Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race season 7/Archive 1

Is it January or Spring?

So is the season starting in Spring or is it starting in January? The citations on that line are conflicting. VisaBlack (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, by these standards January could be part of spring. However it isn't going to be January 26th, LogoTV has their schedule for the next two weeks on their website and there is nothing RuPaul related on January 26th.Naraht (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Season premiere

I've removed the results of the first episode for now, even though part of it was shown at the LA premiere party. Readers need to be able to verify the information on Wikipedia, and that doesn't appear to be the case until there are reliable sources published. hinnk (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

98.237.141.251 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request specified. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit 24 February 2015

Please remove the first episode results as it has not aired on television yet. While the episode (minus the last act/elimination) as been showed at official LogoTV premiere parties - the general public should not be informed the results. Please remove immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogoTV (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed any info from the first episode that isn't verifiable. So far, the only source provided seems to have been a pirated copy on YouTube. Our verifiability policy asks us to use reliable sources so that readers can check the information posted here, and I'd ask editors not to add information to the article until sources are available, whether or not that happens before the premiere. hinnk (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2015

|Max |Max Malanaphy |22 |Minneapolis, MN ||SAFE |Max |Max Malanaphy |22 |Hudson, WI ||SAFE Lokisun (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC) please change location

It sounds like he had already moved from Hudson to Minneapolis when the show was filmed. [1][2] hinnk (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Episode 2 results 4 days early?

I think someone is trying to be a troll and update episode 2 how they like. Even if this information is correct, it cannot be verified since the episode has yet to air, and even moreso, shouldn't be posted until everyone can watch the episode if whoever is updating it has somehow seen a bootleg or pirated copy of the next episode (which I doubt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.246.233.245 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The second episode leaked several days ago, and you're right that the information doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Unfortunately it gets re-added occasionally. hinnk (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Available on the App should be allowed here...

The partial episodes watchable on the official App are referencable and thus should be allowed to be posted here.Naraht (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about my earlier revert. I didn't realize it was available through the app and assumed it was unverifiable. hinnk (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Judged as a team...

Haven't seen the episode yet, but IMO, any case where the entire winning team is safe from elimintation, then they should *all* be high similar to the way that things happened in Drag Race to Hell (Ep 3) in Season 6.

Yeah, I'd say the winning team is all high since none of them were singled out. However, on the losing team, I'd say that Katya and Kandy should be marked as safe since they were specifically singled out by the judges as doing a good job even while the rest of their team did not. 96.226.75.4 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

During the episode, Ru states that Max's team is safe and that Max is the winner of the challenge for pulling "double duty." She then states that the entire other team is up for elimination. If we want to list Max's entire team as "HIGH" then I don't think that is unreasonable. Katya and Kandy were absolutely not safe and were explicitly told they were up for elimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The team as a whole won the challenge, they were not judged as individuals. In many other instances, RuPaul told someone "You're safe" and we marked them as "HIGH" in the tables, because it reflects their performance that week. RuPaul will never say "You're in the top for this week". She will give compliments, and say that this individual was better than other, for example. This week, Max's team was clearly better than Kennedy's team, and they WON the challenge, this is why they are marked as HIGH. As I said in my comment, go see Season 6 episode 3, Season 5 episode 2, Season 4 episode 4. All these teams that won and marked as HIGH all had contestants that did not do well, but they are still marked as HIGH since they were on the winning team. Katya and Kandy Ho were cleary not in the bottom and RuPaul identified them as better than the rest of the team, that's why we need to mark them as SAFE. ─ Fabzzz _talk 02:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a true statement: Ru told Team Kennedy that they were ALL up for elimination. Just because they were the best of the bottom they were still eligible for elimination based off what Ru said during the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Being eligible for elimination doesn't mean they performed badly. Katya and Kandy Ho were on the losing team and that's why they were eligible, but the LOW classification in the table means that they were among the worst for this week, and while they were on the losing team, they were not among the worst. RuPaul and the judges clearly singled out Pearl, Kennedy and Jasmine as the three worsts. That is why Katya and Kandy Ho need to be marked as SAFE, and not LOW. ─ Fabzzz _talk 02:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They were not "SAFE" though. They were left on the main stage with the other girls who performed poorly for critiques. I do not know how you can be safe but be marked as eligible for elimination by the main judge. I am literally quoting the episode and you are giving your opinion. 68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If they considered them safe, then Ru were have said "you are safe" and sent them backstage to untuck during critiques. There have been several challenges were girls worked in teams and part of the team was safe while part was high/low. This was not the case this time. 68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing I mentionned earlier; they were judged as a team, not as individuals. Automatically, any contestants that did good on the losing team were on that main stage for the judges critiques. However, if you watched the episode, you can clearly understand how Katya and Kandy Ho were not in danger whatsoever to be in the bottom, and were not among the worsts. They were SAFE. And to add to what you were saying, if you understood what RuPaul said to both Katya and Kandy Ho, she said "You're safe". So stop staying this is my opinion and all that, because it's not. This is simply how judging works. I insist for you to go see Season 6, Season 5, and Season 4. These are just more example of bad contestants on winning team, and good contestants on losing teams and we either marked them as HIGH or SAFE. ─ Fabzzz _talk 02:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It was never stated in the episode that they were being judged as a team. This has been explicitly stated in episodes before but was not the case this episode. RuPaul told those six girls (Katya, Kandy, Violet, Kennedy, Pearl, and Jasmine) that they were up for elimination. I don't know how that can be considered safe. 68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While it was not mentionned they are not judged as a team, it was pretty evident they were judged as a team and not individual. RuPaul was refering to Team Max and Team Kennedy. I have been editing those RuPaul's Drag Race table for a while now, and that's always how it works. It happened so many times when someone was getting judged but were still marked as SAFE. It is not because someone is getting judged that they are automatically either HIGH or LOW, they can be SAFE. I am not sure what's missing here. ─ Fabzzz _talk 02:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I get that you have been doing this for some time but there is a lot of assumptions in your argument. I say that based off of statements like "while it was not mentionned they are not judged as a team,..." I gave you the compromise of listing all of Team Max as HIGH even though Miss Fame says during the untucked episode "I thought I was better than safe." But Katya and Kandy were deemed to be low this week and eligible for elimination. When further critiques were given, I agree they stood out as the best among the worst but that does not change the initial statement given by Ru.68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really mind at this point, because this page is not semi-protected anymore and anyone else can modify this page. If it's not me, someone else will change it to SAFE at some point because they were clearly SAFE and not among the worst for that week.─ Fabzzz _talk 02:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I will keep editing this page to reflect what was stated within the episode.68.117.149.231 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to direct you guys to WP:3RR. Please make it stop. hinnk (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the articles for other seasons, I agree that the "LOW" result should only be for contestants who are singled out for negative feedback. We've run into this situtation before: Ru specifically said "Each of you is up for elimination" in "Queens in Space", but Raja, Manila, and India are listed as "SAFE" because they didn't get negative feedback from the judges. hinnk (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I think Violet should be listed as SAFE as well. She was clearly not in danger of being in the bottom 2 and was given great feedback about her runway look.68.117.149.231 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Maxi Challenge

I've noticed a couple of times RuPaul using "Maxi Challenge" to refer to the main challenge of the week. I don't think this terminology was used in previous seasons. Should we reflect that in the notation for this season?Naraht (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Please write a Trixie's farewell message: - wear clown noses - make fun of each other - stay plastic! TRIXIE MATTEL P.S.: Fame - I used your lipstick. Sorry :) Inmyheadiamdead (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the place for ridiculous trash. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like someone else ended up adding it. The field doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, but k6ka, your comment was so incredibly inappropriate. Please don't bite the newcomers. hinnk (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers / Unverifiable

I've seen a trend of people adding results to episodes that are 5-6 days away from airing, and no times have I seen a {{spoiler}} warning added to the page until after the episode has aired. I was just giving the article some general cleanup and I accidentally read the main challenge winner for episode five, and I'm assuming the bottom two queens were listed there too. To note, it wasn't verified and I hope it was a false edit, but should we have a rule about writing in results before an episode airs? If not for spoilers sake but reliability? Thanks, Azealia911 (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Were you trying not to look at the text when you reverted it? I think you might not have read what you think you did. What you reverted was the mini-challenge result and a description of the main challenge without its results. My guess is that it was a valid edit based on the app preview, in which case it would be verifiable. I don't have the app, so I'll let someone who does re-add the info. I don't see any templates to indicate spoilers on Wikipedia, so I'm guessing it isn't customary to use one. hinnk (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh was it only the mini challenge? Oh thank goodness, my bad I guess. Yep I wasn't even looking at what I reverted so that I didn't spoil anything else for myself, if it was only the description and mini challange winner then please feel free to revert my edit. Sorry for the hassle haha, Azealia911 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Trixie's elemination

Should it be included that Trixie's elemination caused a massive social media uproar, with many people questioning the credibility of the show, contestants Max and Pearl disagreeing publicly with the decision, former contestants coming for Trixie's support, Trixie herself saying she felt shocked by her being in the bottom two and RuPaul lashing out on Twitter defending his decision?

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/television/2015/03/27/last-words-rupauls-drag-races-trixie-mattel --92.211.25.44 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I did add something along those lines, but another user thought it wasn't notable enough. Azealia911 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

Please change the status of Max, Violet Chachki and Mrs. Kasha Davis at episode 4 from SAFE to LOW, as it was in a previous version of this edition, because it was what really happened, the only safe queens were Miss Fame and Ginger Minj. We had 6 low queens, it's a high number, but all of them received harsh critiques as equals. 186.204.212.211 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MAX, Kasha Davis and Violet Chachki positions in episode 4

Please change the status of Max, Violet Chachki and Mrs. Kasha Davis at episode 4 from SAFE to LOW, as it was in a previous version of this edition and in the example I'm showing down, because it was what really happened, the only safe queens were Miss Fame and Ginger Minj. We had 6 low queens, it's a high number, but all of them received harsh critiques as equals.

I do think there is a drastic change to who the judges give critique to this season. I understand there are select examples but the vast majority of episodes have the top and bottom girls of each episode. This season does not seem to follow that same trend. Great example is the most recent episode where Ginger Minj was given critique on stage. It was overwhelmingly positive except for one comment by Ru that was quickly dismissed by all the other judges and another comment by Michelle about using less spray on her forehead. Kennedy and JDF were not given any feedback except that they are safe. I understand that a precedent has been set from the previous 7 seasons (including All-Stars) but I think the standard for determining high and low in each episode needs to be re-evaluated because right now it appears to be the opinion of editors and not what is broadcast during the episode. I am not saying I disagree with their opinions but since they are opinions then they shouldn't be reflected in this wiki page but instead reflect how the girls are referred to in each episode. This may end up ruffling feathers because it has not been how things have been done in the past but this season is simply different.

That being said I would like to propose the following changes:

1. Episode 3 - Kandy Ho and Katya should be listed as low because they were explicitly told they were up for elimination before critiques were given. If they were safe, they would have been sent backstage. This was not the case.

2. Episode 4 - Max, MKD, and Violet were kept on stage while Miss Fame and Ginger Minj were declared safe. If they were safe, then they would have been sent backstage as well.

3. Episode 5 - JDF and Kennedy should be listed as safe. There is no feedback from the judges about their performance so we cannot assume they were considered high. We know they are considered safe because RuPaul stated that.

If you don't agree with these suggestions, then let me propose another solution. Have only one LOW plus the bottom two each week. RuPaul consistently will let one girl know she is in the bottom two, tell a few more girls they are safe, and have two girls remain on stage until one is told they will lip sync and that the other is safe. If you agree with this, then Violet should be listed as safe in episode 3. 68.117.149.231 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

My arguments came from direct quotes given by the main judge and executive producer during the episodes. Here is a link to the episodes: http://www.logotv.com/shows/rupauls_drag_race/season_7/series.jhtml 68.117.149.231 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So I have been waiting patiently for a response since the moderators feel like this article should be locked. This seems like a few people are digging their nails in a refusing to change. That isn't fair. Do I need to create an account just to be heard? 68.117.149.231 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone want to included the fact that spoilers were revealed on 24 March? And the fact they were right (so far)

SPOILERS DON'T OPEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM https://plus.google.com/u/0/wm/4/102451405247628889901/posts/4jfgdr2M363?pid=6129672960504188226&oid=102451405247628889901 SPOILERS DON'T OPEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel8261 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition of information prior to completed airing of episodes

It should be noted that any information added prior to the completion of an episode airing on the east coast airtime of the series is strictly a violation of the crystal-ball policy. Added in prior violates its verifiability, and is not acceptable to Wikipedia standards. Again, do not add any information unless it said-episode has completed airing on Logo TV's east coast broadcast. Any spoilers or [extended] previews also violate the crystal-ball policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Except that Logo has consistently shown extended previews consisting of most if not all of the Mini-challenges. In this case, posting the Mini-challenge and the winners thereof is perfectly fine.Naraht (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If it has not aired on television, it violates the crystal-ball policy. RuPaul's Drag Race is a television series, not a web series. The show airing on television, in its timeslot, is the verification; not an extended preview that not everyone may or may not have access to. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely *nothing* about this type of release of *OFFICIAL* information is in WP:CRYSTAL. It has been discussed in previous seasons and the decision was to allow it. See Season 5 discussion at [3] and Season 6 discussion at [4] .Naraht (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of the previous season five and season six discussions that were had concerning Logotv.com's extended previews of the episodes. However, information (as stated prior) that is not included in a posted preview should not be included, such as the main-challenge winner or the eliminated contestant(s) until the episode has completed airing on the east coast broadcast. However, including future episode titles and [rumoured] guest judges is in complete violation of the crystal-ball policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe we have had referenceable information on both future episode titles and guest judges before. Let me see what I can find.Naraht (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See TVguide.com http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/rupauls-drag-race/episodes/296505/ Lists Episodes 7,8 and 9. Also even beyond that, the information is available at http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/RuPaul-s-Drag-Race/6199222043518042112/full-episodes#episode=7286336324805646112&filter=tv (for episodes 8 & 9, it is in the source for the page, but I'm unclear which buttons to select to see it).Naraht (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And for the guest Judges for this episode. http://tv.twcc.com/listings/logo Naraht (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Katya's age

According to her tumblr, Katya was 42 during the filming, not 32. http://momsgoldteeth.tumblr.com/post/115908775181/you-said-in-your-video-that-you-didnt-have-sex --84.56.198.123 (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

When she makes her entrance ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3iHzvhwuxU ), her age is stated as 32. She was probably being humorous in this post. Azealia911 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Information all the way to Episode 11?!?

Could someone please give an opinion as to whether http://www.lifestyle.com.au/tv/ru-pauls-drag-race/episodes.aspx represents a reliable source or not?Naraht (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

Constant vandalism on episode results in Contestants table, almost always from IP Addresses or newly registered users, request for the page to be protected at least until the season ends in a few weeks. --Azealia911 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous Lipsyncs with more than 2 people

The episode 8 lipsync is not the first wherein more than 2 people were onstage at the same time; this occurred at the final lipsyncs of seasons 4, 5 and 6. Even if this statement only counts lipsyncs in which competitors were eliminated, a competitor was still eliminated after the 4-way lipsync of season 6. RegerFan1729 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"FAIL"

Hi, decided to bring this to the talk page. I think the addition of the "FAIL" cell is necessary, a dark grey cell is indication that the contestant has been eliminated and probably never seen again until the reunion, whereas all 14 queens returned and took part in the main challenge for "Conjoined Queens". I understand that "FAIL" seems somewhat harsh so we could come up with alternatives, however I do think it should be in the contestant box. I notice that the latest edition of the page features the summary "You yourself established the were not "in" the competition for the episode. If they were not part of the competition, they should not be marked." and it should be noted that nowhere does it say that contestants must still be in the running for victory in competition info boxes.

Eagle2ch, PeopleWithCheeks any thoughts?

(Only tagging you as you've reverted my edits, anyone else is free to join in) --Azealia911 (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think instead of the word "FAIL", there could be a better suited word to suit the attempt of re-entry. "FAIL" seems too strong of a statement to make, especially because it seems as if their attempts and credit in the competition amounts to a complete nothing, which they did not. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I also agree, one user did edit it to "OUT" but I didn't think that made much sense logically, considering that they were truly never back "in" to begin with in the episode. How about "LOSE" to oppose Trixie's "WIN" cell? Maybe that's too strong a statement as well though. Azealia911 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think LOSE works a lot better then FAIL. I went looking for an example of when eliminated contestants competed to return on a reality show and the only thing I could find was Big Brother 13, where it was decided that because they did not actually re-enter the competition that it should not be noted on the table. But, I think of all of the options we have here LOSE is the best. Eagle2ch (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll change it accordingly, glad we settled this with very little hassle! Azealia911 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

In the following sentence, whom should be changed to who because it is the subject of the verb competed:

Episode eight features the return of all seven previously eliminated queens (Tempest DuJour, Sasha Belle, Jasmine Masters, Trixie Mattel, Mrs. Kasha Davis, Kandy Ho and Max) whom competed in the episode's main challenge for a chance to return to the main race. 95.234.106.19 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Already  fixed [5] by Hinnk. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ginger's real age

Just an FYI http://www.stageclick.com/person/10774.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitruvian9485 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "real age". The link says Ginger Minj would have been 29 when the show was filmed in mid-2014, which is consistent with the article. hinnk (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

LOW & HIGH

Should we really have LOW and HIGH scoring for this season? I'm not talking about all of the other seasons, just this one in particular. As we've seen, there's been major changes in the formatting of the show this season, for example not having a mini-challenge every episode, not having three permanent judges etc. And I think that the 'top 3' and 'bottom 3' have also been abandoned.

In other seasons, we clearly have establishment from early on that there's a clear bottom and top 3, from Ru declaring "Ladies, you represent the best and the worst of the week" to contestants actually talking about it (In season 5, when Roxxxy talks about Honey and Vivienne's double elimination "I'm never being in the bottom 3 again" and in season 6, when DeLa says "I purposely didn't get in the top 3 so I didn't have to stay on my feet for as long"

It's easier to tell who's the only LOW scoring contestant, as they are usually declared safe last, while being given one of Ru's hideous puns, but with HIGH it's especially hard to work out this season.

