should be High.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DopleDouger (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 

Minor thing in "Episode Six: Wizards of Drag"

In the overview to "Episode Six: Wizards of Drag" the character of Thorgy Thor should be named "Citizen of Emerald City" and nor "Citizen of Oz", since that's what Brittney calls it (about 8:40 into the episode). Sorry for nitpicking, but such an excellent work as you have done deserves to be immaculate! 83.209.132.173 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Episode 7

Shouldn't Naomi be scored HIGH and Kim Chi LOW based on their critiques? Lovesexandla (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Naysha's return

It's mentioned that Naysha Lopez is the 5th queen to return to the show but she's actually the 4th. The previous three queens are Carmen Carrera, Kenya Michaels, and Trixie Mattel. --86.98.123.147 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

All Stars 2 Page

Hi, so I created a draft page for the recent All Stars 2 cast and airdate information that was released before realising there was already a page for it, so I transferred my edits to it. Here is the page if anyone wants to check it out: RuPaul's All Stars Drag Race (season 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauralimilein (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

High/Low is NOT subjective. "Safe" is anyone that's not critiqued (i.e they're told to leave the runway). Then Ru blatantly says to the remaining queens, "you represent the best and worst of the week." You can obviously deduce from the critiques who represents the best and who represents the worst.

If we get rid of high/low, then it implies that someone who left the stage early is in the same tier as someone who got critiqued by the judges and just barely escaped the bottom two. We should be adding information, not removing it.

24.186.187.150 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to 24.186.187.150: N Not Done it is not clear what you want changed, please put requests in change "x" to "y" format. Chase (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear; please change the contestant progress chart to include HIGH/LOWs. 24.186.187.150 (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ink Master?

Why is Ink Master at the bottom of this page and not the Drag Race splash? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.219 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The RuPaul's drag race template got overwritten. I've restored it, and it should be there now. (You may have to purge the page).Naraht (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Except it goes against WP:OR. Oath2order (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

HIGH and LOW

I think it is necessary to mention that if they are in the tops and bottoms category, it should be mentioned if they were in the top or bottom. Ihatemylife420 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Ihatemylife420: Unfortunately, there has been much discussion about this and there is no way of knowing which contestant is in the top or the bottom without interpreting the judges comments and that is against Wikipedia policy; WP:OR. Thank you. Chase (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The critiques in nearly all cases are obvious as to who is high and who is low. This needs to be changed back immediately. Eagle2ch (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply to CCamp2013: Wow, you are stretching VERY HARD to try to call it a policy violation under "Original Research". Highs and lows are important for documenting a contestant's accurate track record. Simply leaving them in a group of "highs and lows" is lazy documentation. We're listening to RuPaul clearly tell them if they did well or not before declaring them safe. There is no more "interpreting the judges critiques" than anything else. Take a look at the Project Runway wikipedia pages. That is 100% "interpreting the judges comments" to gain that detailed information. I know they have a scoring system. But those scores are never published. If they're allowed to include it there, there is absolutely no reason it can't be included here. Jacksm3 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a stretch, by definition that is original research. Oath2order (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Jacksm3: I actually considered the Project Runway quite heavily when reviewing the HIGH's and LOW's on this page. So I rewatched an episode of Project Runway and they clearly state who is the bottom and who is in the top. They is never any interpreting, unlike with RuPaul's Drag Race. Chase | ^talk 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

May we use a source like this (similar to the sources on season 9) as a source for the HIGH and LOW descriptions on the contestant progress table?

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/rupauls-drag-race-recap-season-8-episode-1.html Hughes.1517 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Like this

Contestant	1	2	10
Bob the Drag Queen	SAFE	SAFE	Winner
Kim Chi	WIN	LOW	Runner-up
Naomi Smalls	SAFE	SAFE	Runner-up
Chi Chi DeVayne	SAFE	WIN	Guest
Derrick Barry	HIGH	SAFE	Guest
Thorgy Thor	SAFE	HIGH	Guest
Robbie Turner	LOW	SAFE	Guest
Acid Betty	HIGH	HIGH	Guest
Naysha Lopez	ELIM		Guest
Cynthia Lee Fontaine	SAFE	SAFE	Miss C
Dax ExclamationPoint	SAFE	ELIM	Guest
Laila McQueen	BTM2	ELIM	Guest

  The contestant won RuPaul's Drag Race.

  The contestants were the runners-up.

  The contestant was voted Miss Congeniality by viewers.

  The contestant won a challenge.

  The contestant was one of the judges' favorite but did not win the challenge

  The contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately chosen to be safe.

  The contestant was one of the judges' least favorite but was not in the bottom 2

  The contestant was in the bottom two.

  The contestant was eliminated.

  The contestant returned as a guest for the finale episode.

Similar to Season 9 page Hughes.1517 (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Keep the HIGHs and LOWs the way they originally were

Saying "The contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately chosen to be safe" doesn't say anything. After episode 5 or 6 all the contestants recieve their critiques. And why not have the Highs and Lows? RuPaul chooses a top 3 and a bottom 3 for a reason, it matters. And i would like to tell people that if Bob was "LOW" on episode 06, Acid was also "LOW" on episode 04, it's the same damn thing yall. Either keep the blue Highs and light pink Lows or do something or keep it your way but make it more clear and please choose better colors. You could aso put a blue and a light pink "SAFE" just so people would know who's been top and bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamqueer (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Screamqueer: Please see Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). Oath2order (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ratings

Where are the ratings for this season? Seanmurpha (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

LOW placements for Naomi, Bob, & Betty

In episode 4, Ru says "Acid Betty... your runway was a bright spot. But in the challenge, you were overshadowed.... You're safe.". I feel like a negative remark like that prior to being called safe should be notated as a "LOW" placement on the progress table. Ru doesn't normally say things like that to a queen who is just in the middle-of-the road safe. Same with Bob in episode 6. "Bob the Drag Queen... your Glenda was not bewitching... You are... safe.". I think the only difference between these situations from most other seasons is that there were 4 queens that happened to be called out negatively, when the show is generally used to 3 in a single week. As for Naomi in episode 1, she stated herself on both episodes 1 & 2 Untucked, as well as the opening of episode 2 itself, that she was actually in the bottom 4 alongside Naysha, Robbie, and Laila. Therefore, I do believe that even though it may seem like a lot, these are all actually "LOW" placements in their respective weeks.Asd17 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion regarding high, safe and low placements.

Hello all. Currently, at the page for the RPDR Wikiproject, we started a discussion about how to properly define these placements, since the lack of clear criteria has led to a lot of subjective edits and in some cases, edit warring. Since these definitions could potentially effect the placement tables through all the seasons, we would like to receive the widest possible input, to make sure that all the views and perspectives are taken in account. So, anyone interested in taking part in the conversation, please give us your view at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#Establishing_a_consistent_criteria_for_SAFE%2C_HIGH_and_LOW_placements Not A Superhero (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on table

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC: Proposed progress table for all RPDR shows. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dishonest citations

I looked at the "citations" for "high" and "low" in the Contestant-progress chart. None of those cites said a given contestant was rated "high" or "low"! That was complete POV interpretation by CaliforniaDreamsFan. We cannot use our own POV interpretations of what recap writers write. If the cited sources wanted to say "high" and "low," they would have. But they did not.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Again: From a sampling of cites at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7), and as detailed by my edit summaries there today, User:CaliforniaDreamsFan is using their own personal, POV interpretation of the cited sources to declare who is "high" or "low." And it is utterly POV to declare that someone whom IndieWire lists as 5-8 in the pack is "high." With just a sampling of three episodes at the season-7 article, I found numerous examples of such personal POV interpretation. We cannot use our own personal POV. I'm reverting to the neutral version, and if an editor wants to include cited sources to support claims or "high" or "low," they need to reach consensus on their interpretation before posting their own singular, personal POV on the article page. The result of the RfC was very clear and detailed as to what we can call "high" or "low." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tenebrae: thanks for messaging me about this. I understand what you are trying to convey and I get the talk about point-of-view claims. However, there was a discussion about Season 9 for claiming these highs and lows per contestant, and we came to a consensus that the progress tables can be used with "Highs" and "Lows" from primary and/or secondary sources to identify as the stand outs or worst performers to that specific episode/challenge. The show itself—if referenced with their templates—are in fact primary sources, but the secondary sources from IndieWire, The A.V. Club and Slant Magazine, etc. are enough to balance each contestant without being biased or POV. For example on Season 8's progress table, the references to episode 1 DO state the correct stand-outs (Derrick Berry, Acid Betty, Kim Chi) and the worst performers (Robbie Turner, Naysha Lopez, Laila McQueen) [based on my memory and the sources]. This reference alone contained TWO references that specifies that. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to be LABELLED "HIGH" or "LOW", although Channel Guide Magazine even SPECIFIES who is simply safe, who is in the bottom 3 and who are the best performers of the week on some citations listed. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too sure whether you are insisting to change the titling from "Highs" and "Lows" to something like "Top 3" or "Bottom 3". Even RuPaul himself says "Tops and Bottoms of the week" in nearly every episode and, knowing the show itself can be a primary source, I feel it stays clear of WP:Original research and WP:BIAS and, from what I gather, stays clear of WP:POV. The only POV claim I could identify is probably the synopsis I have written for each episode—particularly for RuPaul's Drag Race Season 9—and that can be disputable or removed if challenge. But as far as I'm concerned, the progress table has been cited and each recap review (if multiple in one reference) balances each other out to identify who is typically "High" and "Low". CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, IndieWire does identify who is the "Top" contenders and the "Bottoms" of the week. The bottom of the page is clearly their own POV, but even their article AT THE TOP STATES on most episodes that the JUDGES themselves praised their runways/performances and are the ones still on stages (example season 7, episode 2 references). And like I said, the show itself can be used as a primary source to justify these claims, but it still is ambiguous and can be a little misleading to the audience. Also, I've also noticed that the reverted pages you have done still have the pink squares with just the word safe or even "LOW" on them; as far as I'm concerned, that's double standardising the concept of "Highs" and "Lows" and, without any sources, that's uncited. And to challenge ALL cited sources, as far as I've researched and looked at, and removed them where clearly maybe some episodes may have been slightly off is quite unncessesary. It could have been easily challenged by other views, but it wasn't. I'm not trying to pick fights or anything, but I feel I've made my cases quite clear and understandable. Ping me if there are any issues. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll also mentioned this; for team challenges, if it is by team and the winners are identified in the teams, EACH member from that team is generally garnered a "HIGH" score because they could have won the challenge. For example, on Season 9 episode 4, Alexis' team were all safe but contestants Shea Coulee and Sasha Velour won the challenge, meaning any one of them could have won in partners. Nina Bo'Nina Brown and Eureka, from the other team, were noted by the sources as their team stand-outs but they were all up for elimination, so they were only given SAFE markings. Sorry for the over-the-top writing. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Thank you for your incredibly collegial and well-articulated reply. You took a lot of effort for that, and I'm sure I speak for many editors working on these shows that we're appreciative of all this hard work. I don't mean to imply you have bad judgment — quite the opposite, in fact — but no judgment is infallible. You're obviously a very responsible editor, and, frankly, researching your footnotes to come up with the points I did was very time-consuming, so I'm certainly inclined to trust your judgment, with one request: Please let other editors know, on the talk page, how you're deducing what's "high" and "low" if the source could be reasonably interpreted in a way different than you might. I think we can all agree that in the absence of other factors, being ranked #5-8 doesn't seem to indicate high. But again, thank you for your hard and thoughtful work. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)