Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 30 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!

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

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)

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)

@Seanmurpha: he's doing the recaps for EW this season. Umimmak (talk) 15:56, 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)

Someone with only 14 edits should not decide if a consensus has been reached. As it clearly states in WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is NOT based on votes. Brocicle (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Oath2order (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been editing wikis and Misplaced Pages for over 10 years now, so I fail to see how my edit count is relevant in any capacity. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No consensus reached explanation and compromise proposal

Two of the supports are based on personal opinions on the structure rather than on policy. The rest are supporting with the basis that they don't agree that it is WP:OR without providing a genuine reason as to why it should be implemented. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy per WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors other than myself have stated why it can fall under WP:OR over on the season 9 talk page as well as the use of but we have sources and how they also may constitute original research based on the critiques being open to individual interpretation. The only 100% reliable source we currently have is Carson Kressley's recap, but he is not a judge on each episode therefore his recap can only be valid for the critiques he's present for.

As a compromise I suggest we use Carson's recap for the episodes he is present on to determine the tops and the bottoms of the week and use the blue/pink colours WITHOUT high and low. And find if Ross, Michelle, Ru, or even the guest judges for the week have recapped the episodes themselves to be able to include the episodes Carson is not present for.

I want this resolved as much as everyone so put forth your ideas so we reach an actual resolution that follows the policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Brocicle (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A consensus has already been reached. WP:DEADHORSE. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

According to you who improperly decided closure. Brocicle (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brocicle:: I agree with you using Carson's recap of the episodes as he is the most primary source to identify the ranks of HIGH and LOW. However, certain publications on episodes, such as this one for episode 4 by Slant Magazine or A.V. Club relay specific notes of how the judges themselves are critiquing certain girls (i.e. "Nina and Eureka receive great notices, but unfortunately for them, they’re on the losing show.") or ("Peppermint’s personality alone saves her from the bottom two.") This is not of bias reviewing, but it does avoid WP:OR because it is a notable and reliable source, and identifies key points from the judges without any "personal" opinions (along with Carson's recaps too). We can add a maximum of three sources in one reference that each specify a neutral point of view of the judges critiques (WP:OP), but I understand what your saying. Having said that, I believe it covers the basis of original research and verifiability. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 01:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: I appreciate your response. I love a neutral source regarding these issues (as you can probably tell) but how do we translate the neutrality of the sources to determine tops and bottoms for the weeks Carson isn't a judge without making it look like a personal opinion? Brocicle (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brocicle: I've just updated the contestant progress chart with the sources on the top row; each reference has about 2-to-3 sources, including Carson's recap with Entertainment Weekly to base it on a neutral point of view from these sources. So far, only Slant Magazine and The A.V. Club have specific commentary—without any bias or personal opinions—about the contestants that are harshly critiqued or positively critiqued. So with those two sources and Carson's blog, I can only assume that it keeps a neutral point of view without getting into unnecessary view points. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 02:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

After looking over the sources I can definitely agree with the neutral view but I still disagree with having high and low except for the first episode but I suppose I can wash it under the bridge just to push on. If this is the compromised standard sources such as these should also be added to previous seasons when found, which shouldn't be too hard for the later seasons but may be a little more difficult for say seasons 1-3. Brocicle (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Examples

These are just examples of what I've been talking about regarding using sources to verified neutral points from magazines such as Slant Magazine, Entertainment Weekly and The A.V. Club, amongst others.

• Episode one cited by Slant Magazine: "RuPaul doesn't even bother to isolate this week's bottom queens, instead directly crowning Nina Bo'Nina this week's winner over Sasha and Eureka."
• Episode two cited by The A.V. Club: "Drag vlogger Charlie Hides has similar trouble making an impression this week, and ends up in the bottom three."
• Episode three cited by Entertainment Weekly and Slant Magazine: "It was a close call between Farrah and Aja when it came down to the final elimination.", and "She's joined in the bottom two by not Farrah, but Aja."
• Episode four cited by Slant Magazine: "Peppermint’s personality alone saves her from the bottom two."