For this season, it just seems like we're estimating who's LOW and HIGH from the level of niceness in their critiques, should we just re-label all low and high scores to SAFE? Or even just remove HIGH? Azealia911 _talk 17:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: I COMPLETELY agree. I have been fighting the HIGH and LOW all season because I felt like it was just opinion. I never imagined the suggestion of just abandoning the clarification all together. I think this should be removed. 68.117.149.231 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

68.117.149.231 I'll remove it for now, and if anyone has issue with it, we can resume discussion. Azealia911 _talk 21:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are my hero! This is so much better! 68.117.149.231 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

TVShowsEditer & Bluebluechicken, please leave comment here on why you think the page should include LOW and HIGH, and how each episode is worked out on who scored what, as before this page was protected at my request, the article was constantly seeing disruptive edits from IP's of people changing LOW to SAFE, SAFE to HIGH, HIGH to LOW etc. Azealia911 _talk 17:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! This TVShowsEditor, speaking. I'm sorry for clearing your edit because all the other seasons have HIGH and LOWS, I just wanted to keep the tradition going on the charts through out the seasons. I know what you mean by people changing the charts frequently. One time, I seen Miss Fame SAFE then changed to LOW once when she started getting bad. I personally think the chart is there to show what queen did very bad to nearly get in the bottom two, SAFE to show that queen did okay but not bad in the challenge, HIGH to show the queen nearly won the challenge because they killed it. When I saw that change, I was like did all queens okay but no queens very bad expect the bottom two. It got me really confused because I was like no one was really good and nearly got a won like the winner of that challenge. I do think HIGH and LOWS help to see what challenge that queen did really bad on or good on. That's my opinion on the HIGH or LOWS. TVShowsEditor _talk 21:27 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVShowsEditer (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for commenting! I do see your points about some of the episodes having clear highs and lows, like the music video parody episode, but there are some episodes (episode 4 for example) where the lines are blurred as to who scores what. For that reason I removed the rank system altogether to give fluidity to the contestant box, while avoiding disruptive edits of IP's changing scores constantly. I also see your point about other seasons having the HIGH and LOW scores, but just because those season have it, doesn't mean this season should, especially if the concept has officially been abandoned by the show this season. I'd be happy to create a small note under the contestant box indicating the removal of HIGH and LOW. Azealia911 _talk 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, could you indicate whether you support or oppose, or feel neutral about the removal of the HIGH and LOW scores? Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that High can be an issue, but in what episodes has it been controversial that anyone still on stage when Ru selects the first person up for elimination counts as being Low (or Bottom 2, of course)Naraht (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I did raise that in my original comment, but just ended up removing it all as nobody chimed in, we could put LOW back into the equation as it's pretty easy to determine the low contestant of the episode. Azealia911 _talk 20:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello guys, I honestly think we should keep the "HIGH's & LOW's" as that does explain a lot. For example, I don't always get to watch the show so I go on wikipedia to see who was in the top and who was in the bottom. It is really helpful for me and doing the high and low's is like a tradition, if that makes sense. I honestly think we should keep it the way it was. KkMunchy _talk 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

kkmunchy, if you haven't seen the episodes we're talking about, you don't really understand the situation and why I proposed we remove the HIGH and LOW. Your point about it being tradition also makes no sense, as another editor commented, just because the other seasons worked like this, doesn't mean this season does. MANY things changed this season, and HIGH and LOW (especially HIGH) seem to have been abandoned. Azealia911 _talk 23:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You=re just trying to do things your way and be the owner of this article. Stop it and keep it the way it was and the way the other season's articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.228.125 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If that comment was directed at me, no I'm not, me trying to "do things your way and be the owner of this article" would be to not open a discussion, and just revert every edit I see without explanation or fair chance at reply. If you'd like to contribute a valid reason as to why LOW and HIGH should be kept, please do continue, otherwise, if you're just here to accuse me of WP:OWN without valid reasoning... Azealia911 _talk 00:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I, for one, do not believe that the low and high should be removed. For one, it looks ugly and plain. Now I know that that isn't a huge issue, but it'd just be pretty good to have it look appealing to the eye while it provides us with necessary information of what happened in each episode. I also believe that the "abandoning the top 3 this season" doesn't make that much sense. Without the high and low options, it makes it seem like everybody did the same effort and that everybody did a good job, which is definitely not the case. And even if there isn't a clear top 3, than we need to use the clues of the judges. Not everything is going to be black and white, as there is going to be some serious gray area. This is just my opinion, and it just doesn't seem necessary to remove the Highs and Lows. PeopleWithCheeks _talk 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.4.12 (talk)

Hi, PeopleWithCheeks, I do see your point about the table looking bland and it giving off the impression that everybody put in the same level of effort, some editors have suggested we just put LOW back in, which I actually agree with, as it's easy to tell who was LOW, my main issue that in some episodes, it's extremely hard to differentiate between HIGH and SAFE (Like EP 4). How about we just reinstate LOW? Azealia911 _talk 00:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I do expect there to be hard times when choosing, but just because something gets difficult sometimes doesn't mean that it should be completely eradicated. But if it were to be eradicated, I would still at least have low. PeopleWithCheeks _talk 01:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it becomes less discernible in the later episodes, but there was a definite high/low in at least the first few episodes. Those should be included, at least.Ificannotlove (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The removal of the High/Lows does not just make the table look awful, it removes consistency with all 6 other seasons on this site and removes any idea of context of what went on in the show itself. The Highs and Lows are clear a large majority of the time and should not be removed at all. —Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 02:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to have this contestant table without High and Low Happypillsjr ✉ 10:29 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing the table without high and low is upsetting. I really feel like keeping it in the table gives you a better idea of how the contestants did over the course of the competition. Eagle2ch (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing the "High" and "Low" portions of the chart. I'm also in agreement with everyone who says Low contestants are obvious in every episode. That also said, all of the previous "High" portions should be added back unless it wasn't clear that the contestant was high. There was absolutely no reason to remove all of them due to a few being unclear in the first place. Also, on the matter of users frequently changing them, I personally believe that doesn't qualify to remove them for the same reason that people edit charts with false spoilers doesn't mean we should delete the charts altogether. So now you've got 8 people voting to put High/Lows back in and 2 people voting to get rid of them(including yourself.) I think it should be fairly obvious. Please undo your edit and only remove the Highs from episodes where it wasn't clear. LoveLaced (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I also really think the high and low should be put back. There are like, 2 episodes where the high and low are unclear and now there is no record of how well Katya and Kennedy have been doing and home mediocre by comparison Pearl and Violet are. Boomjamins (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to start by saying anyone insisting the highs and lows have always been clear is being insincere. The #Judged as a team... discussion above makes it clears that's just not the case, and anyone who genuinely wants to include that information should be trying to resolve those discussions instead of lamenting how much they liked it. This is an issue of verifiability, and including contended interpretations without a secondary source seems like original research. hinnk (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought: would it be possible to at least have high/low for the episodes where it's verifiable (like where there's a clear bottom 3 before lip-sync / when there's a clear top 2 or 3, like in a few challenges), and not have them for the weeks where it's a guess. I find it really useful, because some of them go on to win because they were consistently high (Jinkxx / Raja) even if they didn't win more than the others. If only logo would make this official haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.43.254 (talk)

Hey don't know if I'm too late to the discussion but I really think HIGHS and LOWS are an imperative part of the chart, without them if sort of reduces the competition to winning and lip synching and the competition is much more than that. For example if you were to subtract the HIGHS and LOWS during season 5, Alaska would have a better track record than Jinkx and that is obviously not the case, Jinkx performed in the HIGH bracket for 8 weeks in a row and there have been queens who have performed at a similar level this season and that can't be seen without HIGHS and LOWS. Additionally where has it been unclear who was HIGH and LOW? Seriously there isn't any way in which you cold miss the top performing people each week;

-Fame and Kennedy were HIGH week 1

-Violet and Kasha were HIGH week 2

-Max's team was HIGH week 3 (even if some individuals performed at a poor level their team won and that is how it's ALWAYS been and there is no point in changing it, Trinity got a HIGH during scream queens so why shouldn't the better performing team of this challenge?)

-Katya & Jaidynn were HIGH week 4, Ru explicitly stated it this time

-Kennedy & Jaidynn were HIGH week 5

-Kennedy & Ginger were HIGH week 6 (Ru said there group was the best, is that not a direct insinuation of them getting HIGH scorings?)

-Katya was HIGH week 7 (they had a standard top/bottom 6 this week you surely couldn't have missed it)

-Katya was HIGH week 8

-Katya and Kennedy were HIGH week 9 (Trixie received negative criticism and all the girls in 'Poo' were in the bottom)

Just because in weeks 4, 5, and 6 they critiqued the SAFE/BOTTOM girls doesn't mean HIGHS and LOWS should just be scrapped. I mean Ru has always said "You're group shined the most", "You were the star of your group" etc. There is clear and distinct HIGHS and LOWS and it make NO sense not to have them. And even if it wasn't clear would one or two inconsistencies/mistakesbe the end of the world, I've seen the tables change on Season 3 and 4 all the time, things are always fluctuating between SAFE and LOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.84.154 (talk)

This is absolutely preposterous. What's the point of a table even if you aren't going to depict the 'actual' results. I understand the point about the fluctuating criteria and sometimes 'vague' critique but the whole idea of a table with a key is useless without the HIGHs and the LOWs. The new table shows that Miss Fame was SAFE through out the contest and got eliminated one episode. The episode descriptions have more elaborations than this mess. #GURRLBYE --LulzWhateven (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the overwhelming view (and one that has won me over) is to keep the LOW and HIGH. I'm currently pretty busy so if somebody could add it back it'd be greatly appreciated, thanks! Azealia911 _talk 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the HIGH and LOW information back to the page per the note from Azealia911 above. This was a great conversation, and I'm glad that the consensus was that these categories should remain. Despite their shortcomings this season, I think these categories provide useful information in showing the contestants' overall performance on the show. Racaulk (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh gosh, seems like I missed the party! In any case, I think it was ultimately for the best to keep the HIGH/LOW. The only thing I would add is that I currently see Sasha has been listed as safe in Episode 1.. I feel like that's a mistake - even though she wasn't one of the last three standing, the safe girls were called earlier, and we were told that the remaining queens (including Sasha) represented the best and worst. Her critique was almost completely negative, so I figure it reasonable to assume she's low. I don't think "LOW" should exclusively be used for third bottom, especially in cases like this one. (Kyleofark (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC))

Although Sasha did have a harsh critique, I think we should just stick to one LOW contestant each episode, as the "bad pun method" ("Kenya Michaels, being Beyonce is not your destiny child" "*whoever else was one of the last girls there, insert bad pun*" "Kenya Michaels... you're safe") is the only sure way we know who is LOW, anything else is WP:original research. Like I said in my original proposal to remove LOW and HIGH, a lot of the results are just based on the niceness of someones critique and this shouldn't be the case. Azealia911 _talk 08:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy and Jaidynn on episode 5

I know this topic is very outdated at this point, but can you please change the position of Kennedy and Jaidynn on episode 5? RuPaul clearly declared them only SAFE, so they're not HIGH. Also we didn't get feedback from the judges to know in particular if they did well or not. When they were declared safe, that means every other contestant (excluding Jaidynn, Kennedy, Pearl and Max) is either HIGH or LOW. MomsGoldSon (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)MomsGoldSon

I agree with this. The only thing told to that pair during the judging portion of the episode is "You're safe" before any feedback (both good and bad) was given to the girls remaining on stage.68.117.149.231 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sasha Belle in EP 1

Asd17, although Sasha Belle had a harsh critique, we should just stick to one LOW contestant each episode, as the "bad pun method" ("Kenya Michaels, being Beyonce is not your destiny child" "*whoever else was one of the last girls there, insert bad pun*" "Kenya Michaels... you're safe") is the only sure way we know who is LOW, anything else is original research. The fact that Sasha was asked to stay on stage to be critiqued does not automatically make her LOW, and your citation of the wikipedia article ("and the summary even states she was heavily criticized.") also doesn't hold up per policy. Azealia911 _talk 00:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe other editors really should help decide. Instead of trying to call me out, and say that you are the only one who can be correct, and should be able to edit the page how you want, I think other editors would agree that LOW is VERY appropriate to put for her in week one. I would not have corrected the edit if it wasn't true. If the issue is "who is closer to being the bottom third person", then the description next to the light pink box below the table needs to specify that. Problem is, if something is changed/edited in the description for one Rupaul's Drag Race table, then it needs to be changed/edited to ALL of the Drag Race tables for every season. If the description is too general, then it does not need to say "The contestant was one of the worst but was not in the bottom two.", Cause that does not specify a bottom 3rd person necessarily, because there can always be more. Same for the blue box.Asd17 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand why I started this discussion, I have in no way called you out, and I have in no way said I can be the only one who can be correct. If I acted so, I'd simply continue to revert you without bringing it to the talk page and sort it out democratically with a consensus, the whole reason I brought it to the talk page was so that other editors could help reach consensus, so let's drop the accusations from the get go.

My point is that the "pun-method" (we really need to think of a proper name for this, I hope you know what I'm referring to), is a 100%, indisputable way of knowing who to categorize as low, anything else is original research, and is usually the centre of disruptive edits from IP addresses and new users, who change SAFE to LOW, LOW to SAFE, HIGH to SAFE etc, based on how nice, or not nice, a certain contestants critique was. It's a major part of why I nominated that we remove HIGH from the table alltogether, as there's no verifiable way of knowing who is HIGH, as opposed to SAFE, with exception, a while back. It was ultimately decided to keep both, as the table looked to bare, which I agree with.

But back to this, the only argument people can present in cases like this is usually "their critique was really harsh, they weren't SAFE they were definitely LOW" All of the girls get critiqued, it's rare (apart from earlier episodes like this) that a set of queens are just declared SAFE without comment. Just because Sasha was critiqued, does not mean she was one of the worst. Azealia911 _talk 01:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

While this argument would generally hold up in latter episodes where everyone remains on stage during critiques, it's a common fact that in earlier episodes, the queens remaining on stage "represent the best and the worst of the week." If Sasha remained on stage instead of heading back with the queens declared "SAFE" then she is obviously not safe. Critiques are edited by the show almost every week so that audiences can tell who are in danger of being in the bottom 2 and Sasha got that edit. If she's among the best of the worst, then it's clear she's either Low or High, and if you're trying to convince anyone she was High, you're out of your mind. Therefore she was Low.

That said, I'm sure many appreciate that you're making an attempt at preemptively trying to stop people from frequently changing these charts, but just as with any information on Wikipedia, you're not going to stop incorrect edits without hurting descriptive information on the show, so I think it's best if everyone is as reactive as possible to those edits and we keep the information correct as often as we can. LoveLaced (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not 100% convinced on the whole pun thing people have been discussing. I agree that if a queen gets the pun then they should be listed as low - it's a very good indicator to assign them as such, but I also don't think it's neccesarily the only indicator.

I feel like in instances where Ru says the "you represent the best and worst of the week", the queens remaining on stage by definition are either high or low. I can't see how we can ignore that - Ru is literally telling them "you are either one of the best (high) or one of the worst (low)." That to me is a much stronger justification to assign someone as High/Low than someone getting/not getting a pun. Someone mentioned original research, but to me, the pun logic (while sound) is more along the lines of original research than "you represent the best and worst"

In that first episode, the seven queens were told they were either one of the best or the worst - how can we call Sasha safe, when we were specifically told that she was either one of the best or one of the worst?

(Kyleofark (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC))

Ginger in Episode 11

I believe the elimination chart has an incorrect label for Ginger's performance in Episode 11...it should be high based on the positive comments that Ru gave while declaring her safe. 2602:306:37F9:F4A0:6CD2:450F:2A55:DA8E (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Now someone has vandalized the article by placing Pearl high where there was no corresponding evidence in the episode.2602:306:37F9:F4A0:6CD2:450F:2A55:DA8E (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree this article needs further protection to protect it from elimination chart vandalism. People keep fixing it, then messing it up again. Adarnold542 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How was it decided that Ginger was high? I was recently in disagreement with another editor who changed her status to LOW, which I disagree with, I say she's safe, how was she high? Her runway look was read. Also, page is semi-protected per my request as editors kept vandalizing the page, the only thing to protect it further would be to allow only admins to edit it. Azealia911 _talk 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ginger was high based on the comments Ru gave before she was announced as safe. Positive comments = high. She basically told Ginger she was in second place in the challenge. Meanwhile she said nothing to Pearl other than "you are safe" Adarnold542 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd support having Ginger HIGH and Pearl SAFE Azealia911 _talk 22:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the ability to change it under semi-protected status...but I do think for future scoring it needs to be more set in stone. It's certainly not always dependent on what order they are announced. Adarnold542 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be happy to do that then, gimme a sec. It really does, maybe before season 8 starts airing we can have a discussion on the talk page before hand. Azealia911 _talk 22:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure there will be some inevitable edit backs too lol Adarnold542 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like user Michaelkiggins needs to be suspended from editing the page without consent to do so. Please stop vandalizing in favor of your particular queen. Adarnold542 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

I don't think Ginger should be 'High' in the last episode with Pearl as 'Safe'

They both received similar comments.

76.64.0.53 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

They did not receive similar final judgments by Ru. Ru only told Pearl she was safe. Ru told Ginger that she "Milked the challenge for all that it was worth". Therefore, Ginger is High and Pearl is Safe. 2602:306:37F9:F4A0:3595:953C:7433:DED6 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Violet in Conjoined Twins

I think Violet should be labeled "HIGH" for this episode, the judges had great things to say bout their look and they along with Katya and Pearl were among the most likely to have their partners return based on the reaction to their runway looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.212.86 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you remember what Ru said to them on the final judgment segment? Adarnold542 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree that Violet was one of the best that challenge and that automatically gives her a HIGH Lovesexandla (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ginger & Pearl

Ificannotlove, please give reasoning for changing Pearl's result to HIGH, and Ginger's to SAFE for episode 11. Please also allow consensus to be reached before disruptively editing the article again, thankyou. Azealia911 _talk 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the critiques themselves, Pearl was received better than Ginger was at the time. Pearl was also called to be safe before Ginger as the results were announced. Ginger shouldn't be HIGH, at all, given only one judge seemed to give comments that could warrant a HIGH ranking. If anything other than the edit I've tried to make several times, both should be listed as SAFE. Ificannotlove (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add that I'd be happy with a consensus of both being safe, the critiques seemed pretty similar. If that'll stop both of us reverting eachother, I'd be happy. Azealia911 _talk 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree strongly. The order of who is announced as safe does not matter in later episodes... This has been proven from episodes such as the S3 ball challenge. The only opinion that matters is Ru's, and her comments on the rating of safe were high for Ginger and safe for Pearl. You cannot twist Ru's words when they are her words for everyone to see. Adarnold542 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Order has not always indicated placing in previous seasons. For example, Carmen Carrera got a "high" score in the S3 comedy challenge, yet was the last one to be declared safe. Yara Sofia was also called last and given a high mark in the makeover challenge later that season (despite a judge mentioning that her and Drewlita didn't look particularly similar). The only one who had any criticism was Carson, and it basically boiled down to him "wanting more". Ru praised Ginger's performance (with a "good pun") before declaring her safe, while Pearl got no additional critiques before being declared safe. Ginger was definitely "high" in this challenge. Genya19 (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Trixie Mattel

Can it be added that Trixie was the first contestant to be eliminated, brought back, and then NOT eliminated the next episode in which they compete in a challenge? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmony Lyne (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Harmony Lyne, that's been added a couple of times, but I've removed it. Reason being, if someone was brought back every season, and she was then the first to not be eliminated the same episode, it would probably be noteworthy, but she's only the first of 3, out of 7 seasons. Maybe in season 8 if someone is brought back and eliminated in the same episode we'll come back and make note of her achievement. Azealia911 _talk 10:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

I feel that Ginger got a high on the Hello Kitty episode, as she was the only one other than violet to get a well done before being declared safe. Boomjamins (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel the exact same way. She got praised before being declared safe (unlike Pearl); that has usually been a reliable indicator on whether someone's performance was outstanding (high) or just OK(safe). Genya19 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done these are both just PoVs not facts, cited in [[WP:RS|reliable sources}} - Arjayay (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ru PRAISED Ginger's performance before declaring her safe, how is that an opinion? Ru said it herself. It's nearly impossible to be completely "factual" towards the end of the competition, when everyone is critiqued on stage regardless of how well they did. I'm certain that, in these kinds of situations, editors take the positive/negative/lukewarm/nonexistent comments to determine positioning. For example, Courtney being low in the wedding challenge in S6; Carmen Carrera being high in the comedy challenge (despite being called safe last), and Yara Sofia being high in the makeover challenge in S3; Tyra Sanchez being just safe in the book challenge in S2, and many others. Ginger's situation fits the bill just as well. I reopened the request to seek more discussion about this matter. Genya19 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Miss Congeniality

Before commenting on this discussion, note that "I liked it the way it was", "It looks wierd" and "It's how we've always done it" aren't viable points.

What should be done with Miss Congeniality? Now that I see the Miss Congeniality box way on the right, it makes me feel uncomfortable. I believe it looks a little messy, and that it should be kept the way it is. I believe things that aren't broken shouldn't be fixed. What do you guys think? PeopleWithCheeks _talk 01:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Because Miss C was awarded in the reuinion, along with the winner and runner-up, I think having the box in the correct place should take priority over weather you feel comfortable or not that it's there. Azealia911 _talk 13:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The new box being in place in the finale is rather distracting if not disruptive. Katya was already eliminated, and the final column should be reserved for the three remaining contestants as it's been done in the past until they were recently edited. 162.17.11.233 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

How on earth is it disruptive?! Yes, she was already eliminated, but wasn't awarded until episode 14. Azealia911 _talk 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

To the fact that she wasn't in the running in the episode. I understand aesthetic isn't the focus of an article, but the focus of the finale was the winner, not Katya's MC win. The inclusion of the box distracts from this. It was perfectly fine leaving the box for her elimination aqua; it conveyed the point and what occurred without any extra and unnecessary inclusions in the article, such as this edit. 162.17.11.233 (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh shit, just realized that for seasons 1,2,3 we'd have to make new columns, the reunion was after the finale for those seasons, I'll revert to how it was Azealia911 _talk 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to say this, but didn't know if the talk page for season 7 was the right place. Thank you. 162.17.11.233 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just make new columns. Oath2order 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oath2order (talk • contribs)

Because it'd just be a blank collum with only Miss C occupied, I suggest changing the colour box note from "The contestant was voted Miss Congeniality by viewers." to "The contestant was awarded Miss Congeniality during the reunion episode." as a compromise. Azealia911 _talk 16:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Works for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oath2order (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

...But it's still in the wrong column. It's the only piece of information that's listed under an episode when it didn't happen. It's confusing to have a blue box, indicating the contestant did well, with text indicating an elimination. We should move it to the correct column or remove it from the table and let people read the prose. hinnk (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever, one idea would be to simply do what I initially did with seasons 4,5,6,7, which is creating a new box for Miss C in the reunion, and make a new collum for seasons 1,2,3, and create similar boxes for the other contestants with a summary like "RTRN" as light green, with a colour box saying the contestants returned for the reunion, a similar thing is done at the drag race wiki which looks pretty nice.

And I kind of support that even more than rewording. I love that. Oath2order 21:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oath2order (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I'd be good with that, though I'd prefer not to add another color. As it stands, we're using 11 (!) colors this season, and it's difficult to interpret them without switching back and forth between the table and the key. hinnk (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean, for the most part, the colors are just there to provide differentiation between each cell. People don't need to keep going back and forth to understand "okay this queen was high, this one is low." I don't see the issue with 12 colors tbh. Oath2order 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oath2order, hinnk is anything going to happen with the pages concerning this discussion? I'd do it myself but I'm already hated on the sub-reddit for Drag Race by that guy paleho for apparently owning all DR related content LOL so I'd preferably have someone else change the formatting if it's going to happen. Azealia911 _talk 18:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Azealia911, lol, you're fine on the subreddit. Anyways, what was the official plan then? Oath2order (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fond of moving Miss C to the episode 14 column, while giving everyone other than the top 3 and Miss C a "RTRN" cell, like done at the Drag Race wikia I linked. And with every season pre-season 4, I imagine a whole new colum would have to be made. I don't imagine it'll take long for an IP to start edit warring on every season though, so keep that in mind if we're looking for a stress-free situation. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty. I wouldn't mind that and I see no problem with it. Naturally we would keep the same color for Miss Congeniality, but what color would we use for the "RTRN" cell? Oath2order (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Gainsboro seems redundant as "The contestant did not participate in this episode." I say we remove that from any seasons it's included, including the season 6 first two episodes, and use that with something like:

  The contestant returned for the finale episode, but was not in the running for the title of "America's Next Drag Superstar".

While we're talking about color changes, how would you feel about removing the "Lose" column and changing Trixie in EP 8 to the same as Pearls cell? I know I was the one who made the initial fuss about it, but it does seem somewhat-redundant, especially as it's explained in a note below the table. Up to what everyone else thinks though. Oh and on looking, it seems that there's space for the cell to be named "Returned" not "RTRN". Azealia911 _talk 19:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So then, leave the first two episodes of season 6 instead of Gainsboro, colorless? Sounds good. I assume you mean changing Trixie's color to Pearl's color? I have no issue with that. Check out my sandbox. I'm working on each season there before it goes on the main page. Oath2order (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, leave them colorless, and change Trixies WIN to a regular WIN. I like the look of the sandboxes, hope you don't mind my small changes! Azealia911 _talk 19:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should use the darkgrey color for those first two episodes? When I got to season 3, they were using Gainsboro for the episode that Carmen Carrera was out for, between her first elimination and the episode she was brought back in. I changed it to dark grey and added a colorbox for "The contestant did not participate in this episode." I will change the Trixie color though, that works. Oath2order (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I'll leave it up to you, I'd say no, the color less cell with "The contestant did not participate in this episode." seems pretty ok on your sandbox so far, having it as a double use could be confusing, but it's up to you. Azealia911 _talk 19:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh right!!! Derp. Yeah, colorless, oops! Oath2order (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty, live on each new season's page. Oath2order (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this. It's ridiculously unnecessary and distracts from the fact that only 3 people were left in the competition at the time. Please, stop. Ificannotlove (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have, and I would have to say that the tables look good. It is absolutely not unnecessary. It states each queen came back. I don't see how it's distracting, and as we've stated before, Miss C is crowned in the last episode. Which would be 14. Not the one she was eliminated in. Oath2order (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The table should describe the events in the race itself, and the contestants' progress. The queens with the "Returned" box were all eliminated and out of the race, and the way MC was handled was perfectly fine and didn't create such a spectacle. The color itself describes what happened, and thus it's unnecessary to move it to the column for the 14th episode. Further, there are already 2 other shades of gray on the table. Adding a third is ridiculous. Ificannotlove (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is it distracting? It's in a neutral color. Miss C, the Winners, and the Runners-up are in different enough colors that your eyes are drawn to those names. That said, the top 3 are just that, on the top of the table. You know they are top 3 because they are at the top of the table. Therefore, the information on the right hand side stating where the queens returned is not distracting. And MC is handled better now. Y'know, since it's accurate to where she was crowned? And on the note about the three shades of grey, did you know there are three shades of blue and three shades of red on the table? Are you going to argue that those are ridiculous too? Oath2order (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The text is unnecessary. MC was handled perfectly fine before and these edits are pointless. The time at which she was awarded MC is not vital to the fact that she won it, period. As for the colors, the red and blues are much more differentiated from each other than the grays. I don't understand why these edits were made. They do not convey information any better. This is not an improvement. Ificannotlove (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing the "Returned" labels, but indicating that Miss Congeniality was awarded any time before the finale is inaccurate. Only people who are already familiar with the show would be able to decode something like that. hinnk (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that can be discovered through reading the article's prose (where it should be stated), rather than including it in the chart. With that, the colors indicating Trixie's return to the competition & the other user's loss in episode 8 should be returned. Ificannotlove (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why the loss in 8 was removed. Oath2order (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea. It should be brought back. I think the color of Trixie's WIN cell should be changed back to the darker blue as well. Ru didn't ever state Trixie won the challenge (Pearl did; only Pearl received the prize & such), but she technically won her way back into the competition. Ificannotlove (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oath2order because we discussed it, you literally said "Sounds good." unless that was in reference to something else. Idk anymore I'm pretty much at wits end with the pages contestants table, I gave up on people changing HIGH/LOW/SAFE all the time and I'm getting bored with this. I agree with hinnk that Miss C should definitley be in the 14 column, what happens to "Returned" doesn't concern me, however on seasons 1,2,3, if the Returned is removed, the sole "Miss C" may look odd on its own. and the LOSE can be re-added if wanted. Azealia911 _talk 21:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm losing it with these unnecessary edits. Nothing helpful has been contributed by them. The LOSE cells should be returned, and the darker blue on Trixie's win. The "Returned" cells should be returned to gray cells. For the sake of consistency, I still think the MC green should be added to the box in which the queen was eliminated rather than in the final column. It just looks odd to have it out. If you feel information isn't delivered with that, simply do what you suggested a while ago, by changing the color box note to "The contestant was awarded Miss Congeniality during the reunion episode.". Ificannotlove (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with all of what you said apart from moving the Miss C cell to the ELIM cell again. Displaying correct information trumps something looking out of place. Azealia911 _talk 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The timing is not very important to the award. Like I--and you-- said, make a note of it in the color box's note. Besides, if correct information is what you're going for, why'd you opt to remove the LOSE columns? Was that not relevant enough to include? Ificannotlove (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"The table should describe the events in the race itself, and the contestants' progress." is a direct quote from yourself. In the episode, RuPaul said something along the lines of "And the winner, will get to return to the competition" iterating that all queens who failed to re-gain entry to the competition were not in the running. So if the "Returned" cell stays off, so does the "LOSE" cell as both describe contestants who were not in the main race. I'm actually in favor of keeping both though, I think I was affected by the reddit-ers after reading some comments they made. Azealia911 _talk 21:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

At episode 8, all 7 then-eliminated queens returned to compete and return to the main competition. That's noteworthy. They could've come back. At the time of the reunion, they were out, there was no competition amongst them to return to the race itself. I believe the difference is obvious. Ificannotlove (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I really don't care anymore, I've given my two cents, but I'm opposed to this "The contestant box describes contestants progress throughout the competition" way of thinking, and more in favor of a "The contestant box notes peoples appearances while describing their appearance" style. Either way, bringing back LOSE or not, I don't care, keeping or removing Returned, I don't care, but I strongly oppose moving Miss C per my reasons above. Azealia911 _talk 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to address something here. Ificannotlove, you have not brought one good idea as to why "Returned" should not be there. You mention that it's unnecessary, yet it describes when the queen appeared. It specifically states what competing queen appears in which episode. No, for the hundredth time, MC was not handled well. It was inaccurate because Miss Congeniality was crowned **In the finale**. I am honestly not seeing why you feel the need to combine the boxes for MC's win and elimination in the same box.

How do you know know nothing helpful has been contributed by them? It has literally been a single day since I added the "Returned" boxes. One day does not provide information as to whether it is helpful or not.

"The timing is not very important to the award." So, following your logic, can we just put the "Winner" box wherever then? Let's just remove the episode 14 column altogether and put the Winner and Runners-up in column 12, because it follows your logic for MC and the timing isn't important to the award. I am completely in favor of the "The contestant box notes peoples' appearances while describing their appearance" style. Oath2order (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My point was obvious. Being facetious and trying to twist the words I spoke against me, as you attempted here, is not helping. I was not the one who originally started the tradition of having the elimination/MC boxes combined, but that still conveyed the information perfectly. The argument both of you have been making is that information > appearance, so I don't understand why there's an objection on Azealia911's part of having an empty column with just one "MC" box in it because he believes it'll look strange. As for not adding further information, my point was that no important information was added. Nothing was contributed by the edits that are being disputed. The message and information was conveyed perfectly by the way it was before this edit (and subsequent discussion) was made, starting with the original movement of the MC box. Ificannotlove (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No, yet again, it was not conveyed perfectly before this edit. It could have made people believe that MC was awarded in the episode that MC was eliminated in. I don't see the issue here. The information is there to show people when each queen appeared in each episode. MC's box is in the correct episode it was awarded in, and we have "Returned" boxes to both state that the queens returned in that episode **and** to assist with appearance. Oath2order (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought the objection to listing MC but not "returned" was that, for readers not familiar with the show's format, it suggests only one eliminated contestant reappears. On the other hand, listing contestants as "returned" can imply that everyone was back in the running. At this point, my takeaway is that the table is a bad format for displaying stuff not related to contestants' progress in the race and that we should leave that as prose. Are there any other reality competition articles that include a title like this? hinnk (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I like hinnk's point about only listing MC may confuse readers into thinking only Katya returned, one immediate article that uses the format that comes to mind is Paris Hilton's My New BFF (season 2). While I normally cite it as an example of a messy table, that's only in color respect, the guest column seems fine there. Azealia911 _talk 19:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I support calling it Guest. Oath2order (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I never meant to suggest that, but it does seem more appropriate, support Guest also. Azealia911 _talk 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

PT

I don't know how I feel about the splitting into two columns the group episodes, but that's not what I'm here for. What the heck does PT stand for? I cannot for the life of me figure it out. Like, I get that's it's a placeholder...Oath2order (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really opposed to it, I don't get so many of the additions that IP's make to the tables, things like a green colored ADV, a separate color for Kenya and Carmen's second eliminations, and this also. Let's keep it informative yet simple as possible, at the end of the day, the contestants were SAFE. 179.180.44.175, why did you make these changes? Azealia911 _talk 08:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it makes the chart look messy and confusing. Kkmunchy (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Many of the recent changes have been unnecessary. Between this and the revamp to the finale and Miss Congeniality, it appears people are making edits just for the sake of editing when they add nothing. 169.232.205.133 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really 169.232.205.133, before recent changes the Miss C infobox displayed incorrect information, but the recent changes to EP 3 seem to just be splicing it too thin without giving a summed up view. Azealia911 _talk 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, fairly new here, do not necessarily know the protocol but was wondering if Pearl’s placement in episode six could be changed from “SAFE” to “HIGH”, considering she got near universal positive critiques from the judges except for Michelle’s critique; which was disregarded by the rest of the panel. Dvarma021308 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Table Editing

Regarding recent edits, Violet Chachki & Kennedy Davenport were both announced "Safe" without any other commentary for episode 8, so Violet should not be marked as "High". On the contrast, Ginger Minj was given a "positive" critique before being announced "Safe" for Episode 11, and should be marked as "High". The latter of these edits was already discussed here. Please, stop making edits that contradict this. Ificannotlove (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly Ificannotlove, just leave it. I've simply come to the realization that the HIGH and LOW are just peoples ways of expressing their opinion on their favorites. The page has been protected from IP's for a year due to the IP warring, so any changes will be from users or a consensus will be reached here. Azealia911 _talk 22:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But what should be on the table shouldn't be a matter of other people's opinions. The evidence is rather clearly there simply from what RuPaul has said, and can be backed up as such. The recent edits to it are unwarranted. Ificannotlove (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to not edit it, feel free, I mean I wouldn't waste your breath combating the IP's, but what you said about RuPaul giving evidence isn't entirely true, remember it's just your interpretation. Azealia911 _talk 22:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been months since those episodes aired, and there's still disagreement. I'm gonna echo what I said when lows/highs were removed and say that something that subjective should be considered WP:OR. hinnk (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

hinnk Feel free to remove it again, I suppose there won't be incessant IP's re-adding it without discussing it. Could work this time, responding to most things with the argument of WP:V and WP:OR. But we should also remember that arguments like "Ru said!!!" also can't be considered, as they're just an individuals interpretation of comments made. Azealia911 _talk 10:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

hinnk still up for removing LOW/HIGH? On this page at least as a trial. Azealia911 _talk 01:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

tbh i think we should try it, or at least work on an alternative that is at least more objective. Jwebbs913 _talk 5:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Table Change

(ages and names stated are at time of contest)

Rank	Contestant		Real Name	Age	Hometown	Ep. 1	Ep. 2	Ep. 3	Ep. 4	Ep. 5	Ep. 6	Ep. 7 (Snatch Game)	Ep. 8	Ep. 9	Ep. 10	Ep. 11	Ep. 12	Ep. 13 (Recap)	Ep. 14 (Reunion)
1st (Winner)	Violet Chachki		Jason Dardo	22	Atlanta, GA	WIN	HIGH	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	2X WIN Mini Challenge Winner	WIN	TOP 3	N/A	WINNER
2nd & 3rd (Runners-Up)	Ginger Minj		Joshua Eads-Brown	29	Orlando, FL	SAFE	WIN Team Captain	SAFE TEAM	SAFE	SAFE	HIGH TEAM Mini Challenge Winner	2X WIN	BTM2	WIN	BTM2	SAFE Mini Challenge Winner	TOP 3	N/A	RUN UP
	Pearl		Matt James	23	Brooklyn, NY	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2	2X WIN	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	TOP 3	N/A	RUN UP
4th	Kennedy Davenport		Reuben Asberry Jr.	32	Dallas, TX	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2 Team Captain	WIN	SAFE	HIGH TEAM	2X WIN	SAFE Mini Challenge Winner	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2	ELIM NO BTM 2		RTRN
5th (Miss Congeniality)	Katya		Brian McCook	31	Boston, MA	SAFE	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE Mini Challenge Winner	WIN	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	2X WIN	ELIM			MS. CON
6th (Return in Ep. 8)	Trixie Mattel		Brian Firkus	24	Milwaukee, WI	SAFE	SAFE Team Captain	SAFE TEAM	ELIM				RTRN	SAFE Mini Challenge Winner	2nd ELIM				RTRN
7th	Miss Fame		Kurtis Dam-Mikkelsen	29	New York, NY	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE TEAM	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	ELIM					RTRN
8th	Jaidynn Diore Fierce		Christopher Williams	25	Nashville, TN	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE TEAM	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2	BTM2	ELIM						RTRN
9th	Max		Max Malanaphy	22	Hudson, WI	SAFE	SAFE	WIN Team Captain	SAFE	2X WIN	SAFE	ELIM	OUT						RTRN
10th	Kandy Ho		Frank Diaz	28	Cayey, PR	BTM2	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	BTM2	ELIM		OUT						RTRN
11th	Mrs. Kasha Davis		Ed Popil	41	Rochester, NY	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE TEAM	SAFE	ELIM Mini Challenge Winner			OUT						RTRN
12th	Jasmine Masters		Martell Robinson	37	Los Angeles, CA	SAFE	SAFE	ELIM					OUT						RTRN
13th	Sasha Belle		Jared Breakenridge	28	Iowa City, IA	SAFE	ELIM						OUT						RTRN
14th	Tempest DuJour		Patrick Holt	47	Tucson, AZ	ELIM|							OUT						RTRN

█ The contestant won RuPaul's Drag Race.

█ The contestant was a runner-up.

█ The contestant competed in a four person final lip-sync against all remaining contestants and placed as a top three finalist.

█ The contestant competed in a four-person final lip-sync against all remaining contestants and was eliminated.

█ The contestant was previously eliminated, returned in Episode 8, & won re-entry into the competition.

█ The contestant was one of two main challenge winners.

█ The contestant was eliminated for the second time.

█ The contestant won the main challenge.

█ The contestant was one of the best but did not win the main challenge.

█ The contestant was a member of a winning team but did not win the main challenge.

█ The contestant was one of the worst but did not place in the bottom two.

█ The contestant placed in the bottom two but neither was eliminated.

█ The contestant placed in the bottom two but was not eliminated.

█ The contestant placed in the bottom two & was eliminated.

█ The contestant placed in the bottom two & both were eliminated.

█ The contestant returned to the competition for one episode after being previously eliminated and was eliminated again.

█ After being eliminated, The contestant was voted Ms. Congeniality by viewers.

█ After being eliminated, The contestant returned and appeared on the "Reunion" Episode, but was out of the running.

█ The contestant did not participate in this episode.

I Was Thinking Thinking Of Putting This Table Here 98.237.141.251 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Mate that's way too many colors. Oath2order (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

Add Violet Chachki (the competition winner) picture like the other articles Cursinodan (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - that appears to be the only image we have of Violet Chachki - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

New infobox

{{Infobox television season/custom
| season_name     = RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7)
| bgcolour        =  #FF1E1E
| image           = <!-- picture of contestants, or winners of each season -->
| image_size      = 
| image_alt       = 
| caption         = 
| country         = United States
| num_episodes    = 14
| network         = [[Logo TV|Logo]]
| first_aired     = {{Start date|2015|3|2}}
| last_aired      = {{End date|2015|6|1}}
| film_start      = 
| film_end        = 
| judges          = {{plainlist|
 * [[RuPaul]]
* [[Michelle Visage]]
* [[Ross Matthews]]
* [[Carson Kressley]]
}}
| num_contestants = 14
| all_stars_link  = 
| all_stars       = 
| winner          = [[Violet Chachki]]
| prev_season     = [[RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6)|Season 6]]
| next_season     =
| episode_list    = [[RuPaul's Drag Race|Season summary]]
<!--{{DISPLAYTITLE:''RuPaul's Drag Race'' (season 7)}}-->
}}

RuPaul's Drag Race season 7/Archive 1
Season 1
File:Violet em NY.jpg
Hosted by	RuPaul
Judges	RuPaul Michelle Visage Ross Matthews Carson Kressley
No. of contestants	14
Winner	Violet Chachki
Runner-up	Ginger Minj Pearl
Release
Original network	Logo TV
Original release	March 2 (2015-03-02) – June 1, 2015 (2015-06-01)

This infobox is custom and it can be a good idea on each season articles. What y'all think? Happypillsjr ✉ 24 January 2016

Notes

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

I think that in the Elimination table for the queens, you should put a "guest" cell for every queen in season 8. It only makes sense, because every queen did indeed return. 98.171.184.105 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 07:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

I believe that in the contestants who participated in episode 8, who were already eliminated but were a guest, should be labeled as so in the table, similarly to how all contestant are listed as a guest for the final episode. Scootersfood (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Contestant's Progress Edited

So some moron changed the following articles: RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) , RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) and RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2) because according to they "'High' or 'Low' is purely subjective". This ruined the articles. Can someone please fix that?

"High" or "Low" refers to the participants' performance in the challenges. It was not used to belittle them. Whoever has done it, stop. It did not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.71.94.129 (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I THINK LIKE ON ANOTHER REALITY TVS THE HIGH AND LOW STATUS IS NECESSARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.103.250 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The HIGH and LOW feature needs to come back. "The contestant received critiques" is so vague. Without HIGH/LOW it's difficult to see how contestants progressed throughout the competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.169.118 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Except the issue is that it's not explicit who is safe or not Oath2order (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ginger Minj

Any page watchers have a sense of whether or not Ginger Minj qualifies for a standalone article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think so. She's very notable, has done albums and songs with other queens, not to mention shes been on two seasons and was runner up on one. I think shes done some theatre performances as well. As long as the sources are reliable I don't see why Not. Brocicle (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And linked to all locations.Naraht (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ampersands

@Brocicle: Greetings! In reply to this revert: [6] Not sure what you were objecting to, exactly...in the original edit, I was trying to follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Ampersand which generally prefers "and" over "&". -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beland:To keep consistent with all other season articles. There has been no issue using "&" over "and" before, no need to try fix what isn't broken, especially on just one page. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Brocicle: Well, the Manual of Style is there to keep pages consistent across the entire encyclopedia, so I think the thing to do then would be to change the other seasons as well. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

^ I agree with this; the ampersands in these lists should be and in all RPDR articles per MOS:AMP. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The MOS:AMP allows the use of "&" in tables which is what they are used in, in the articles. Previous attempts to use "and" by some editors are changed to "&" by others. Essentially, MOS are guidelines not rules, this has never been an issue before and doesnt harm the structure, layout or readability of the articles. I could almost guarantee changing it will only lead to disruptive edits by IP users. But if you want to change it I'm not going to fight about it. Brocicle (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:AMP says, [A]mpersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g. tables and infoboxes). There's no space limitation in the instances in which they're used here, even within the tables. I don't intend to make any edits related to this myself, just wanted to throw in my two cents. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed for all seasons. -- Beland (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal POV "high" and "low"

Already today, with just a sampling of three episodes, I've found that User:CaliforniaDreamsFan is using their personal POV interpretation for about half of what the cited sources say. We cannot use our own personal POV. I'm reverting to the neutral version, and if an editor wants to include cited sources to support claims or "high" or "low," they need to reach consensus on their interpretation before posting their own singular, personal POV on the article page. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

See the closing comments on the talk page. Brocicle (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur: I encourage any editor discussing the issue here to do so. The pertinent part as regards secondary sources, the kind at issue here, says (my emphasis):

If contestants are not explicitly declared tops or bottoms in an episode, a contestant should only be labelled HIGH if:

• A cited reliable secondary source says so, or
• She was on a winning team, or
• An exact quote of the judges' critiques is cited and its interpretation is not contended, or
• An overview of the judges' critiques is brought to the season's talk page....

The onus is on the editor applying the HIGH label to ensure one of these criteria is met, per WP:BURDEN.

Generally, it is best for our purposes as an encyclopaedia to use the neutral language "received critiques and was declared safe", perhaps realised as a lightblue SAFE, to distinguish between certain levels of safety amonst the contestants.

So according to this, when the cited source is not explicitly clear about any of those points we not use our subjective POV to declare "high." And I think if an editor is confident that they're correct, then they should have no problem with letting other editors know which of the points they believe were met. (Indeed, that's point four!) I didn't see them in certain cases as described in more detail at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8). --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Kennedy's track record

On episode 8, Kennedy Davenport was declared safe before Violet. Why is Violet HIGH but not Kennedy? Pearl was declared the winner, then Katya was saved, followed by Kennedy then finally Violet.

Also, on episode 5, Jaidynn & Kennedy were cleary saved as a part of the top 4 alongside Max & Pearl.

I sense some subjectivity against Kennedy Davenport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyanno99 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes to table

@Got Talenter: I have left messages on your talk page and now and pinging you here. Please do not make changes to the tables without gaining consensus to do so. Your edits are being challenged as they are making the table confusing to read. Further edits will be reported for disruption and a block recommended if you do not stop and discuss the edits you are trying to make. Nihlus 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nihlus I've already changed both Season 3 and Season 7. --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

Violet Chachki received positive critiques in episode 4, she was told by the judges that her Adore impression was good but she needed to step it up a little bit, her runway outfit was also praised and i think she should be considered as high since she received positive feedback but still was declared safe, compare it to Max's critiques (who's also protrayed as safe in the article) they were more ambigous about Max's performance telling more negative yet some things positive about her Courtney Act impression and Violet only received positive feedback. 189.210.118.162 (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The table is based off of the episode. Where Violet was declared safe in the episode that is what is shown in the table. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox change request 7 July 2019

The link to Pearl in the infobox is incorrect. It links to the jem Pearl and not Pearl (drag queen). Thartz17 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Good catch; thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 13:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2019

I would like to edit this because I have my own season of Drag a race with the same queens. I would be so very grateful if you let me edit it, take a snapshot, and fix it right off the bat. Please and thank you. 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:61 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

change track record of one queen because it was wrong The PerfectAngel (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

I would like to quickly redo the whole contestant progress for my own drag race season, it will not be published whatsoever, I just want to get it, take a screenshot, and be on my way with my business. Please and thank you! The PerfectAngel (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Eh no. NiciVampireHeart 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@The PerfectAngel: What you're requesting is not appropriate for an article page, but you could always copy and past the table code into your own sandbox and edit it as you want there (and only there) in your personal user space. Armadillopteryx^talk 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2019

The PerfectAngel (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

change Max's code so that it links to his new wikipedia page Jokin03 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Your attempt at an article has been reversed for failure to provide a reliable source. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion regarding high, safe and low placements.

Hello all. Currently, at the page for the RPDR Wikiproject, we started a discussion about how to properly define these placements, since the lack of clear criteria has led to a lot of subjective edits and in some cases, edit warring. Since these definitions could potentially effect the placement tables through all the seasons, we would like to receive the widest possible input, to make sure that all the views and perspectives are taken in account. So, anyone interested in taking part in the conversation, please give us your view at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race#Establishing_a_consistent_criteria_for_SAFE%2C_HIGH_and_LOW_placements Not A Superhero (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on table

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC: Proposed progress table for all RPDR shows. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail in lead?

Currently, the introduction includes the following:

Ginger Minj and Katya competed on the second season of All Stars. Ginger placed 8th overall and Katya was runner-up with season 5 contestant Detox.

Kennedy Davenport and Trixie Mattel competed on the third season of All Stars. Kennedy was the runner-up, while Trixie won the competition.

Kandy Ho competed on the 2nd installment of the Chilean version of Drag Race titled The Switch Drag Race and finished in 8th Place.

Jasmine Masters and Trixie Mattel competed on the RuPaul’s Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular.

Jasmine also competed on the fourth season of All Stars on December 14, 2018. She placed 10th overall.

References

Do we need all this? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Contestant progress

Contestant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	14
Katya	SAFE	SAFE	HIGH	WIN	HIGH	WIN	BTM2	LOW	HIGH	WIN	HIGH	SAFE	Winner
Violet Chachki	WIN	WIN	HIGH	BTM2	HIGH	BTM2	LOW	HIGH	WIN	SAFE	HIGH	SAFE	Runner-Up
Trixie Mattel	SAFE	HIGH	HIGH	SAFE	WIN	LOW	HIGH	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	WIN	SAFE	Runner-Up
Miss Fame	HIGH	SAFE	SAFE	LOW	SAFE	WIN	WIN	SAFE	LOW	BTM2	BTM2	ELIM	Guest
Pearl	SAFE	BTM2	BTM2	HIGH	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	WIN	WIN	HIGH	ELIM		Miss C
Kennedy Davenport	HIGH	SAFE	WIN	SAFE	SAFE	HIGH	WIN	BTM2	BTM2	ELIM			Guest
Jaidynn Diore Fierce	SAFE	SAFE	LOW	SAFE	ELIM			WIN	ELIM				Guest
Jasmine Masters	SAFE	SAFE	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	SAFE	SAFE	ELIM					Guest
Sasha Belle	LOW	LOW	SAFE	SAFE	SAFE	LOW	ELIM	OUT					Guest
Kandy Ho	BTM2	SAFE	HIGH	LOW	BTM2	ELIM		OUT					Guest
Ginger Minj	SAFE	LOW	SAFE	ELIM				OUT					Guest
Max	SAFE	SAFE	ELIM					OUT					Guest
Mrs. Kasha Davis	LOW	ELIM						OUT					Guest
Tempest DuJour	ELIM							OUT					Guest

  The contestant won RuPaul's Drag Race.

  The contestants were the runners-up.

  The contestant was voted Miss Congeniality by viewers.

  The contestant won a challenge.

  The contestant received positive critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe".

  The contestant received negative critiques but was ultimately declared as "safe".

  The contestant won entry back into the competition.

  The contestant came back for a chance to win re-entry into the competition and lost.

  The contestant was in the bottom two.

  The contestant was eliminated.

  The contestant returned as a guest for the finale episode.

Notes for lightblue and pink

I'm just gonna use this as a section for notes on each episode. This starts after Ru brings the queens back after judge deliberations. Lists in order the queens and their status.

Episode 1

Ginger, Jaidynn, Pearl, Kasha, Katya, Max, Trixie are safe. Deliberations. Kennedy called safe. Violet called winner. Miss Fame called safe. Sasha called safe. Tempest called bottom 2. Kandy Ho critiqued negatively. Jasmine critiqued negatively and called safe. Kandy called bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 2

Trixie, Max, Pearl, Jasmine, Jaidynn, Kennedy, Kandy all called safe. Sasha called bottom 2. Kasha called safe. Violet called safe. Ginger Minj called winner. Katya critiqued negatively. Miss Fame critiqued negatively. Katya called bottom 2. Miss Fame called safe. Oath2order (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 3

Kasha, Miss Fame, Jaidynn, Ginger, and Trixie declared safe. Max declared winner. Violet, Jasmine, Kennedy, Kandy, Katya, and Pearl all declared "up for elimination". Deliberations. Kandy called safe. Katya called safe. Jasmine called bottom 2. Kennedy critiqued negatively. Pearl critiqued negatively and called safe. Kennedy called bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 4

Katya, Jaidynn, Kennedy called the star of their group. Kennedy called the winner. Miss Fame and Ginger both called safe. Deliberations. Violet called safe. Max called safe. Kasha called safe. Pearl called bottom 2. Trixie critiqued negatively. Kandy critiqued negatively and called safe. Trixie called safe. Oath2order (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 5

Max and Pearl announced winners. Kennedy and Jaidynn announced as safe. Deliberations. Ginger called safe. Kandy Ho called bottom 2. Miss Fame called safe. Katya called safe. Violet told her jokes were lost. Kasha called bottom two. Violet called bottom 2. Oath2order (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 6

Ginger Minj's team announced as winning. Katya announced as winner. Kennedy is safe. Deliberations. Max is safe. Pearl is safe. Kandy announced as bottom 2. Jaidynn negatively critiqued. Miss Fame negatively critiqued. Jaidynn bottom two. Miss Fame is safe. Oath2order (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 7

Violet and Pearl announced as safe. Deliberations. Katya announced as safe. Kennedy called winner. Ginger also called winner. Jaidynn bottom two. Miss Fame negatively critiqued. Max called bottom 2. Miss Fame safe. Oath2order (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 8

Pearl announced as the winner, Trixie returns. Katya announced as safe. Kennedy announced as safe. Jaidynn announced as bottom two. Violet announced as safe. Miss Fame negatively critiqued. Ginger announced as bottom two. Miss Fame is safe. Oath2order (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 9

Kennedy is safe. Katya is safe. Ginger announced as winner. Trixie is safe. Pearl is negatively critiqued. Violet is negatively critiqued, "crappy" is literally used. Miss Fame is negatively critiqued. Violet is safe. Pearl and Miss Fame are bottom two. Oath2order (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 10

Pearl and Kennedy critiqued. Trixie and Ginger critiqued. Katya and Violet critiqued and announced as winners. Pearl and Kennedy announced as safe. Trixie and Ginger are bottom two. Oath2order (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode 11

Pearl called safe. Kennedy announced as bottom two. Violet announced as winner. Ginger Minj positively critiqued and is called safe. Katya is bottom two. Oath2order (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

I just wanna change Pearl's hometown to Brooklyn so it's more specific rather than just NYC MiitomoChris (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the column mentions the hometown of the contestants; Brooklyn is not a town. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Jasmine Masters and Katya do not go by those names listed under the contestants section. So many drag queens have extended names but they don't professionally use them in the real world. Noahr1 (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in episode 1

I can't edit because I don't have extended confirmed protection, but in episode 1 is written " For the mini-challenge, the queens must create a resort-wear tearaway to reveal a nude illusion." when it should be main challenge. Bonobos86 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)