Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 22 April 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Critic's Choice Television Awards

Sorry idk how to edit the table but this year's critic's choice television awards should be added. https://en.wikipedia.org/7th_Critics%27_Choice_Television_Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.111.82 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

ydf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.78.97 (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

New Edit

The new table looks awful without the HIGHs and LOWs. Please change it back to what it was before. It's called a progress table for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.14 (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply: 68.190.153.14; You literally oppose every change to these articles so I am not surprised. Quick question, are you the user that use to be called Starbucks? Chase (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok but seriously do you really think that these articles don't need the HIGH and LOW? That's a part of this season, so I don't know why you deleted it. And no I'm not I have no idea who that is. And so what if I oppose things you change on the article. Would you rather have a page that looks like trash, or a page that looks good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.14 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply: 68.190.153.14; Please see: Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)#Highs and Lows. There are no sources for who is high and who is low. It is WP:Original Research and that doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. To infer, who is high/low, one must use their interpretive skills and make an assumption, again, the definition of WP:Original Research. Chase (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Every other TV show has a WIN, HIGH, LOW, some sort of bottom, and who got eliminated. Now why all of a sudden should it not be on here. There is no point of ruining these tables. So they do belong on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.14 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair a lot of information is original research without citations; like the prizes, order of elimination etc. In regards to reality television, removing information on the basis of original research would result in almost empty articles because all details of the challenges, order of elimination throughout the series etc would need to be cited. I personally support the use incorporating highs and lows. Kelege (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Kelege: I respectfully disagree. Most television shows rely on the source meterial as the citation. Meaning, if you watch the show you can verify, without interpretation, that the information is correct. As for the high and low, the source material doesn't state this anywhere in the show. It's actually quite the opposite, even though the contestants are in different tiers, RuPaul does say that these contestants are safe. So safe actually has a citation by the source material and High or Low does not. Chase (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, can't argue the logic. It was just my understanding whether the "source material" is a "citation" or not it still needs to be cited otherwise it's original research and open to being challenged. Kelege (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Kelege: I mean, we definitely could try to find cites for all the information, but I assume most of the cites would be to the videos on Logo, but seeing as we already have the Logo site referenced on the article, it would be extremely redundant. Chase (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't do all that. So what if RuPaul say they're safe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdavez (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Misterdavez: So what? The what is that we are trying to create an article or set of articles that best represents the show without putting our own interpretations on the information. We present things as they are shown, nothing more and nothing less. The only thing I can see doing is making a note or some distinction that the contestant had a chance to be in the top or the bottom, but was ultimately called safe. For instance, having an off white color desiginating "the contestant was considered for the top or bottom, but was ultimately considered safe". The one thing I agree with is that they certainly are in a different tier than the usual safe contestant, but the outcome is the same; SAFE. So my only problem was with designating them as "HIGH" or "LOW" because that is our interpretation, however much I agree with how we designated them as. I feel like my idea is the best way to appease both parties here and ultimately improves the article ten fold. Chase (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the proposal that I am bringing forth so that we can make a compromise. The color can be changed, but it shouldn't be too much different. Chase (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@68.190.153.14, Kelege, Misterdavez, and Oath2order: Notifying users of my proposal. Chase (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

And what'll we put for white in the colorboxes below the main table? @CCamp2013: Other than that, I think it looks good. Side note, might want to check this out: (https://www.reddit.com/r/rupaulsdragrace/comments/58z5yh/theyve_removed_high_and_low_from_wikipedia_charts/) Oath2order (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Oath2order: Oh my, it seems I have started an uproar on reddit. Good thing that reddit is completely non-relevent to wikipedia. Chase (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a warning in case they come here mass-editing. You gonna go through and do the changes for all seasons? Oath2order (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Oath2order: I plan on it, but it might take me a bit. Chase (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Aighty just keep me posted ;P Oath2order (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Oath2order: Y It should be all done. Chase (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I support the the proposal. I liked the old way as it provided more information and as a reader I could work out the entire progress of the contestant but I understand it violated the rules. Kelege (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Kelege: I understand and I quite liked the old way too, even though the table was extremely colorful (which I hated), but the information was somewhat pleasing. However, I could not justify the information that was being presented and I had to put aside my personal feelings for the accuracy of factual evidence for the article. Chase (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