These are just examples of what is SIMPLY exemplified and stated from these sources that specify the result of the queens LOW and HIGH score (I'm not putting the high ones up there because it's pretty self-explanatory from what I'm saying.) CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 02:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted today's unilateral edits by User:Nihlus Kryik, who added HIGHS and LOWs without giving any RS secondary sources. The closing statement is very clear that without these sources, specific to each claim, that stating HIGH and LOW is OR. No such cites were given at his edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And I have reverted your disruptive edits. It is clear that consensus is to use the show as a primary source and to use secondary sources when the judge's comments are possibly ambiguous. Since the primary source is implied, it is a requirement for you to supply sources on the reverts you are making. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor who closed the discussion said reliable secondary sources can be used for high/low marks. No sources, no high or low. Brocicle (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how this be continuously construed any other way. It was clearly stated that the show can be used as a primary source. When the judges comments are possibly ambigous, we should rely on available secondary sources. Since the primary sources don't need to be cited, anything that requires secondary sources needs to be cited before being included in the article. It's clear as day. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"But the question here isn't even the harder question of relying upon the show itself (which might involve questions of WP:OR and is very fact dependent on what exactly was said), instead what is proposed is to rely upon reliable secondary sources which state it directly of which there can be no question of WP:OR". That is what the editor who closed this discussion stated. Secondary sources are required for high low marks. Brocicle (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Even as to relying on the show itself is a primary source, which we could rely upon. Of course we have to be very careful in such a case not to do WP:OR. We could do this all day. I've already explained when a secondary source is necessary and who needs to provide it. nihlus kryik (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, COULD rely on upon, but who decides when a secondary source should be used? You apparently. You do not WP:OWN any of the articles and you're being extremely stubborn. There's nothing wrong with adding a reliable secondary source, especailly with something as ambiguous as progress comments. Those who haven't seen the show or the episode can be linked via the secondary sources for further reading regarding critiques. Per WP:PSTS secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Brocicle (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, specifically in the Primary section of WP:PSTS " primary source mayonehly be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " Not every one has access to the primary source. Secondary sources are necessary. Deal with it. Brocicle (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As the closer: The question as to primary sources was not a part of the RfC because the question presented by the person who opened the RfC did not ask that. They asked ONLY about reliable secondary sources. That doesn't mean that primary sources such as the show cannot be allowed, merely that it was not a part of the RfC. -Obsidi (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Obsidi Is absolutely right. Any further debate is redundant and constitutes WP:DE. Anonymous5454 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Per the closer's comment that "relying upon the show itself ... might involve questions of WP:OR and is very fact dependent on what exactly was said": Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• No Anyone can claim anything without verification — without a timestamp and a quote, we're just taking someone's subjective, POV word that someone somewhere in the episode said something that someone might construe as saying someone's chances of continuing were high or low. That is not how WP:VERIFY works. The closer further stated that when claiming a primary source, "we have to be very careful in such a case not to do WP:OR." Without providing cites, editors are pushing their own personal OR of people's chances. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Per WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Under the rules, the only thing that is required is a cite to the show itself (including the episode #) and, when appropriate, the timestamp of the relevant part (so the person doesn't have to watch the whole episode). As to including quotes, it is not required but it is recommended when possible. Per WP:Citing_sources#Additional_annotation: In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. and A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. When possible we should include the quotation from a TV show as it is a fairly long source that is not easily accessible. However, it is not required and sometimes not possible. If you are summarizing what occurred in a large conversation then it may not be reasonable to quote the entire conversation. A timestamp should still be given, but a quote would not be possible. If a quote is possible, we should use it. But even if it is a summary, it should be clear to anyone that watches the conversation being summarized that the meaning you give it is what actually occurred. -Obsidi (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

On second thought what do you mean by "subjective"? do you mean it is unclear from watching the source? If so then only secondary sources can be used for that. If it is clear what occurred in the primary source, after you watch it, then it can be used (with or without providing a quote). -Obsidi (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it critical to know "exactly what was said" since we can't just "take his word for it" whenever an editor personally decides how to interpret something, but we need to know who is making the statement. If a judge is saying someone is "high" or "low," that's official. If one of the contestants is saying it, that's just one person's opinion and not fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the appropriate content for citing a TV show are given here:WP:Citing_sources#Film.2C_television.2C_or_video_recordings. -Obsidi (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not unclear so to speak but is often open to interpretation depending on how the viewer receives what the judges are saying. That was the whole basis of the WP:OR discussion, which a few people agreed with and some didn't which is why I moved to compromise and use reliable secondary sources such as one of the judges recaps posted weekly for online articles. Quotations from the show are incredibly long which is why it would be best to link to a secondary source for each week for the progress tables rather than rely on the show itself. That way it is definitely sourced and there is further information readily available for readers who may not have seen the show and want further detail. Also per WP:PSTS a secondary source would strengthen and add to the validity of the primary source Brocicle (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If there is a reliable secondary source available, those are preferable over primary sources. But a citation to a primary source shouldn't be removed just because it is a primary source (unless you are replacing it with a reliable secondary source). The question is, would any reasonable person watching the episode believe what is being claimed happened in the show? If so then it is clear what the answer is and the primary source could be used, otherwise a secondary source should be used. A conclusion or inference (as people could interpret it differently), can not be cited directly in a primary source. -Obsidi (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The interpretive work by Obsidi effectively nullifies the dissent from the two users repeatedly attempting to undermine the already established consensus. This matter has been settled twice over now. Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:PRIMARY, if an editor has interpreted something in the show, or drawn a conclusion that was not explicit in the source, then that is OR. As for inline citations and quotations, I believe MOS:PLOT#Sourcing and quotations applies:

  The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE.

When quoting someone in the show, the template to use is Template:Cite episode. The time in the episode when the event happens goes in either the minutes parameter or in time. Where appropriate, we can add the exact quote to the inline citation (instead of the main text) with the quote parameter. Quotes can be shortened with ellipses as long as it doesn't change the meaning. —Ringbang (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, particularly since we're not talking about the objective plot of the show but subjective interpretations of what people are saying.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No citation to primary sources were removed as there were none. This is why two editors reverted the change on seasons 1-8 and all star seasons 1 and 2 as no sources primary or secondary were included when an editor did a mass edit for all pages after closing of the consensus.

The only question that needs to be answered is can we use a reliable secondary source for the progress tables? Answer seems to be yes, so considering this, all season articles that do not have sources should remain how they were prior to the consensus change until reliable secondary sources are found and added or someone takes the time to add the show as a source correctly rather than leaving it completely unsourced Brocicle (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not the consensus that was reached. YOU are required to source anything that goes against using the show as a primary source. nihlus kryik (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

nihlus kryik is correct. Anonymous5454 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're using the show as a primary source then source it correctly. An editor linked you to a page on how to source tv episodes. Brocicle (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus Kryik misreads consensus. As the closer, User:Obsidi, said in the close, "relying upon the show itself ...might involve questions of WP:OR and is very fact dependent on what exactly was said." The only way to know "exactly what was said" is to quote the statement. We can't just "take his word for it" whenever an editor personally decides how to interpret something.

Additionally, we need to know who is making the statement. If a judge is saying someone is "high" or "low," that's official. If one of the contestants is saying it, that's just one person's opinion and not fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, no, and no. Why are you refusing to read most of the arguments put forth? Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Additional_annotation. In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. A citation that just cites the episode is implied and would be superfluous. Stop being obtuse and purposefully misinterpreting the comments of others and the consensus of the community. Thanks. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There you go, hurling insults and name-calling again. Please try to be civil. We're not talking about the objective plot of a movie or a TV show. We're talking about your personal interpretation of something someone may or may not have said. There's no way for anyone to see if what you're saying is true since we don't know what statement on which you're basing your subjective, POV interpretation.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

More side-stepping. At this point, I am done with you and your disruptive editing. Once this is closed against your favor, I recommend you drop the stick or end up at WP:ANI. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not side-stepping: It's the point at the heart of this discussion. And now you've added threats to your insults, name-calling and ad hominem attacks. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur with Nihlus Kryik on this; it might be necessary to get WP:ANI involved here. Raising the possibility of administrator involvement is not a threat, and referring to it as such qualifies as an ad hominem attack and diminishes actual instances of legitimate threats. This has gotten completely out of hand, and over something A) trivial and B) already beholden to a previously-established consensus. Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Per Obsidi and their wonderful comment. I have stated numerous times that when a judge's comments can be interpreted as either High or Low, that we should cite secondary sources. However, you have two editors who are more focused on politicking and grandstanding that they have continuous failed to supply the requested information and have merely disrupted other editors in the process. nihlus kryik (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Why on earth are we discussing this again? We've reached consensus, and with this additional input we now have a dozen users in agreement that this does not constitute WP:OR. The idea that we would have to include a timestamp from an episode of Untucked is over-the-top; we're citing a separate secondary source written by one of the show's judges. I have no idea why we've all been dragged into the same debate for the umpteenth time. If this continues, it might be necessary for administrators to warn Brocicle. This WP:DE has gotten completely out of hand. We're beating a WP:Deadhorse at this point. Anonymous5454 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not open this RfC and I am more than welcome to add my opinion on a new discussion started by another editor. Your last sentence seems very personal attack like considering you jumped to conclusions. Brocicle (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You repeatedly attempted to undermine established consensus in the prior discussion and have continued doing so here; that is why I referred to you specifically. Referring to a user by name does not qualify as a personal attack. Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I was responding to an editor who asked a question. You really need to calm down. Referring to me by name is not a personal attack no but trying to threaten me with admin action when Ive done nothing wrong is. Brocicle (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think if we're using a part of the show that the reader might not expect, e.g., the following episode when Ru says something like "last week you almost won", or Untucked after everyone returns from the mainstage, then it would be useful to point out explicitly where the editor got that information, because otherwise it's thought to be during the mainstage critique or letting the top/bottom girls know who's safe vs who won/has to lip sync. I'm undecided if we need exact time stamps for every instance or just the ones in non-obvious locations. I'm also undecided as to if we need to quote verbatim -- maybe only in cases where the Editor feels there might be disagreement. Umimmak (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Yes and Comment: The show can definitely be used as a primary source and the only source. Almost all of Misplaced Pages's TV shows that have tables like this relies on it and we would be set quite a bit without it. My argument was not that the show itself should not be used because it is not WP:Verifiable. My argument was that regarding this show, in particular, people have been interpreting the judge's critiques as good and/or bad, and there is no way to 100% agree whether they were in the top or bottom. This is the problem we have seen with these articles for the past few years. (People changing certain contests to top and certain to bottom). This is what is regarded as WP:OR and why I initially made the proposal to remove them and came to the conclusion to do so. As Obsidi said in their closing statements, a secondary source is needed in cases where the judge's critiques are ambiguous and the Misplaced Pages editor has to do Original Research to come to the conclusion if they did good or bad, which in almost all cases I think you will find you have to do. I think in both cases we have been asking the wrong questions. We should not be asking if the show can be used as a source, it can, or that secondary sources can be used to put HIGHs and LOWs, they can, but if in the other seasons where we do not have secondary sources, if the show is definite enough in their critiques to include the HIGHs and LOWs. Chase | 20:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• undecided and comment I think past season contestant progress tables should be sourced through a reliablr secondary source like season 9 is. If you use the show as a source then I think you should cite it properly for each contestants critique. Brocicle (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That is absurd and a way to clutter the page. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So you not only make uncivil attacks on me, but on other editors. Calling an editor's comments "absurd" and "clutter" is a way of saying that only your opinion matters and that anyone else's comments are simply "cutter" the page and worthless. Nice. You need to stop your continual ad hominem attacks. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking to a Misplaced Pages policy that calls it clutter is not an ad hominem attack. Please stop your disruptive editing and complete hijacking of this topic. Your only argument is attacking how I am saying stuff and not what I am saying. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Season 9's progress table is sourced secondarily. Don't see how sourcing the other the same is absurd or how it would create clutter. Brocicle (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: User:Nihlus Kryik's comments need to be taken within the context that he wants us to rely on his judgment of subjective statements that he refuses to cite since they may not say what he claims they say. And his judgment his such that he feels it perfectly proper to personally attack another editor with unnecessary uncivil comments that impugn an editor's good faith, like " worry less about your edit count and more about what your edits are." This is the person whose judgment we're relying on?--Tenebrae (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That I refuse to cite? I have said numerous times that possibly ambiguous critiques from the judges should have secondary sources, but the onus is on the person challenging the primary source. You have yet again failed to read the arguments put forth. Now, since your arguments are being shredded by the community as being ridiculous, you try to undermine the judgment of the editors themselves instead of focusing on the arguments that are being made. At this point, you are merely being disruptive. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the onus is on the editor who adds a claim to an article. We're not talking about the objective plot of a movie or a TV show. We're talking about your personal interpretation of something someone may or may not have said. There's no way for anyone to see if what you're saying is true since we don't know what statement on which you're basing your subjective, POV interpretation.

