Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Runner Ups[edit]

So I noticed that someone re-added a runner-up section to the template. I removed that section a few months ago, and I feel like the logic there was valid, but I thought it might be best to talk it out, see if people really had any good reasons why they thought it should be kept. :)

The main issue with it for me is that not every runner up on the show has their own article, yet not listing them gives a false impression of that seasons results. For example, if we list Alaska as a runner-up, we really should be listing Roxxxy Andrews too, or else it would seem to appear that Alaska was the only runner up in that season. However at the same time, I don't think it's worth including Roxxxy's name when she doesn't have an article of her own. (And as a minor spin-off, I felt like it gave the wrong impression when the list of winners currently stands at 7 (including Chad Michaels), and the runner-up list by coincidence also has 7 people on it.)

In addition, I feel like including a partial list of runners up really isn't all that neccesary, especially when there's a "notable contestants" template out there too, and a direct link to a list of contestants on the main RPDR template. Most other reality shows only include winners in their templates, and as the seasons go by, that list is just going to get bigger and bigger, making the template larger than it needs to be.

My personal belief is that we should just flat out remove the line, and keep the notable contestants template going. Failing that, I feel like the only way to do a runner-up line correctly would be to include a full list, including the runner-up contestants that don't have their own article.(Kyleofark (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

Miss Congeniality[edit]

Why isn't Ivy Winters and Cynthia Lee Fontaine on the list of Miss C winners? They clearly won it so why aren't they on there. I try to put it on there but it won't appear on the template. Someone please put them on there. It doesn't make sense why they are the only ones not on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucks6789 (talkcontribs) 00:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As User:Azealia911 said, infoboxes are for quick navigation, not actual reporting of information. Oath2order (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't really answer my question. Is there a specific reason why Ivy Winters and Cynthia Lee Fontaine aren't on the Miss C list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucks6789 (talkcontribs) 13:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

They don't have pages. Oath2order (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So what? They still won Miss C so they should be on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucks6789 (talkcontribs) 23:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The point of a navigation template is to link to relevant pages, not provide information. Oath2order (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Please do not add Cynthia Lee Fontaine and Ivy Winters to this template; they do not have pages. Oath2order (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not separate All-Stars winners with the winners every regular season?[edit]


I clearly understand the reason behind separating both the regular and the All-Stars seasons, as they are separate shows produced and aired by World of Wonder and Logo/VH1 respectively. If that is the case, why don't we separate the winners from the regular and All-Stars seasons as well? This is to clearly distinguish the winners from the regular and All-Stars seasons in the same way as we see both regular and All-Stars seasons. In addition, even non-RPDR fans who choose to navigate the infobox will find out at a glance who won each season respectively. What do you think?

k_cms (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition of information in the navbox[edit]

It is unnecessary to add each contestant's Wikipedia linked to their name in the navbox because it can get overtly busy and become difficult to navigate with. That's why the list of contestants' is linked in the navbox in the first place. k_cms (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely common practice to include non-celebrity contestants in navboxes for reality tv series. See Template:Big Brother in the United States or all of the other navboxes included at Category:Reality television series navigational boxes. It also comes up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11#Template:Celebrity Big Brother. --woodensuperman 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no room for each and every drag queen, or "act," in the navbox as it will over-proliferate it. k_cms (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, especially with the ability to collapse sub-boxes See Template:Scoutorg BSA for example.Naraht (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely agree, in fact it shouldn't be up for discussion. The other contestants do not hold enough notability within the show to be included in the box. Adding all the contestants really ruins the purpose of what this box is supposed to be used for along with making it look more confusing than it needs to be. Dallasansel (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
R'n'B,Woodensuperman,k_cms,Ratherbe2000,R'n'B Good to see you finally here. A few points, 1) physical"size" can easily be handled through a collapsible box. 2) A queen like Raven (drag queen) doesn't count as notable enough in the show? 3) "Supposed to be used for? What Policy are you pointing to? 4) And for the closest comparison, as I indicated below, the template is simpler than the one for {{The Bachelor}}. Naraht (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a place for facts, not opinion. Just because you like Raven (drag queen) does not mean she should be included in the box. She did not win a season or Miss C. Dallasansel (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
As a runner up in both a season and an all-star season she has been in far more episodes than most of the Miss C. or even some of the season winners.Naraht (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The argument made in previous discussions is that the participants are notable because of their involvement in the show. For the most part, they were not "celebrities" before their appearance, therefore they belong in this navbox (similar to how categorization uses WP:DEFINING). --woodensuperman 16:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Your argument that "The other contestants do not hold enough notability within the show" holds no water. Most of the participants are only notable for being in the show. --woodensuperman 08:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The argument that there is "no room" is BS. This is a relatively compact navbox. And as you can see from the discussion I linked above, there is some consensus that non-celebrity participants for reality shows do belong in navboxes, as the reality show is what they are primarily known for to the wider world. Per WP:PERFNAV, we don't include hosts, judges, celebrity contestants, etc., as these people are known for many other things. Better comparisons are navboxes for other "talent" shows, like {{America's Next Top Model}}, {{The Voice (U.S.)}}, etc. --woodensuperman 09:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Always best to make it hard to navigate for our readers because for some reason the film project hates big boxes. Should be reorganization with readers in-mind.--Moxy (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the contestants, per woodensuperman's comments. The inclusion of non-winning contestants of a reality show (and Ru the day that reality shows began to indoctrinate society that all the world is a mistrusting battleground) have been discussed before. I saw this discussion mentioned, and first read the discussion without looking at the template which I then expected to find as a very large template. What I found is that the template is not large at all, and it is well-arranged and understandable. I guess I'm not understanding what the problem is except for the notability of the non-winning contestants, which has been addressed by woodensuperman above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would the users who are insisting on continually removing these entries note that prior consensus for navboxes of this type is to include non-celebrity participants, per the examples I've listed above, and consensus in this discussion is also to include. Rather than continually revert, I would suggest that you continue to discuss. Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, neither of you have posited a good reason for excluding these. Note that this content already existed as it was included on another navbox, a merge was necessary as we don't need two navboxes - a single navbox is of an easily manageable size. --woodensuperman 08:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • we should definitely keep the list of other contestants. as stated above, they are frequently primarily known for appearing on the show, so are definitely a core part of the show. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


How are people in the "Other contestants" ordered? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be in reverse elimination order (i.e., place) by (original) season? So Season one 5th, 8th, then 9th place, Season two runner-up, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 12th place, Season 3 runner-up, etc. Umimmak (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't we either display them alphabetically, by order of elimination, or by season? The current order makes no sense. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
or by season It is by season, though? The contestants are ordered by season and then within each season by placement. Other options are a possibility though, but I see the logic with the current order. Umimmak (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess I meant to say, should we actually separate and display them by season so readers have a better understanding of the order? I'm open to whatever, I just find the current order a bit arbitrary and confusing at first glance. I'm a fan of the show, and I couldn't easily tell the order, let alone someone who is not familiar with the queens or show. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah they used to be in their own navbox [1] which was clearer; someone later merged them without discussion leading to this unorganized list. Umimmak (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with having a single RuPaul's Drag Race template, but I do like how that template had queens separated by season. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's much cleaner to separate the names by season (and list contestants in reverse elimination order within each season). Could the format of the old template be introduced as a series of subcategories in the "Other contestants" section? There already are sub-headers at the same level for the "Winners" category, so it wouldn't even be visually inconsistent.
If we don't separate them by season, I think it would be preferable to simply list the names alphabetically, as the current order is decipherable only to people familiar with the topic, and even then it's messy. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
One other thing I notice is that, as Valentina is the only Miss Congeniality without her own article, the "Miss Congeniality" section of this template isn't an exhaustive list like the winners' list is. And as it is a freestanding category, I think it ought to either unambiguously list all Miss C winners from season 1 to present or clearly indicate which season each winner was from.
But, in light of the current discussion, one idea that crosses my mind is to separate "Other contestants" by season, list each Miss C in her season at the appropriate point in the elimination order, and simply place a special symbol after the name to indicate that the contestant was Miss C. Presumably the symbol's "legend" could be added to the bottom of the box. Would that idea appeal to anyone? Armadillopteryxtalk 22:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Armadillopteryx and Umimmak: I'd like to separate this out a bit, since we're starting to discuss several different things. Please comment below: ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes, Randy Kryn, Moxy, Naraht, Dallasansel, Woodensuperman, K CMS, and Oath2order: Pinging other talk page contributors, in case you care to contribute to the discussions below. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be alphabetical by season. Brocicle (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you are looking for a precedent to model this navbox on, then I would suggest {{Big Brother in the United States}}. --woodensuperman 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we want to separate names by season?[edit]

  • I vote yes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Me too. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have strong feelings either way. Are we expecting a reader who wants to be able to find a contestant's article by looking it up in the navbox and might it be the case that they know a name but not which season? In this case it might be better to have them all together but alphabetically. But if we want to organize to show the readers which contestants from which seasons have articles then splitting it by season might be useful. Umimmak (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I think it's confusing if season is used to order the contestants (i.e., either by elimination order or by placement, or, I suppose, alphabetically by season) but they aren't separated by season. But it would also work to just have all contestants sorted alphabetically without taking their season into consideration. Umimmak (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is also my position. Ordering by appearance/elimination order within season, without explicitly separating contestants by season, makes it harder for anyone not already knowledgeable about the show to find whom they're looking for. A strictly alphabetical list, or a list with season sub-headers, would serve the purpose of a navigation template much better. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. This will make the navbox too large. Other navboxes of this type do not do this. --woodensuperman 12:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Should names be displayed alphabetically or in reverse elimination order?[edit]

  • I don't feel too strongly, but I'm leaning alphabetically. Just looking at a template, the order seems arbitrary if you have no idea how contestants were eliminated, unless the template specifically notes how entries are ordered. And in the grand scheme of things, does the order in which contestants were eliminated really matter? All people mentioned here are included because they have been deemed notable, not because they were eliminated sooner or later on a reality series. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Since it's the contest's template and elimination order is relevant to the competition, I have a slight preference for using reverse elimination order. Why not include the order when it adds information without taking up extra space? That said, the above comment makes valid points, and indeed my preference is not strong. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Seems neither of us feel too strongly, so let's see what others think as well. If we decide to display names non-alphabetically, I propose we include a note to clarify the order in which names appear. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd support that. But indeed, let's see which way the scale tips :-D Armadillopteryxtalk 23:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we clarify what "alphabetically" means? I think I'd prefer to have it be consistently in order of their name starting from the beginning instead of from what editors assume to be the surname. Umimmak (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Order should be by appearance. --woodensuperman 12:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by appearance? Surely not by like who appears first (I.e., workroom entrance order) Umimmak (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. Do you mean by order of elimination? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Contestants who appeared in the first show listed first, then the second show, etc, etc. Maybe alphabetically thereafter, doesn't really matter. This is only for navigation, not information. That's what the articles are for. --woodensuperman 08:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Is just regular elimination order (strictly speaking reverse rank I guess cause of complications with returning contestants) by season an option as well? It's the order they appear in List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, the order the non-finalists get interviewed in for the finale, etc. Umimmak (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
They were listed by placement (per List of Ru Paul's Drag Race contestants), which is fair enough. Returning contestants should be listed by first appearance, unless they are a winner and listed in that group. --woodensuperman 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: The "other" queens are now listed alphabetically. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Revert by Woodensuperman. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How should we denote contestants named "Miss Congeniality"?[edit]

  • My vote is to list queens by season, and denote Miss Congeniality winners with an asterisk. (I don't think there should be a separate line specifically for Miss Congeniality winners. This is not a major part of RuPaul's Drag Race, and keeping a separate line means duplicating entries. I think simply placing an asterisk with a key at the bottom is sufficient. I don't see every other reality show template noting "fan favorites" -- we should treat this template the same way.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I like Another Believer's suggestion to just use an asterisk. I'm also not crazy about there being a dedicated Miss C line to begin with. It feels a bit like a waste of space since its information can be communicated more succinctly. And if we do separate "Other contestants" by season, the Miss C line would break the flow of sub-headers between the winners' section and the others' section. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Big Brother (U.S.) has "America's Favorite Houseguest" which is similar to Miss Congeniality but it doesn't have a separate category for them. But I also don't know how many of its AFHs have their own article. I also wonder if we could use italics or bold to denote MCs or winners instead of asterisks which adds extra characters. Umimmak (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Maybe italics for Miss C, and bold for winners (if we don't keep the winners on their own line). Armadillopteryxtalk 08:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If they're not winners they should just be listed with the other contestants. These should not be split by season as this will make the navbox too large. --woodensuperman 12:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking for a precedent to model this navbox on, then I would suggest {{Big Brother in the United States}}. --woodensuperman 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we move forward?[edit]

Extended content

While there are still some issues to sort out on this talk page, there seems to be consensus to remove the "Miss Congeniality" line. Is someone familiar with contestant order willing to move entries from the Miss Congeniality line to the "Other contestants" section? I'll try to take a stab at this if no one else is game. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems premature to merge them until we know in what order we should display them all. Is there a need to merge them now before we figure out whether to separate by season or not and display by rank, elimination order, or alphabetically? Umimmak (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting, I was just trying to get the ball rolling on implementing changes to this template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you guys suppose that more people will still come to weigh in, or should we start taking steps toward reaching consensus? Armadillopteryxtalk 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I pinged several editors above. Not sure how long we want to wait, but I feel like we should be bold and start making changes where there tends to be more agreement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I think being bold is a fair move now. If the pinged editors (or anyone else) feels strongly about the changes, they can weigh in as they like. As you mentioned above, everyone who has spoken so far seems to prefer merging the Miss Congeniality winners with the other contestants. That would certainly be reasonable to change (typesetting the Miss C names in what, italics?). How about also going ahead and separating by season? There wasn't 100% consensus for that, but it seems to be majority preference for now. As for alphabetically vs. reverse elimination order within seasons, that seems split 50/50, so either would be fair for a bold edit, I think. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Can we try an asterisk for Miss C recipients? To me, italics are for titles of artworks, books/journals, etc. I think a symbol is less ambiguous. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
We do not need to denote Miss Congeniality recipients at all. They are not winners. They should just be listed with all the other contestants. This is a navigational aid, readers who want additional information should use the articles. --woodensuperman 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Have merged, by season, then in order of placement. --woodensuperman 10:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The merge looks good. I don't mind whether or not we specify Miss C winners, so leaving them unmarked (as now) is fine. I do think the "other contestants" list ought to either be separated by season or simply alphabetised. The current order makes sense to us because we happen to be familiar with the contestants and progress of each season, but the casual reader would benefit more from an order that doesn't require prior knowledge of the show. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Shall we display winners names, or denote using symbols?[edit]

Since the idea above re: using an asterisk to denote Miss Congeniality winners, I'm now wondering if we should do the same for winners of both the regular and "all stars" seasons, using different symbols? Again, having separate lines for winners means we're duplicating entries if we decide to display names by season. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not active on any other reality show pages and so am not very familiar with reality TV template conventions, but I just took a quick look at the templates for American Idol, X Factor and Big Brother. Those all seem to list winners separately. Should we do the same here to remain consistent with reality TV templates in general? Granted, I know that the three templates I looked at can hardly be considered a representative sample, so maybe someone more familiar with these templates could weigh in.
Presumably if we keep the winners separate, we wouldn't actually duplicate those names the "Other" section, right? Armadillopteryxtalk 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, but if we're separating names by season, why not just keep the winner with the other season competitors and denote the winner? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The main reason that comes to my mind is consistency with other shows' templates; those seem to normally list the winners under their own dedicated heading. If we do denote the winner as just an entry in the season's contestant list, then I think the names should definitely be listed in reverse elimination order to keep the winner first. Miss Congeniality, as you mentioned, isn't really a big deal on the grand scale of the show, whereas winning certainly is. So also I think that the importance of winning justifies its own row more than being Miss C. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Leave the structure as it is, but merge the Miss Congeniality group. One group for winners, one group for everyone else. --woodensuperman 12:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


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

This conversation seems to have died down without a decision being made. Is everyone happy with the template as is? I would personally prefer to separate the "Other" section by season or to strictly alphabetize it. It sounded like others were interested in that, too. Is that still the case? Armadillopteryxtalk 16:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree -- time to make some decisions. Well, if having 10+ rows (one for each season) makes the template too large, I'm having with simply listing the queens alphabetically. Readers curious about placement can visit List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, or season articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Either works for me; I just dislike the current system. So where are we on the other issues? Are we only separating out winners (not MCs), and not marking MCs in the list of (non-winning) contestants with a diacritic/font change? Winners are chronological, not alphabetical? Umimmak (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Other reality TV show templates seem to keep winners chronological, so perhaps it would be good to be consistent with that here. It seemed like there was vague consensus for the current version w/r/t Miss C under the "Extended content" discussion above, though that could just be my interpretation. Personally I don't mind whether or not we specially mark Miss C winners. I would say that if we keep winners chronological, perhaps it does make the most sense to keep other contestants chronological (and separated), too. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I made a WP:BOLD move and alphabetized them since it seems most of us prefer that to the previous version. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is the consensus. These should appear in chronological order, per WP:NAVBOX which states: "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links". This is how any other navbox of this type deals with this. Also, any alphabetical order should be by surname, which is not possible here. --woodensuperman 09:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that quote applies here, especially taking WP:IAR into account. I see at least one major benefit to alphabetization (or: explicitly separating by season), and that's ease of navigation, which is the very purpose of this template. Anyone who is not already highly familiar with the show will not understand the logic of how the names are organized at present, and this makes it harder for the people who actually need this navbox to find what they're looking for. We also discussed above (and were in agreement) that alphabetization of names should start from the beginning of the name and not from what may or may not be a surname.
I think it's also worth noting that at least three people prefer alphabetization while only one prefers the existing version, so if you want to use consensus as an argument, surely a 3 to 1 preference is closer to that than a 1 to 3 preference.
I would be fine leaving the names in the order they have been reverted to if (and only if) we explicitly separate them by season. How do people feel about that compromise? Armadillopteryxtalk 10:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, if you're going to alphabetize something, at least do it properly. Separating by season is a terrible idea, as it will make the navbox far too large, and we'd end up with some very small groups with only one entry. We'll have something akin to the monstrosity that was here. I point once again to how every single other navbox of this type handle this in chronological order: {{Big Brother UK}}, {{Big Brother in the United States}}, {{The Great British Bake Off}}, {{Australia's Next Top Model}}, {{Asia's Next Top Model}} etc... --woodensuperman 10:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
One thing I agree with you on is that alphabetical order would ideally be by surname, but that isn't possible here since many of these names are mononyms. I actually like the "monstrosity" you linked and find it much clearer than what we have. Now that both Asia O'Hara and Vanessa Vanjie Mateo have their own articles, there would no longer be any categories with just one entry, either. IMHO all navboxes of this type, including the ones you've linked, would also better serve the very purpose they're designed for if those names were alphabetical or separated by season. Why do we have navboxes if only people who already know their content by heart can understand how they're organized? Armadillopteryxtalk 11:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You should never sort by first name if there is a surname present. Splitting by season makes the navbox too large, a chronological progression is the natural order here, otherwise people can just use the category Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants if they are looking for an alphabetical list. --woodensuperman 11:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, alphabetical is helpful, and in many cases these are not true surnames. Any other way of sorting seems arbitrary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Alphabetical is arbitrary if this is the case. --woodensuperman 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
How is alphabetical ever arbitrary? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
If you're not following standard alphabetization rules it is. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
We're talking drag names here, not actual surnames. I support sorting alphabetically by first name/drag name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is clearly wrong. I've asked for further input from the relevant wikiproject, hopefully to break the stalemate. --woodensuperman 13:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
No, not "clearly wrong", just wrong in your opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
A pseudonym should still be sorted by surname. --woodensuperman 14:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
These are not real surnames! We shouldn't sort Thorgy Thor based on "Thor"... ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Woodensuperman: Please be careful with your reverting. 3 editors above expressed a preference to sort by first name, not surname. Your reverts are not appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you should absolutely sort that by "Thor". Bad example though, as it barely makes a difference when considering where to place it. How about Kennedy Davenport? How is it any different to Vance Joy (to pick a random example)? --woodensuperman 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Not a bad example. A very suitable example. Also, I don't wish to mix these 2 conversations (I think categories and navigation templates should be treated separately), but I've started a related discussion at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll use another example: Detox Icunt. Do you really want to sort by Icunt, even though she is almost always referred to as Detox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:SURNAME states that "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym." Therefore we would alphabetize using the same logic. --woodensuperman 14:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Silly. Asking folks to search for "Detox Icunt" under "I" for "Icunt" is ridiculous. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ditto Alaska Thunderfuck. Should be under "A", not "T". ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Not silly or ridiculous, but correct. They should be under I and T respectively. --woodensuperman 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is your opinion, but more editors prefer differently. We're going in circles here, so I'll let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Detox and Alaska are listed simply by their first names on the template, though, because they're often known by their first names only. So surely under both those sets of rules they'd be alphabetized by their first names. Kim Chi should certainly not be filed under "Chi," though :-p
But also, let's first decide whether we're even doing this alphabetically or not before going down the rabbit hole of which alphabetization scheme is most appropriate here. The compromise suggested below (with standard formatting) is my favorite thing that's been proposed in this entire discussion, so if we don't go alphabetical, I'm happy with that. Armadillopteryxtalk 14:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This is kind of why alphabetical sorting is not really possible or appropriate, and possibly arbitrary. I think we have to go with the compromise suggested below. --woodensuperman 14:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, maybe we need to discuss moving Detox Icunt to Detox (drag queen) and Alaska Thunderfuck to Alaska (drag queen). But I agree with your point re: how they are commonly referred to by their first name, which is all the more reason to sort by first name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Well no, as per the MOS "natural disambiguation" is preferred over parentheticals. And Alaska often goes by "Alaska Thunderfuck", see billing for "Steel Dragnolias" [2], [3]. I don't see how it's not really possible to alphabetize by first name -- this is how, for instance, queens were presented by VH1 in promotional materials for S10 so there's a clear precedent there. Umimmak (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Well, I can't revert Woodensuperman's revert again (3 revert rule), but there's a clear preference here for sorting by first name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Another benefit to alphabetization is that there's less confusion about contestants who competed on multiple seasons like Shangela, Cynthia, and Eureka... one might imagine that if they are explicitly listed by season it would be misleading to only list them on their original season, but there's no confusion about cases like these if the order is alphabetical. Umimmak (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
But there is clear confusion as to where you might find them in an alphabetical list, as this discussion is proving. You cannot expect Carmen Carrera, Cynthia Lee Fontaine, Alyssa Edwards or Jasmine Masters to be sorted by their first name. --woodensuperman 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Why not? A drag name is not a legal name, and I think that anyone looking for a specific queen will intuitively look for the mononym/first name since that's how the queens are referred to on the show, in promotional materials, and in fan circles. I think alphabetizing by the first letter of the drag name (first name or mononym) removes the problem of needing to figure out what qualifies as a last name, or who is usually known by both the first and last name, etc. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You need to be following standard Wikipedia rules here, not make up specific ones for a single TV show. --woodensuperman 15:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia rules include WP:IAR and WP:5P5, which says that the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. In this case, what matters most is creating a navbox that is clear, helpful and useful to the widest possible set of readers, including the uninitiated. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure you can. Plenty of sources list Alyssa under A, for instance this [4] listing the queens in AS2. Umimmak (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you can. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is a clear preference to sort by first name here. I support reverting back to the version sorted alphabetically by first name. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there is more support for the by season options below. We should definitely NOT be changing to an alphabetical order at this stage, while this is still being discussed. Hopefully my notices at relevant projects will bring some more eyes, as we're in a weird stalemate with too many options right now. --woodensuperman 15:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not quite accurate. I don't mind continuing that discussion, but for now, there's a clear preference for sorting by first name based on this conversation. We can update again in the future as consensus allows, but right now there's consensus to sort alphabetically over the current order. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Umimmak (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Umimmak: I cannot revert Woodensuperman's revert again (3RR), but you're welcome to if you feel inclined. No pressure, just explaining why I cannot revert again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely DO NOT do this. I will get an admin involved if this happens. --woodensuperman 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Of the four editors currently discussing, two of us prefer the by season option below, with Armadillopteryx calling it "my favorite thing that's been proposed in this entire discussion", so there is clearly no consensus to change this navbox to an alphabetical order, and we maintain the status quo. --woodensuperman 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Please feel free to invite an admin. You're in the wrong here, and your threat is not appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oops, I was putting it back for now before I saw these messages. Maybe we should all take an hour or so to decompress and come back to this. Yes, the separated by season option below is my favorite, but I feel like there is a lot of heat in this discussion right now and that it's not helping anyone or resolving the disagreement. Can we return to this shortly? Armadillopteryxtalk 15:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It needs to stay at the stable version, so please revert your edit. --woodensuperman 15:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman: I agree it should stay at a stable version, and taking into account everything that has been said over the past weeks and especially today, I think that the most stable we have at present is the current one, though it is also my personal preference to use the compromise version separated by season. I explain more in a new section below. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I've requested page protection. --woodensuperman
(edit conflict) @Armadillopteryx: Your edit is in line with consensus. We can all continue to discuss the template, but your change reflects current preferences. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
How can it be in line with consensus? This might be consensus IF we order alphabetically but to do that has not been decided yet, as 50% of us prefer the version below!!!! --woodensuperman 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, you're missing the point. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: Alpha sorting by first name has been restored. I propose archiving and/or collapsing this discussion. I'm not opposed to revisiting this again, but for now there's a consensus and, for the sake of organization/readability, creating a new section would be helpful. This talk page is getting a bit unruly. Any opposition? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx, Umimmak, and Woodensuperman: Are any of you opposed to me collapsing this "Decision?" section? Nothing will be lost. I just think we've all made our points here, and a new section should be started if we want to revisit. Trying to keep this talk page readable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose we can re-make our points in a more concise manner if/when new editors join the discussion. Umimmak (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It's fine by me. I won't miss the scrolling :-D Armadillopteryxtalk 16:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
3 out of 4 is good enough for me. Collapsing for readability and organizational purposes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

One other idea[edit]

Just to throw another idea out there, how about keeping the current order but demarcating the seasons in a space-efficient way? Obviously the code needs to be refined and the season backgrounds fixed, but the below example serves as a concept sketch. Does this appeal to anyone? Armadillopteryxtalk 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you're considering other options, but I do not like this version. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of compromise that's a reasonable alternative, but you should probably use the standard syntax as follows:
--woodensuperman 14:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I still oppose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Re alphabetical order, the MOS also says "unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. [...] Snoop Dogg, [...])". This is clearly analogous. And plenty of RS which would otherwise refer to people by their surname after subsequent mention refer to the queens by their first names after being introduced, e.g., the New York Times [5] introduces Katya Zamolodchikova and then refers to "Katya", not "Zamolodchikova" in subsequent mentions. It also feels OR-y for an editor to decide if something is a last name or not. It is not obvious that "Kim Chi" should be alphabetized "Chi, Kim", particularly since Kim is a common family name in Korea and the family name precedes the given name in Korean. I also still oppose the order by rank, i.e., where Nina Flowers precedes Victoria "Porkchop" Parker. The default order in List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants is by elimination order, and I think that would be preferable in my view so there's consistency. Umimmak (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants is in reverse order, so we are already consistent with that, it's just turned the right way round. --woodensuperman 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
What makes rank over elimination order "the right way round"? Umimmak (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It's no longer in reverse order. --woodensuperman 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The forward direction of each of these orders is the reverse of the other, and I think both are valid sorting mechanisms that can be established by context and discussion. Neither is objectively right or wrong. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The first queen eliminated on S1 was Victoria "Porkchop" Parker, the second queen eliminated on S1 was Tammie Brown, etc. This is as justifiable an order, and the order with precedent on List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. Umimmak (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not like how the text wraps. If we're going to separate by season, then construct a proper navigation template with seasons separated by row. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this would make the navbox too large. --woodensuperman 15:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by the text wrapping, and I would also not be bothered in the navbox were larger. It is collapsible, after all. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather see a collapse option than bad text wrapping. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version[edit]

Just to be clear, the reason I made this restore is because that appears to be the most stable version for now. We still clearly have a lot to discuss with one another and with whomever else weighs in. But from my perspective, the most "stable" version of the template is the one that has the least active opposition. I am personally neutral with respect to the current version, with my preference for the proposal I made above. But I am happier with the current version than with the one I have been asked to re-revert to, and I think that the majority is also happier with this for now. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for restoring the version based on current consensus. I hope we all can continue to discuss further improvements to the template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Umimmak (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Eureka (drag queen)[edit]


I'm not exactly sure where to add Eureka (drag queen)... ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In the current order, between Aja and Charlie to be consistent with Shangela being after Morgan/before Manila, but I thought we're making it alphabetical or making it by elimination order instead of by rank by season? Umimmak (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, there are ongoing discussions to change the order, but I didn't want to move forward w/o consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2018[edit]

Please change Eureka (drag queen) to Eureka O'Hara, since the page has been moved. Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It really should be [[Eureka O'Hara|Eureka]] since she's only known as "Eureka" in the context of the show. Compare what the template does for Detox ([[Detox Icunt|Detox]]) or Alaska ([[Alaska Thunderfuck|Alaska]]) Umimmak (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd prefer we not pipe any names and just have them listed as their article title. In other words, change "Alaska" to "Alaska Thunderfuck", etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well regardless they should all be consistent; I was figuring there was more precedent to have the name in the template be the drag name they competed under. Umimmak (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Blair St. Clair[edit]


Blair St. Clair might be redirected, but if expanded/kept/sourced, we should add to this template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Has been added, but also the article has been nominated for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact is that Blair St. Clair is not known significantly for anything other than being on RPDR, and he didn't win it. The combination of those two means that there really isn't the notability to be its own article. IMO, it should be left as the standard redirect to the season.Naraht (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, and we shouldn't drag the AfD discussion to this thread, but I did want to add Blair St. Clair to the template as long as she has an article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

RunnerUp articles...[edit]

As of right now, the only person who has been a runner up on a season (main or all stars) who doesn't have an article is Naomi Smalls...Naraht (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race should be in the infobox, yeah? Just under related articles or is there a better place? Umimmak (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Drag Race Thailand[edit]

Not sure where to ask this... but I don't see why there's a separate page for the second season for DRT -- auditions haven't even finished yet, let alone has it aired. If it's mean to parallel *RuPaul's Drag Race* then have an article for the show as a whole and then separate ones for each season once each season develops notability and has enough content to warrant a separate article. But right now Ratherbe2000 changed it so Drag Race Thailand is just about season one with no discussion of (or link to) season two, and there's a separate stub for the season two. In an edit summary they said We already have a page for season 2, and the headings should be the same as the American version. -- I don't see why that should necessarily be the case. Once each season develops independent notability and enough content for its own article, sure, but for now it can be like The Boulet Brothers' Dragula or The Switch Drag Race where all the information for the show is in one page. Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)