Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race

UK series

I've redirected RuPaul's Drag Race UK and RuPaul's Drag Race (UK TV series) to this article, per https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-46452824. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've converted the redirect into a stub, and I think we can start migrating content over to RuPaul's Drag Race UK. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Related programming" section?

Should the "Untucked", "Whatcha Packin", and "The Pit Stop" subsections, currently under "Format", be moved to a new section lower down called "Related programming", or similar? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Flag icons

I just reverted an edit adding many flag icons to the article. I see some still remain. Are these really necessary? Drag race doesn't have people representing nations, so I see the icons as inappropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:MOSFLAG. Nihlus 14:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the remaining flags with this edit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race has been created, and you're invited to join! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on names of transgender contestants

How should the real names of transgender contestants who transition after their appearance on the show be used in articles on seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race? Nihlus 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1: Current name used only
• Option 2: Current name used with footnotes mentioning former name
• Option 3: Former name used with footnotes mentioning current name
• Option 4: Former name used only

Survey

• List credited names only. From looking at the articles, it appears that these names aren't used in the credits of the show, but are instead tracked down in secondary sources. I don't see the point, in an article about the show, of listing names that are neither credited nor the names the individuals are popularly known by.--Trystan (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. To those who aren't aware, note that this RfC follows on from this RfC about season 2 contestant Kylie Love (drag name Sonique). I'm simply going to copy my comment from there, which was written about Drag Race contestants in general:
  The legal names of contestants are very rarely mentioned on the show, so this isn't a matter of omitting information that is important to understanding the show. This is a matter of allowing people to find out more information about the contestants, and for that we need two names: their drag name; and their current name. I should clarify that current name is what the person wishes to be called, not their legal name, for the same reason that we refer to Muhammad Ali rather than Cassius Clay (a legal name he never changed)—it's both common courtesy and correct to use the name they go by. This is particularly important in the case of transgender contestants, who generally have very strong objections to using their wrong-gendered name. For those who aren't particularly familiar with trans issues, the analogy of gay people is relevant here: we wouldn't call a gay person "formerly straight" when talking about their life before coming out, because they have always been gay; here, we shouldn't be using a male name to describe a person who has always been female, or vice versa. Finally, the most relevant policy is MOS:GENDERID: "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." Well, contextually it makes sense to describe a person, in table columns where it says "Name", by... their name. Not some former legal name.
  To add to this, I'd like to say that of course information must follow WP:BLP, so we can't include current names unless mentioned in reliable sources (but primary sources are fine for this). If we have no source, but reasonable doubt that a person is using the name they used at the time of the competition, the deadname should be removed (the cell could perhaps read "—" or "N/A"). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 (Option 2 may be acceptable but is not preferable. I reject options 3 and 4.) I'll paraphrase some of what I've said in the ongoing Wachowski RfC: Wikipedia should not go out of its way to misgender people. Mainstream style guides and publications are generally in agreement that people's gender identities should be respected; Wikipedia should follow their lead. The Reuters style guide, for example, says "Always use a transgender person's chosen name." A recent New York Times blurb on V for Vendetta credits the writers as "Lana and Lilly Wachowski" even though the Wachowski sisters were not going by those names when that movie was released. The Times understands they don't have a claim on the Wachowskis' gender, just like you don't have any claim on my gender, just like I don't have any claim on yours. A person's gender is what they say it is, by definition. To say otherwise is to deny a fundamental part of a person's identity - to dehumanize them. This Wikipedia essay is a good primer on this topic. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Addition: Upon consideration I'll also vote for using drag names only. Looking over the official Drag Race site I see that drag names are the only ones listed there. But if non-drag-names are used option 1 still the best choice. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• OPTION 1 IS THE ONLY OPTION. Period. Option 2 may be considered. Options 3 and 4 are purely transphobic, and I am sick to death of obviously straight and/or cis people wilfully refusing to learn that forcing use of a trans person's deadname is not only wrong, it is violence against trans people. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. I know it says Ages and names stated are at time of contest but I always understood this as referring to drag names, e.g., "Trinity Taylor" for S9 but "Trinity The Tuck" for AS4; "Shangela Laquifa Wadley" for S2, "Shangela" for S2, AS3. Their names out of drag don't appear on chyrons or in the credits or in any official promotional material for the show; the sources used for their non-drag names aren't necessarly published "at time of contest" (e.g., the source for Yuhua's name in RPDR9 is from 2011, the source for Bebe's name in RPDR1 is from 2018) so it's not like all the sources for names are from when the season first aired anyway. List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants doesn't even have a column for non-drag names after BLP concerns, there are still questionably-used sources for non-drag names (e.g., "BracketYard.com" for Vanessa in RPDR10 which presumably just took all contestants' names from the Drag Race wikia or an earlier, unsourced version of Wikipedia). I wonder if it's even necessary to have non-drag names in the article considering they're not mentioned in the show itself. But I definitely don't think there's any reason to deadname trans contestants. Umimmak (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also okay with Drag/credited/stage names only Umimmak (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• List credited names only. As Bilorv notes, the legal names of contestants are generally not mentioned on the show and IMO are not inherently important enough to include on season pages, either. Current and former names can be dealt with sensitively, in context, and on a case-by-case basis in contestants' standalone articles when such exist. To me, Ages and names stated are at time of contest refers to all names present unless stated otherwise. Therefore, if we are to leave legal names in the tables in season articles, I vote for option 3 so that the tables do not neglect current names but also are not factually inaccurate -- after all, current names were not used at the specified age. Therefore, to avoid deadnaming, I find it preferable to simply drop the legal names from season articles. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One option: changing the wording of that notice (from Ages and names [...], to Ages and drag names [...] or similar). WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 07:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• My opinion on this is very straightforward reality TV articles in general should only used the name credited at the time of filming. In the case of RuPaul's Drag Race if their out of drag names are not mentioned on the show and they are only referred to by their drag names while on the show then the season articles and contestant lists should exclude their out of drag names. From the seasons I've seen the contestants are referred to by their drag names via on screen graphics and credits. With season articles about reality TV shows in general the contestant's name, age, occupation, etc should be what was used during filming. My reasoning for this is the season article should match up with the episodes of the show in the event someone watches the season like ten years down the road. This rational is not transphobic but is to avoid confusion when an un-involved reader watches a season for the first time and comes to Wikipedia to find out more information about the season. So if there is someone that was known as "Jason" during filming the season article should reflect that even if the person changed their name for any reason after filming was completed. The individual articles of the contestants however should be updated in accordance with MOS:GENDERID and WP:BLP. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• "This rational (sic) is not transphobic" -- yes it is. Deadnaming without explicit permission is always transphobic, in the same way the n-word is always racist, f-g is always homophobic, etc. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• List credited names only. Second choice is Option 3. We aren't changing Caitlyn Jenner's name on her Olympic articles, so I am unconvinced that referring to someone's name at a certain point in time is an issue if it is referring to the past and not the present. Removing the names would be preferably given the rude comments and hostile nature of some of the participants in this discussion. I do not support Option 1. Nihlus 19:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• In a shocking turn of events, you might find people would be less hostile if you would stop advocating for transphobic policy. Again, do you understand what deadnaming is and why it is violence against trans people? Yes or no, it's not a difficult question. You understand or you don't. Which is it? 24.138.76.242 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Names are not "violence" any more than they are vegetables, animals, or minerals, so drop the silly hyperbole. You need to chill in general because they way you act is a fast track to a block. 38.68.203.42 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose options 2, 3 and 4 as a rule. I continue to think this RfC is misguided in the attempt to make one rule for everyone where individuals may have indicated a specific preferences we should respect. However as a place to begin from, the default should be to follow MOS:GENDERID's preference for the most recent self-designation in reliable sources and if sources indicate a different preference in handling the past, then adjust accordingly. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Innisfree987, please provide examples of how this rule will conflict with someone's preference if it were to be adopted. Additionally, MOS:GENDERID applied to articles about the individual specifically, not every article. Nihlus 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Nihlus, I'm starting to feel badgered. You have a different view; I get it. I was just registering mine as a formal ivote (as the RfC seems likely to wrap up soon): that we should extend MOS:GENDERID here if we must have a rule. I'll answer your questions but then I'm done here; I think my views are clear enough. Examples: I added to deadname, for instance, a study showing that generally using preferred name reduces measurable, material harm to transgender adolescents. Such findings (of which this is just one example) show us that implementing 2, 3 or 4 is plainly out of line with the general principle of avoiding harm to living individuals when it is avoidable (very certainly it is here). At the same time, individuals may voice different preferences about use of their former name, which we should categorically respect for their individual cases, so long as they're reliable sourced: for instance, as on the Daniel Mallory Ortberg talk page. But I cannot stress enough: this should strictly be a matter of respecting individual preference when we can confirm it, given we have significant community opinion (see the very term "deadname") as well as scientific evidence that Ortberg's personal feelings are not broadly generalizable. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Innisfree987, you are not being badgered. This is your first participation in this discussion here where you have provided a confusing rationale that I am seeking to clarify. You also misquoted a policy in order to support your choice. I also would like to point out to the closer of this discussion that you did not provide an example of how a general rule would negatively impact any of the Drag Race articles we currently have. You also did not speak to the limitations of MOS:GENDERID and instead, ask that we extend it beyond the scope that it was intended in order to somehow make sense of your argument. This is not the place to expand or change the MOS:GENDERID policy. Nihlus 20:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3, reject options 1, 2, and 4. Per same reasoning as Alucard 16 above and my own reason that I stated on the RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2) talk page in the first RfC that I won't rehash. Alternatively I would okay with removing out of drag names completely if that's the consensus. Brocicle (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1, clearly. Per above. Drag culture has a lot of quirks/exceptions and grey area, esp. with names, but this is not one of them. Cut and dried. theonesean 05:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Either Option 1, or just ditch the list of real names entirely. The name the person used out of drag is not essential to an understanding of the show — the contestants are not credited by their real names on the air at all, and while there have been isolated instances of some queens' real names being spoken, that hasn't been true of all of the queens (which is why the lists of names have to rely on outside sources rather than the show itself), and even when it was true it was still a one-off glancing namecheck that remained completely inessential to an understanding of the show anyway. So the idea that it's contextually important for the list to stick with "real names as used at the time" doesn't really wash, because it isn't contextually important for the list to provide any real names at all. So if you want real names present, then it's Option 1; if you're not comfortable with Option 1, then the alternative is "get rid of the real names column entirely" rather than any option that treats the names as not subject to the same rules around gender identity issues that actual BLPs about the queens would have to follow. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• As I've said elsewhere, I don't know that this is a one-size-fits-all question. I suggest adding a fifth option saying none of the above (in lieu of a more elaborate conversation on considerations to weigh, for instance, what the person has indicated about their preferences, how extensively they are discussed in the entry and thus how much weight the inclusion of a former name would put on their transition, etc.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  Innisfree987, this is easily solved by saying that this is a preferred method but local discussion can overrule it if necessary. That being said, I've yet to see a case where one individual would need to be treated differently than the others. I'm not interested in hypothetical scenarios. Nihlus 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  It is absolutely one-size-fits-all. We refer to people by the names they prefer and which they are known by. Period. Referring to trans people by their deadnames is transphobic. Period. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Dial down the rhetoric. You've made your position known through the copious amounts of personal attacks you have levied against individuals. Additionally, do not assume the status of other individuals (whether they're straight, gay, cis, or trans). Actually, just stop talking about other people and focus on the topic at hand. Nihlus 18:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  You can stop telling me what to do, is what you can do. When you demonstrate that you're even qualified to be part of this discussion--which so far you have decidedly not; claiming that deadnaming isn't transphobic is the giveaway that you're not qualified--I'll give a damn about what you have to say. And not a single moment before. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  An individual should not be forced to produce evidence of whether or not they're qualified to a stranger online. That it forcefully outing someone. Your continued personal attacks and attempts at trying to get people to tell you how they identify is unwarranted and continued behaviour may required being looked into by an administrator as you have been warned in the past but still continue. Brocicle (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently you didn't bother reading what I wrote. Quelle surprise. If you do not understand that deadnaming is transphobic, you are not qualified to have this discussion. That is what I said. You can see for yourself. By all means, show me in that statement where I demanded to out someone. You can't. I did, however, demand that people involved in a conversation actually comprehend the subject at hand. You don't, Nihlus doesn't, anyone else who thinks that deadnaming isn't transphobic doesn't. It is roughly akin to someone wanting to weigh in on a decision about racist behaviour who doesn't understand that the n-word is racist. That's the bottom line here. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, I will no longer be taking you seriously or responding to your comments at all. Insult people again, and I will seek to have you blocked. Nihlus 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  "Waah, I don't understand the subject matter and someone called me on it, so I'm going to get them removed." Pffft. Do you, yes or no, understand what deadnaming is? Do you, yes or no, understand that it is transphobic? If you answered no to either question, you are not qualified to be in this discussion. If you answered yes to both questions, I am perplexed at your claim that deadnaming isn't transphobic. 24.138.76.242 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I went back and forth on the question of whether to ditch or keep the list of non-drag names. One thing I considered is that, since the uncredited non-drag names have to be researched and referenced, their inclusion inadvertently provides the articles with a hefty set of references with lots of nice interviews and articles about the contestants. At first I thought it would be a shame to wipe all those links out. But then it struck me that it would be odd to keep information in the main article that I agree isn't very notable just for the sake of links in the references section. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Those reliable sources/links can be used in other aspects of the article. Scripted shows use bits from interviews to help expand a season article in areas such as production, reception, release, etc. (See Game of Thrones (season 1) as an example) Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Close challenged

This closure is being challenged here as it is not an appropriate summation of the discussion. Nihlus 04:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

After this discussion, I have reverted the close and will ask that a new close be performed. Nihlus 19:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Progress Tables

Should the progress tables be changed. The episodes where the queens are judged as teams, they are all placed as HIGH, with judges critiques, even though they didnt have any judges critiques. Should they be changed, and have people who were critiqued have the HIGH and LOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.108.21 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race Collaboration of the Month for February 2019

	WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's Collaboration of the Month for February 2019: Victoria "Porkchop" Parker

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Delta Work is the collaboration of the month for March. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we need the paragraph about guest judges?

Do we really need this entire paragraph about guest judges?

"Prior to the grand finale, the three main judges are joined by celebrity guest judges each week. Guest judges have included Pam Tillis, Paula Abdul, Pamela Anderson, Eve, Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, Troye Sivan, Neil Patrick Harris, Kathy Griffin, Debbie Harry, Khloé Kardashian, La Toya Jackson, Adam Lambert, Demi Lovato, Bob Mackie, Rose McGowan, Olivia Newton-John, Rebecca Romijn, Gigi Hadid, Sharon Osbourne, Dan Savage, John Waters, Michelle Williams, Candis Cayne, Martha Wash, Natalie Cole, Dita Von Teese, Niecy Nash, Debbie Reynolds, Vanessa Williams, Wilmer Valderrama, The Pointer Sisters, Trina, Leah Remini, The B-52's, Kesha, Shania Twain, Graham Norton, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and Tiffany Pollard."

This seems like excessive detail and an arbitrary list of celebrity names. I think we should mention inclusion of guest judges in general, but get rid of the long list of names. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This subsequent edit further demonstrates how the list of name is subjective and will continue to be expanded as the series goes on. I say we save specific names for the season articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe instead of a single sentence/list it could be broken down into multiple sentences--particularly in a way which showcases the variety of people who have been guest judges. Like, "Actors who have been guest judges include: ...", "From the world of sports, ...". I also think ideally some secondary source would be used to determine which guest judges are worth mentioning -- i.e., a source other than just an individual episode recap such as this discussing Broadway actors who have been on. Umimmak (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

· That would maybe be a great idea to make list of judges on each season and All-stars.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 05:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)