But how is this more accurate to the show? RuPaul calls out the queens as being the best or the worst; I realize it may be difficult to tangibly identify which is which, but the show makes it very clear who did the best and who did the worst. Simply writing them off as "SAFE" dismisses who did the best and worst and thus is inaccurate to what actually occurred on the show. This edit isn't productive or more factual in any way. 2602:304:B1AF:EDE0:5DE0:F2CC:929F:1838 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so now you're going to put the contestant as HIGH or LOW, even though you guys just had a huge fit about it shouldn't be on their, but yet you put it on there but don't fill in the color to pink or lightblue... I don't get it. You might as well just fill in the color is you're going to put what they were anyways. That makes literally no sense and you guys are just contradicting yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B145:2256:854D:808:84EF:5D9 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We need a consensus on the progress tables!

I know this is going to sound like another tedious rant about the progress tables that do/don't feature the HIGH and LOWS marks, but I'm getting a little fed-up with the constant changes and editing wars. Here's a thought that I can hopefully offer, and potentially get reviewed on; the contestants progress table NOW only features the white coloured SAFE, the beige coloured SAFE, the winners, the BTM2 and the ELIM. Is it fair to add reliable sources that identify contestants of that episode that were given a LOW critique and a HIGH critique in the "Episodes" panel, that way relating back to the progress chart?

For example, Episode 3 in Season 9 had HIGH critiques for contestants Peppermint and Valentina, whilst Farrah Moan received LOW critiques but didn't end up on the bottom. There are reliable sources that justify these claims, such as A.V. Club, Vulture Magazine and Slant Magazine. I mean, there wouldn't be reviews from these top sources for nothing right, but unfortunately, unlike many other shows, they have their own article on Misplaced Pages of the episode that detail the results, winners, etc. So the results for each episode are fitted into each season of RuPaul's Drag Race, which should encapsulate mainly everything noted in every episode episode, which are reflected through reviews by top sources, ENOUGH for us to add the HIGHS and LOWS in the article (if that makes sense?) OR, can we make very small detailed synopsis about the results in each episode (in the Episode sub-heading) with verified sources such as the ones above?

I personally feel that there is enough reliable sources to cover the HIGHS and LOWS, and add them to the chart progress, because ironically, there is no sources identifying the winners of each challenge, the bottom two contestants, and who got eliminated, along with their leaving message, BUT YET they are add in the article? (We all know who won, who got eliminated etc., but isn't that a double standard of WP:Original research?) Just adding the sources to each episode in the sub-heading, which is enough to cover the progress chart above if people want to check the links. I'm NOT trying to stir anything or create an issue here, I'm just trying to level out everything because it's becoming a war on Misplaced Pages for this television series. Hopefully this helps and I can get a good understanding WITHOUT any issues or negative comments. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Returning comment: I created a table that showcases references in the episode column above the chart, which could be a possible way to indicate the contestant progress by the review(s) by one or a variety of reliable sources. Or effectively, the references can be added to the episodes sypnosis int he episodes sub-heading? Support or Oppose people? Just curious to know, SO we can hopefully move on. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions?

• • Oppose constitutes original research. Should remain as is. Unless explicitly stated like season 9 episode 1 who was in the top. Also high /low is against wiki policy. Brocicle (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Strongly support: First, the discussion above hardly forms a solid consensus among the editors of the site. As WP:OR states:

Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs.

It can easily be determined who the highs and the lows are in the episode by what the judges say. "You girls represent the best and worst performers this week." If Eureka gets positive remarks, it does not mean you are performing original research or even synthesis by declaring she is in the top. The episode is the primary source itself, so nothing further needs to be done. Compare it to Project Runway (season 8). The table is there to quickly summarize the events of the show. Using ambiguous comments such as "The contestant received critiques from the judges but was ultimately declared safe" forces the reader to wonder if it was positive or negative. It also places on equal footing the performance of the top queens and bottom queens, which is deceiving. At worst, we could use {{cite episode}} to show we are referencing an episode, but this no high/low crap is just overzealous bureaucratic nonsense that is keeping people from improving the articles. WP:IAR. nihlus kryik (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• • comment see the discussion on season 9 talk page under HIGH and LOW. Many editors have stated why it can be considered as original research. Regardless of if you think the high/low is crap it is still against policy and cannot be used. Brocicle (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is not original research. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Seconded. It's not original research. Anonymous5454 03:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is but you're entitled to your interpretation. Brocicle (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Weak Oppose: I gave a Third Opinion on the talk page for season 9 recently and I came to the conclusion that the issue could be interpreted either way. Some editors would likely believe that it constitutes original research and others would believe that since the judges say something similar to what "High" and "Low" indicate then it's acceptable to include. I've been reading all the arguments on the talk page for season 9 about "High" and "Low" ever since I originally gave my Third Opinion and I'm still unclear on what should be done. While "High" and "Low" entries for the table would appear to be in the best interests of the reader, the argument against it; WP:OR is not to be taken lightly and I don't think this is an acceptable situation for WP:IAR. It's a weak oppose from me to side with established policy of WP:OR until something drastically changes - such as RuPaul explicitly mentioning who is "High" and "Low" in an episode. -=Troop=- (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Weak Support: I'd change HIGH and LOW to the lightblue/pink SAFEs but I've always maintained that if there were sources then it'd be fine. Oath2order (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Support: Especially if there are reliable sources available, this format is easily the best. The proposed format also leaves much less ambiguity. TheKaphox T 10:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Strong Support: I didn't even get to watch last weeks episode, and I can't even look on the page to see who was in the top and who was in the bottom. I still don't know who was in the top and who was in the bottom because of this stupid "new format". It looks horrible and the color you chose looks white. Also you're saying that color is for judges critique. And then you have half the people who got a judges critique on that stupid color. If we can't have the highs and lows then we should have the color of the high and low and a safe text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.187.36 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Strong Support: I don't even know why this is up for debate. The current format is ambiguous and confusing, and given the language laid out in the rules relating to original research that other users have cited repeatedly, including material sourced to reputable publications absolutely does not violate WP:OR. Anonymous5454 03:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Strong Support: Both @Seanmurpha: and @Umimmak: have indicated their support for the high/low system on season 9's talk page. Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Yeah I don't understand how it could possibly be considered original research if it's not something the Misplaced Pages Editor came to themself but something in a source. I get how maybe people don't want to treat these as official classifications, but if there's a broad consensus among reviewers that should be noted. Plus, Carson recaps the show; as a judge his reviews presumably meet whatever standard the naysayers have.Umimmak (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Strongly support: The current format is confusing. "The contestant received judges critiques and was ultimately chosen to be safe." First of all after episode 05 or 06, all the contestants receive their critiques. Second: If an entire group is safe from elimination meaning they were "HIGH", how do you replace it with something that indicates those people received their critiques? They didn't, they were HIGH and safe without receiving their critiques. I said it before and i'll say it again, i'd fully support if they replace the HIGHs for the light-blue "SAFE", indicating that someone was one of the bests but didn't one, but the current format is trash and it needs to be changed. (User talk:Screamqueer) 23:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• comment half of that doesn't even make sense. Brocicle (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify where we're at, there are currently nine users advocating for the high/low system (Myself, Seanmurpha, Umimmak, Screamqueer, IP 141.126.187.36, TheKaphox, Oath2order, Nihlus Kryik, and CaliforniaDreamsFan). One user is mildly opposed to the system (Trooper1005). Brocicle is the only user firmly against the system. It seems as if we've reached WP:CONSENSUS. Anonymous5454 (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

consensus isn't based on the number of votes. I highly suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS before concluding that one is apparent. Brocicle (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Strongly support: @brocicle if you still feel that it is WP:OR then please explain how so or further elaborate.

Please refer to this table, nihlus kryik and their first argument stated on this page. I would agree that the current system is ambiguous and confusing and that Misplaced Pages users cannot get a quick accurate read of the contestant's progress throughout the competition. Therefore rendering the table useless. Also, ummimak if you don't mind me asking where does the judge Carson Kressley recap the show? He would be a great citation for the future tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmurpha (talk • contribs) 08:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ive explained how multiple times and so have other users, I'm not repeating myself again. Brocicle (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus reached

At this point it is clear that consensus has been formed in support of the proposed changes. Further edits should be made that align to this consensus. Brocicle, I suggest you avoid tendentious editing and reach out to an administrator if you feel further discussion is required. Thanks. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles