Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK series 2

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)

Ground rules

(transcluded from User:Deepfriedokra/Ground rules)

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 Bimini Bon-Boulash BTM2 SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN WIN SAFE WIN Ellie Diamond HIGH HIGH SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE HIGH LOW Lawrence Chaney HIGH LOW WIN WIN WIN BTM2 LOW HIGH Tayce SAFE BTM2 SAFE SAFE WIN HIGH BTM2 BTM2 A'Whora SAFE SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN LOW WIN ELIM Sister Sister LOW SAFE HIGH BTM2 LOW SAFE ELIM Tia Kofi SAFE HIGH BTM2 SAFE BTM2 ELIM Joe Black ELIM ELIM Veronica Green SAFE WIN HIGH LOW OUT Ginny Lemon SAFE SAFE LOW QUIT Asttina Mandella WIN SAFE ELIM OUT Cherry Valentine SAFE ELIM OUT   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 A'Whora SAFE SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN LOW WIN Bimini Bon-Boulash BOTTOM 2 SAFE HIGH HIGH WIN WIN SAFE Ellie Diamond HIGH HIGH SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE HIGH Lawrence Chaney HIGH LOW WIN WIN WIN BOTTOM 2 LOW Tayce SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE WIN HIGH BOTTOM 2 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 Bimini Bon-Boulash BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE SAFE WIN WIN SAFE WIN Ellie Diamond SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE SAFE Lawrence Chaney SAFE SAFE WIN WIN WIN BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE Tayce SAFE BOTTOM 2 SAFE SAFE WIN SAFE 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

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)

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)

  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)

Protected edit request on 7 March 2021

I need to change a’whora to eliminated. 86.166.119.211 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Is it too much asking to participate in the immediately preceding discussion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 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 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)

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)

Contestants Progress

Can u update it lol we are nearly 2 episodes behind Sadtheticcs (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read prior discussion on that question. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 9 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 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)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Drowssap01 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to add guest judge

•  Not done No detail given. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 11 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)

'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)

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, [7]); 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)

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)

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 to white and it'd look clear and legible 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, [8], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ([9]). 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)

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)