Oh, and please, stop making ad hominem attacks, which is the last refuge of someone who can't otherwise support the merits of their argument. Nothing is being "shredded by the community" — indeed, I'm seeing reasonable commentary back and forth, with even editor who lean toward one side leavening their comments with agreement on aspects of the other side. The only editor here acting unreasonably — making personal accusations, hurling insults and name-calling — is you. You're the person whose subjective, POV interpretations of things we're supposed to trust? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

nihlus kryik has repeatedly cited the information that the vast majority of users want to include in the page. These are not subjective opinions; they've been cited to reputable sources. Tenebrae, you're now going after individual users, utilizing ad hominem attacks and then gaslighting users by accusing them of doing the same. There is no "reasonable back and forth" - We've already reached a consensus on this issue, and once again, in this second debate on the same issue, the users advocating for the high/low method outweigh the dissenters by a large margin. This is getting ridiculous; we have reached WP:Consensus. Enough. Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No information has been cited for the progress tables except for season 9. Where's this repeatedly cited informationyou speak of? Brocicle (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you're refusing and so against a reliable secondary source. Brocicle (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The only ones who have acted uncivilly are User:Nihlus Kryik with his string of attacks on this page and on my talk page, and User:Anonymous5454 with unfounded accusations of gaslighting and of attacks by me. I would ask Anonymous5454 to please point to where I've engaged in, as he claims, "ad hominem attacks".

I would also ask any closing admin to please review the reasonable, flowchart questions posed by User:Trooper1005 under "Context of Highs and Lows for this RfC".--Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Context of Highs and Lows for this RfC

I recently gave a third opinion on this matter and I believe that it would help voters if they could understand the core issues being discussed here. I also believe that the rise of user conduct accusations is directly linked to miscommunication of the issue at hand.

These are questions that editors who are involved in editing the article should probably know the answers to and hopefully having answers will help us come to a clear answer in this RfC.

1a. In an episode of RuPaul's Drag Race, is it explicitly stated that contestants are "High" or "Low"? If yes, go to question 1b. If no, go to question 2.
1b. Do all RuPaul's Drag Race episodes have this explicit statement that contestants are rated "High" or Low"? If yes, then you should vote yes in the above voting area for the RfC. If no, then go to question 2.
2. Can you find a reliable secondary source in which someone of prominence (ie. close to the show) states that contestants are "High" or "Low" and you can quote them? If yes, then we should abandon this RfC and instead source all of the "High" and "Low" ratings. If no, then go to question 3a.
3a. What do the judges specifically rate the contestants as and could that be used in the tables instead? If the answer is yes, then we should abandon this RfC and instead boldly change the tables to what the judges specifically say - ditching the idea of "High" and "Low" for table entries altogether. If the answer is no, then go to question 3b.
3b. Why can't what the judges specifically rate the contestant as be used in the tables instead? If you can state a reason, go to question 4.
4. Given that the answers to all the other questions have got you to this question, wouldn't it be safe to assume that no clear consensus can be had on "High" and "Low" and therefore we should side with established policy of WP:OR? If the answer to this is yes, then you should vote No in the above RfC. If the answer to this question is no, please state a compelling reason for believing otherwise.

Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, at least someone is understanding what is being said. The ONLY episode where it is explicitly stated who is HIGH is the first episode of season 9. Seeing as a consensus was reached to included HIGH and LOW then they should add a reliable secondary source which there seems to be a few thanks to editor User:CaliforniaDreamsFan placing them in the examples section of the now closed consensus discussion. It should not be this difficult for editors to see a reliable secondary source is needed, especially when multiple editors have stated they are preferred over the non existant (meaning not properly sourced) primary sources. And seeing as User:Nihlus Kryik says that sourcing the primary source correctly is "absurd and would create clutter" then the secondary source seems like a more viable option. In my opinion, you should either add the secondary sources or source the primary one correctly. Brocicle (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, in answer to Q.3a the judges call the contestants the TOPS and BOTTOMS for the week not HIGH and LOW. And usually they do not explicitly state who the tops and bottoms are other than the winner/s of the challenge and the bottom 2 who lip sync. Brocicle (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There has been no miscommunication here. We all understand the issue at hand, and a vast majority of the users involved in this discussion don't agree with either of you. I reject the steps listed above; they're rooted in Tenebrae's own WP:OR, not this site's relevant policy. Brocicle has dragged this debate out far past the point of reasonability, and has repeatedly acted uncivilly, demeaning other users' contributions throughout the entirety of this endless back and forth. There are now two separate instances of consensus that we should use the show as a primary source and rely on the secondary sources from one of the show's judges to source the highs and lows of the progress chart only if we have them. This debate ended quite a while ago. This dead horse can't get much deader. Anonymous5454 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have never acted uncivilly. It's not about who agrees with who, at the end of the day it an encyclopedia. Things should be properly sourced, thats all that's being said. I have not dragged anything out, if you read correctly another user opened this RfC and I as an editor are more than welcome to comment on it without being attacked or put down for my opinion. If you don't like it, fine that's on you, but we're welcome to share our thoughts because no one WP:OWNs this article but you're certainly acting like you do. Brocicle (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Brocicle, you've repeatedly attempted to override multiple instances of consensus to push your own personal position on this issue, often times belittling other users and responding passive aggressively to those simply because they rejected your interpretation of original research; I only got involved to offer my support to that first consensus. If anyone is attempting to push an agenda that runs counter to everything nearly every other editor has advocated for, therefore violating WP:OWN, it would be you. I didn't "attack" you for voicing your opinion, and I am aware of the fact that another user initiated this attempt to override previously established consensus; I criticized you for continuing to beat this dead horse for no apparent reason. A dozen users have reached consensus on this issue; you have one other user who agrees with your interpretation, and given that you two are attempting to override consensus, you have the burden of convincing the userbase that your interpretation is correct. You've now failed to do so twice. As I've said repeatedly, this issue has been settled. We've established a consensus now two separate times. Anonymous5454 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No. No consensus was ever reached on allowing editors to insert their own subjective interpretation of what an unspecified person who may nor may not be a judge may have said. The contestants' opinions are meaningless in this context — only the judges' statements matter. So we need to know who made the statement being cited —and we need to know what the statement is, since otherwise we're relying on some editor's POV interpretation of a casual statement. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please show me where I've attempted to override, belittle or where I've been passive agressive. I'm not pushing or attempting to override anything except the addition of reliable secondary sources, which multiple editors have stated they are preferred over a primary source. Only you and another editor are commenting on my apparent behaviour, seems you have some personal bias. If you have such a problem with my alleged behaviour then take it to an admin. I will not sit back and be told I'm doing something when I'm not due to misinterpretation. If you have any further comments then bring it to my talk page. Your incorrect accusations have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Brocicle (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Calling for closure

I'm calling for this discussion to be closed. Tenebrae apparently hasn't watched the show to even understand it and is more upset by the fact that he is not winning or something. Movie pages don't cite the movie, book pages don't cite the book, and reality tv show pages don't cite the show. Get over it already. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You can call for anything you like, but RfCs remain open for 30 days when no consensus has been reached. And there is no consensus for saying that editors are allowed to make their own subjective, POV interpretations of what someone may or may not have said in an episode. And yelling "get over it already" is extremely uncivil and completely inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No one has answered your question with "no" but you. That is consensus. You did not get your way. The community has spoken and you are being disruptive at this point. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As with Donald Trump, just because you're saying something untrue over and over again, that doesn't make it true. Every editor but you and one other are discussing things calmly and reasonably. There is no consensus that says editors are allowed to make their own subjective, POV interpretations of primary sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 30 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment