Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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

Resolved

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

The link appears in the template so I will mark this as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Blair St. Clair

Resolved

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

Has been added, but also the article has been nominated for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that Blair St. Clair is not known significantly for anything other than being on RPDR, and he didn't win it. The combination of those two means that there really isn't the notability to be its own article. IMO, it should be left as the standard redirect to the season.Naraht (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, and we shouldn't drag the AfD discussion to this thread, but I did want to add Blair St. Clair to the template as long as she has an article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

RunnerUp articles...

Resolved

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

Naomi Small has an article so I will mark this as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Runner Ups

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

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

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

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

Eureka (drag queen)

Resolved

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

In the current order, between Aja and Charlie to be consistent with Shangela being after Morgan/before Manila, but I thought we're making it alphabetical or making it by elimination order instead of by rank by season? Umimmak (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there are ongoing discussions to change the order, but I didn't want to move forward w/o consensus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2018

This edit request to Template:RuPaul's Drag Race has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Done Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It really should be [[Eureka O'Hara|Eureka]] since she's only known as "Eureka" in the context of the show. Compare what the template does for Detox ([[Detox Icunt|Detox]]) or Alaska ([[Alaska Thunderfuck|Alaska]]) Umimmak (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer we not pipe any names and just have them listed as their article title. In other words, change "Alaska" to "Alaska Thunderfuck", etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Well regardless they should all be consistent; I was figuring there was more precedent to have the name in the template be the drag name they competed under. Umimmak (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The B*tchelor

I've got a new episode, The B*tchelor, could someone add it to this please?

Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Order?

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

It seems to be in reverse elimination order (i.e., place) by (original) season? So Season one 5th, 8th, then 9th place, Season two runner-up, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 12th place, Season 3 runner-up, etc. Umimmak (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we either display them alphabetically, by order of elimination, or by season? The current order makes no sense. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

or by season It is by season, though? The contestants are ordered by season and then within each season by placement. Other options are a possibility though, but I see the logic with the current order. Umimmak (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I meant to say, should we actually separate and display them by season so readers have a better understanding of the order? I'm open to whatever, I just find the current order a bit arbitrary and confusing at first glance. I'm a fan of the show, and I couldn't easily tell the order, let alone someone who is not familiar with the queens or show. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah they used to be in their own navbox [1] which was clearer; someone later merged them without discussion leading to this unorganized list. Umimmak (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with having a single RuPaul's Drag Race template, but I do like how that template had queens separated by season. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's much cleaner to separate the names by season (and list contestants in reverse elimination order within each season). Could the format of the old template be introduced as a series of subcategories in the "Other contestants" section? There already are sub-headers at the same level for the "Winners" category, so it wouldn't even be visually inconsistent.

If we don't separate them by season, I think it would be preferable to simply list the names alphabetically, as the current order is decipherable only to people familiar with the topic, and even then it's messy. Armadillopteryx^talk 22:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

One other thing I notice is that, as Valentina is the only Miss Congeniality without her own article, the "Miss Congeniality" section of this template isn't an exhaustive list like the winners' list is. And as it is a freestanding category, I think it ought to either unambiguously list all Miss C winners from season 1 to present or clearly indicate which season each winner was from.

But, in light of the current discussion, one idea that crosses my mind is to separate "Other contestants" by season, list each Miss C in her season at the appropriate point in the elimination order, and simply place a special symbol after the name to indicate that the contestant was Miss C. Presumably the symbol's "legend" could be added to the bottom of the box. Would that idea appeal to anyone? Armadillopteryx^talk 22:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx and Umimmak: I'd like to separate this out a bit, since we're starting to discuss several different things. Please comment below:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Do we want to separate names by season?

I vote yes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Me too. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings either way. Are we expecting a reader who wants to be able to find a contestant's article by looking it up in the navbox and might it be the case that they know a name but not which season? In this case it might be better to have them all together but alphabetically. But if we want to organize to show the readers which contestants from which seasons have articles then splitting it by season might be useful. Umimmak (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I think it's confusing if season is used to order the contestants (i.e., either by elimination order or by placement, or, I suppose, alphabetically by season) but they aren't separated by season. But it would also work to just have all contestants sorted alphabetically without taking their season into consideration. Umimmak (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is also my position. Ordering by appearance/elimination order within season, without explicitly separating contestants by season, makes it harder for anyone not already knowledgeable about the show to find whom they're looking for. A strictly alphabetical list, or a list with season sub-headers, would serve the purpose of a navigation template much better. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This will make the navbox too large. Other navboxes of this type do not do this. --wooden superman 12:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Should names be displayed alphabetically or in reverse elimination order?

I don't feel too strongly, but I'm leaning alphabetically. Just looking at a template, the order seems arbitrary if you have no idea how contestants were eliminated, unless the template specifically notes how entries are ordered. And in the grand scheme of things, does the order in which contestants were eliminated really matter? All people mentioned here are included because they have been deemed notable, not because they were eliminated sooner or later on a reality series. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Since it's the contest's template and elimination order is relevant to the competition, I have a slight preference for using reverse elimination order. Why not include the order when it adds information without taking up extra space? That said, the above comment makes valid points, and indeed my preference is not strong. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seems neither of us feel too strongly, so let's see what others think as well. If we decide to display names non-alphabetically, I propose we include a note to clarify the order in which names appear. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that. But indeed, let's see which way the scale tips :-D Armadillopteryx^talk 23:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we clarify what "alphabetically" means? I think I'd prefer to have it be consistently in order of their name starting from the beginning instead of from what editors assume to be the surname. Umimmak (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  - I third that :-p Armadillopteryx^talk 08:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Order should be by appearance. --wooden superman 12:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by appearance? Surely not by like who appears first (I.e., workroom entrance order) Umimmak (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Do you mean by order of elimination? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Contestants who appeared in the first show listed first, then the second show, etc, etc. Maybe alphabetically thereafter, doesn't really matter. This is only for navigation, not information. That's what the articles are for. --wooden superman 08:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Is just regular elimination order (strictly speaking reverse rank I guess cause of complications with returning contestants) by season an option as well? It's the order they appear in List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, the order the non-finalists get interviewed in for the finale, etc. Umimmak (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They were listed by placement (per List of Ru Paul's Drag Race contestants), which is fair enough. Returning contestants should be listed by first appearance, unless they are a winner and listed in that group. --wooden superman 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

How should we denote contestants named "Miss Congeniality"?

My vote is to list queens by season, and denote Miss Congeniality winners with an asterisk. (I don't think there should be a separate line specifically for Miss Congeniality winners. This is not a major part of RuPaul's Drag Race, and keeping a separate line means duplicating entries. I think simply placing an asterisk with a key at the bottom is sufficient. I don't see every other reality show template noting "fan favorites" -- we should treat this template the same way.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I like Another Believer's suggestion to just use an asterisk. I'm also not crazy about there being a dedicated Miss C line to begin with. It feels a bit like a waste of space since its information can be communicated more succinctly. And if we do separate "Other contestants" by season, the Miss C line would break the flow of sub-headers between the winners' section and the others' section. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Big Brother (U.S.) has "America's Favorite Houseguest" which is similar to Miss Congeniality but it doesn't have a separate category for them. But I also don't know how many of its AFHs have their own article. I also wonder if we could use italics or bold to denote MCs or winners instead of asterisks which adds extra characters. Umimmak (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maybe italics for Miss C, and bold for winners (if we don't keep the winners on their own line). Armadillopteryx^talk 08:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If they're not winners they should just be listed with the other contestants. These should not be split by season as this will make the navbox too large. --wooden superman 12:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Can we move forward?

Extended content

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

Well it seems premature to merge them until we know in what order we should display them all. Is there a need to merge them now before we figure out whether to separate by season or not and display by rank, elimination order, or alphabetically? Umimmak (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting, I was just trying to get the ball rolling on implementing changes to this template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you guys suppose that more people will still come to weigh in, or should we start taking steps toward reaching consensus? Armadillopteryx^talk 15:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I pinged several editors above. Not sure how long we want to wait, but I feel like we should be bold and start making changes where there tends to be more agreement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think being bold is a fair move now. If the pinged editors (or anyone else) feels strongly about the changes, they can weigh in as they like. As you mentioned above, everyone who has spoken so far seems to prefer merging the Miss Congeniality winners with the other contestants. That would certainly be reasonable to change (typesetting the Miss C names in what, italics?). How about also going ahead and separating by season? There wasn't 100% consensus for that, but it seems to be majority preference for now. As for alphabetically vs. reverse elimination order within seasons, that seems split 50/50, so either would be fair for a bold edit, I think. Armadillopteryx^talk 22:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we try an asterisk for Miss C recipients? To me, italics are for titles of artworks, books/journals, etc. I think a symbol is less ambiguous. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not need to denote Miss Congeniality recipients at all. They are not winners. They should just be listed with all the other contestants. This is a navigational aid, readers who want additional information should use the articles. --wooden superman 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Shall we display winners names, or denote using symbols?

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

I'm not active on any other reality show pages and so am not very familiar with reality TV template conventions, but I just took a quick look at the templates for American Idol, X Factor and Big Brother. Those all seem to list winners separately. Should we do the same here to remain consistent with reality TV templates in general? Granted, I know that the three templates I looked at can hardly be considered a representative sample, so maybe someone more familiar with these templates could weigh in.

Presumably if we keep the winners separate, we wouldn't actually duplicate those names the "Other" section, right? Armadillopteryx^talk 00:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, but if we're separating names by season, why not just keep the winner with the other season competitors and denote the winner? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The main reason that comes to my mind is consistency with other shows' templates; those seem to normally list the winners under their own dedicated heading. If we do denote the winner as just an entry in the season's contestant list, then I think the names should definitely be listed in reverse elimination order to keep the winner first. Miss Congeniality, as you mentioned, isn't really a big deal on the grand scale of the show, whereas winning certainly is. So also I think that the importance of winning justifies its own row more than being Miss C. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Leave the structure as it is, but merge the Miss Congeniality group. One group for winners, one group for everyone else. --wooden superman 12:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Decision?

Extended content

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

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

I agree -- time to make some decisions. Well, if having 10+ rows (one for each season) makes the template too large, I'm having with simply listing the queens alphabetically. Readers curious about placement can visit List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants, or season articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Either works for me; I just dislike the current system. So where are we on the other issues? Are we only separating out winners (not MCs), and not marking MCs in the list of (non-winning) contestants with a diacritic/font change? Winners are chronological, not alphabetical? Umimmak (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Other reality TV show templates seem to keep winners chronological, so perhaps it would be good to be consistent with that here. It seemed like there was vague consensus for the current version w/r/t Miss C under the "Extended content" discussion above, though that could just be my interpretation. Personally I don't mind whether or not we specially mark Miss C winners. I would say that if we keep winners chronological, perhaps it does make the most sense to keep other contestants chronological (and separated), too. Armadillopteryx^talk 22:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD move and alphabetized them since it seems most of us prefer that to the previous version. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is the consensus. These should appear in chronological order, per WP:NAVBOX which states: "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links". This is how any other navbox of this type deals with this. Also, any alphabetical order should be by surname, which is not possible here. --wooden superman 09:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that quote applies here, especially taking WP:IAR into account. I see at least one major benefit to alphabetization (or: explicitly separating by season), and that's ease of navigation, which is the very purpose of this template. Anyone who is not already highly familiar with the show will not understand the logic of how the names are organized at present, and this makes it harder for the people who actually need this navbox to find what they're looking for. We also discussed above (and were in agreement) that alphabetization of names should start from the beginning of the name and not from what may or may not be a surname.

I think it's also worth noting that at least three people prefer alphabetization while only one prefers the existing version, so if you want to use consensus as an argument, surely a 3 to 1 preference is closer to that than a 1 to 3 preference.

I would be fine leaving the names in the order they have been reverted to if (and only if) we explicitly separate them by season. How do people feel about that compromise? Armadillopteryx^talk 10:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, if you're going to alphabetize something, at least do it properly. Separating by season is a terrible idea, as it will make the navbox far too large, and we'd end up with some very small groups with only one entry. We'll have something akin to the monstrosity that was here. I point once again to how every single other navbox of this type handle this in chronological order: {{Big Brother UK}}, {{Big Brother in the United States}}, {{The Great British Bake Off}}, {{Australia's Next Top Model}}, {{Asia's Next Top Model}} etc... --wooden superman 10:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

One thing I agree with you on is that alphabetical order would ideally be by surname, but that isn't possible here since many of these names are mononyms. I actually like the "monstrosity" you linked and find it much clearer than what we have. Now that both Asia O'Hara and Vanessa Vanjie Mateo have their own articles, there would no longer be any categories with just one entry, either. IMHO all navboxes of this type, including the ones you've linked, would also better serve the very purpose they're designed for if those names were alphabetical or separated by season. Why do we have navboxes if only people who already know their content by heart can understand how they're organized? Armadillopteryx^talk 11:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You should never sort by first name if there is a surname present. Splitting by season makes the navbox too large, a chronological progression is the natural order here, otherwise people can just use the category Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants if they are looking for an alphabetical list. --wooden superman 11:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, alphabetical is helpful, and in many cases these are not true surnames. Any other way of sorting seems arbitrary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Alphabetical is arbitrary if this is the case. --wooden superman 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How is alphabetical ever arbitrary? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're not following standard alphabetization rules it is. --wooden superman 13:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We're talking drag names here, not actual surnames. I support sorting alphabetically by first name/drag name. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is clearly wrong. I've asked for further input from the relevant wikiproject, hopefully to break the stalemate. --wooden superman 13:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, not "clearly wrong", just wrong in your opinion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A pseudonym should still be sorted by surname. --wooden superman 14:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

These are not real surnames! We shouldn't sort Thorgy Thor based on "Thor"... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Yes, you should absolutely sort that by "Thor". Bad example though, as it barely makes a difference when considering where to place it. How about Kennedy Davenport? How is it any different to Vance Joy (to pick a random example)? --wooden superman 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad example. A very suitable example. Also, I don't wish to mix these 2 conversations (I think categories and navigation templates should be treated separately), but I've started a related discussion at Category talk:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll use another example: Detox Icunt. Do you really want to sort by Icunt, even though she is almost always referred to as Detox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SURNAME states that "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym." Therefore we would alphabetize using the same logic. --wooden superman 14:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Silly. Asking folks to search for "Detox Icunt" under "I" for "Icunt" is ridiculous. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ditto Alaska Thunderfuck. Should be under "A", not "T". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not silly or ridiculous, but correct. They should be under I and T respectively. --wooden superman 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is your opinion, but more editors prefer differently. We're going in circles here, so I'll let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Detox and Alaska are listed simply by their first names on the template, though, because they're often known by their first names only. So surely under both those sets of rules they'd be alphabetized by their first names. Kim Chi should certainly not be filed under "Chi," though :-p

But also, let's first decide whether we're even doing this alphabetically or not before going down the rabbit hole of which alphabetization scheme is most appropriate here. The compromise suggested below (with standard formatting) is my favorite thing that's been proposed in this entire discussion, so if we don't go alphabetical, I'm happy with that. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of why alphabetical sorting is not really possible or appropriate, and possibly arbitrary. I think we have to go with the compromise suggested below. --wooden superman 14:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, maybe we need to discuss moving Detox Icunt to Detox (drag queen) and Alaska Thunderfuck to Alaska (drag queen). But I agree with your point re: how they are commonly referred to by their first name, which is all the more reason to sort by first name. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well no, as per the MOS "natural disambiguation" is preferred over parentheticals. And Alaska often goes by "Alaska Thunderfuck", see billing for "Steel Dragnolias" [2], [3]. I don't see how it's not really possible to alphabetize by first name -- this is how, for instance, queens were presented by VH1 in promotional materials for S10 so there's a clear precedent there. Umimmak (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, I can't revert Woodensuperman's revert again (3 revert rule), but there's a clear preference here for sorting by first name. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Another benefit to alphabetization is that there's less confusion about contestants who competed on multiple seasons like Shangela, Cynthia, and Eureka... one might imagine that if they are explicitly listed by season it would be misleading to only list them on their original season, but there's no confusion about cases like these if the order is alphabetical. Umimmak (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is clear confusion as to where you might find them in an alphabetical list, as this discussion is proving. You cannot expect Carmen Carrera, Cynthia Lee Fontaine, Alyssa Edwards or Jasmine Masters to be sorted by their first name. --wooden superman 15:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not? A drag name is not a legal name, and I think that anyone looking for a specific queen will intuitively look for the mononym/first name since that's how the queens are referred to on the show, in promotional materials, and in fan circles. I think alphabetizing by the first letter of the drag name (first name or mononym) removes the problem of needing to figure out what qualifies as a last name, or who is usually known by both the first and last name, etc. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You need to be following standard Wikipedia rules here, not make up specific ones for a single TV show. --wooden superman 15:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia rules include WP:IAR and WP:5P5, which says that the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. In this case, what matters most is creating a navbox that is clear, helpful and useful to the widest possible set of readers, including the uninitiated. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure you can. Plenty of sources list Alyssa under A, for instance this [4] listing the queens in AS2. Umimmak (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

No, there is more support for the by season options below. We should definitely NOT be changing to an alphabetical order at this stage, while this is still being discussed. Hopefully my notices at relevant projects will bring some more eyes, as we're in a weird stalemate with too many options right now. --wooden superman 15:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. I don't mind continuing that discussion, but for now, there's a clear preference for sorting by first name based on this conversation. We can update again in the future as consensus allows, but right now there's consensus to sort alphabetically over the current order. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Umimmak (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Umimmak: I cannot revert Woodensuperman's revert again (3RR), but you're welcome to if you feel inclined. No pressure, just explaining why I cannot revert again. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely DO NOT do this. I will get an admin involved if this happens. --wooden superman 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Of the four editors currently discussing, two of us prefer the by season option below, with Armadillopteryx calling it "my favorite thing that's been proposed in this entire discussion", so there is clearly no consensus to change this navbox to an alphabetical order, and we maintain the status quo. --wooden superman 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to invite an admin. You're in the wrong here, and your threat is not appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oops, I was putting it back for now before I saw these messages. Maybe we should all take an hour or so to decompress and come back to this. Yes, the separated by season option below is my favorite, but I feel like there is a lot of heat in this discussion right now and that it's not helping anyone or resolving the disagreement. Can we return to this shortly? Armadillopteryx^talk 15:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It needs to stay at the stable version, so please revert your edit. --wooden superman 15:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: I agree it should stay at a stable version, and taking into account everything that has been said over the past weeks and especially today, I think that the most stable we have at present is the current one, though it is also my personal preference to use the compromise version separated by season. I explain more in a new section below. Armadillopteryx^talk 16:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. --wooden superman

(edit conflict) @Armadillopteryx: Your edit is in line with consensus. We can all continue to discuss the template, but your change reflects current preferences. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How can it be in line with consensus? This might be consensus IF we order alphabetically but to do that has not been decided yet, as 50% of us prefer the version below!!!! --wooden superman 15:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you're missing the point. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

@Armadillopteryx, Umimmak, and Woodensuperman: Are any of you opposed to me collapsing this "Decision?" section? Nothing will be lost. I just think we've all made our points here, and a new section should be started if we want to revisit. Trying to keep this talk page readable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose we can re-make our points in a more concise manner if/when new editors join the discussion. Umimmak (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's fine by me. I won't miss the scrolling :-D Armadillopteryx^talk 16:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

3 out of 4 is good enough for me. Collapsing for readability and organizational purposes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

One other idea

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

I'm glad you're considering other options, but I do not like this version. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise that's a reasonable alternative, but you should probably use the standard syntax as follows:

--wooden superman 14:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I still oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Re alphabetical order, the MOS also says "unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. [...] Snoop Dogg, [...])". This is clearly analogous. And plenty of RS which would otherwise refer to people by their surname after subsequent mention refer to the queens by their first names after being introduced, e.g., the New York Times [5] introduces Katya Zamolodchikova and then refers to "Katya", not "Zamolodchikova" in subsequent mentions. It also feels OR-y for an editor to decide if something is a last name or not. It is not obvious that "Kim Chi" should be alphabetized "Chi, Kim", particularly since Kim is a common family name in Korea and the family name precedes the given name in Korean. I also still oppose the order by rank, i.e., where Nina Flowers precedes Victoria "Porkchop" Parker. The default order in List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants is by elimination order, and I think that would be preferable in my view so there's consistency. Umimmak (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants is in reverse order, so we are already consistent with that, it's just turned the right way round. --wooden superman 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What makes rank over elimination order "the right way round"? Umimmak (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's no longer in reverse order. --wooden superman 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The forward direction of each of these orders is the reverse of the other, and I think both are valid sorting mechanisms that can be established by context and discussion. Neither is objectively right or wrong. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The first queen eliminated on S1 was Victoria "Porkchop" Parker, the second queen eliminated on S1 was Tammie Brown, etc. This is as justifiable an order, and the order with precedent on List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. Umimmak (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

No, this would make the navbox too large. --wooden superman 15:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by the text wrapping, and I would also not be bothered in the navbox were larger. It is collapsible, after all. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather see a collapse option than bad text wrapping. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version

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

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

Thank you. Umimmak (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive?

@Armadillopteryx and Umimmak: I believe you two and User:Woodensuperman, who is now retired, are the only ones who participated in the lengthy discussion above? Since the template seems to be pretty stable at this point, are you two okay with me archiving this discussion? If not, I will leave, but I propose we tidy a bit and focus on the newer discussions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: yeah discussion seems to be over, feel free to archive. Umimmak (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Archive away! Armadillo pteryx 20:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Done and done! Thank you, both! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Consistent cell widths

Resolved

The inconsistent cell widths drive me crazy. Does someone know how to use the "|groupwidth=8em" (or whatever size) function to make the subheading cells consistent? For example, I'd like to see the "Original", "All Stars", "Winners", "Canada", "Thailand", "United Kingdom", etc., cells all the same width to make the template appear much cleaner. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Armadillopteryx: Do you know how to do this? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Just in case this context helps, I asked User:mfb about their changes to cell widths at Template:COVID-19 pandemic, but I don't see the same "navbox child" function used in this template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: There's probably a better way to do it, but I tried this, and it seems to bring about the desired result. Armadillo pteryx 20:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Yessssss, thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Add Drag Race (franchise) to template?

Should we add Drag Race (franchise) to this template? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it definitely belongs here, though it's not clear where it would fit in the best ... maybe under "Related", even though it's more of a parent than a child to this whole template? Armadillo pteryx 21:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

International

@Armadillopteryx and Umimmak: I went ahead and created an International section. You like? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I like. I think it's preferable to what we had before, too, as we are indeed likely to have more season and contestant pages from the international series in the future. This allows us to have consistency between them. Thanks! Armadillopteryx^talk 22:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I like them being in a separate section; the only thing I’m wondering about is the name. Do you know if there is precedent from other NavBoxes to just have “International” instead of like, I dunno, “International versions” (e.g., Template:Project Runway) or “Other versions” (e.g., Template:Hell's Kitchen)? Umimmak (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Umimmak, I don't know about standards or level of consistency here, unfortunately. I'm fine with simply "International", but I'm not bothered if editors prefer to add "versions". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Order?

Resolved

Right now the international series are ordered Thailand, UK, Canada, presumably because this is the order in which they aired. However, I propose changing the order to sort alphabetically, so Canada, Thailand, UK, per discussion below. If someone agrees, do you mind changing the order? I've tried twice but keep getting confused by all the "sub nav box" fields and numbers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Armadillo pteryx 15:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Perfect, thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Formatting consistency between series

At the moment, Drag Race Thailand, which has standalone season pages, is listed at the bottom of this template with the season pages in brackets. RuPaul's Drag Race UK, which has not even aired yet and has no current season pages, is already at the top of the template with its own line and a link to season 1, which is just a redirect at the moment. For now, I think Drag Race UK should go at the bottom with Drag Race Thailand and The Switch Drag Race. If we do eventually move it up once it has season pages, Drag Race Thailand ought to be moved up with it; why give them different treatment? Armadillopteryx^talk 04:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, I'm not opposed, but what do we do about Divina de Campo? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see we could treat the same as Natalia Pliacam or Miss Leona. I support this. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Does this change work for you? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yeah, I like that! Armadillopteryx^talk 15:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Ok, thanks. I'm not opposed to having an "International" section below "Episodes" and above "Related", if that's helpful for organizational purposes, especially as more articles are created about non-US seasons and queens. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under

@Naraht: I don't think we should add RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under until there's an entry for this series. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer. In my opinion, if Spain is there, Down Under should be. However, I also feel it would be consistent if neither was there.Naraht (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, I've removed Drag Race España since the page redirects to the franchise page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer as long as we are consistent. The other choice is to have them with no link.Naraht (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, All entries in navigation templates should be links to existing articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer To me there are some exceptions, such as a navigation template to Gubernatorial elections. A year should be included if there is an article that could be written, but in this case...Naraht (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, OK if I archive this section? Inclusion of Down Under no longer an issue since there's a Wikipedia article for the series now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer Sure.

Recent change

@K CMS: Re: your most recent edit, I'm not opposed to having the Thailand and UK subgroups floating above the other international franchise entries, but now there's no "border" between "International" and "Events". Does anyone know how to fix? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, now there's a line break before Werq the World? @Jonesey95: Pardon the ping, but I wonder if you might be able to work your magic here? :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I did something silly and it fixed the problem. I don't know what was wrong. I hope you can live with the change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, Thanks for investigating! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I give up on editing the navbox haha, I guess we can let the navbox as is for now unless we find a solution to that funny line break on RuPaul's DragCon then we can bring the rest of the franchises below Thailand and UK's expanded subboxes. Peace. k_cms (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

International entries:

Two ideas that I'd like to put out for discussion. 1) That the country should be shown for all international versions (which would mean that Chile would have to be somewhere for the Switch and 2) That they should be ordered by country (Australia, Canada, Chile, Thailand, UK) rather than the name of the show.Naraht (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Naraht, Both seem reasonable to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

User:Ham II has done great work formatting Template:Public art in London, if there's anything we can adapt for this template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on using the collapse function seen in Template:Public art in London to make the International section collapsible? Also, I'd say all of the entries below "International" could be a collapsible "Related" section. Whether or not the default setting is collapsed or "hidden" is another discussion, but might this start to help with addressing the templates size problem? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've converted to the "Navbox with collapsible groups" template. @Armadillopteryx and Naraht: What do you think? Minor change to markup but displays the information differently, and in collapsible sections. Want to make sure you would consider this an improvements, otherwise can be reverted easily. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: This is SO much better!

Like. Armadillo pteryx 14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, Great! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer Nice!Naraht (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Drag Race Thailand

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

Umimmak, This discussion can be archived, right? No longer a concern? ---Another Believer _(Talk)

@Another Believer: yeah sure. Umimmak (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

International spin-offs' names should be consistent in the template

As typical of every Drag Race-related article, every edit has to go through AnotherBeliever's review. So, here we are again. Currently, the template does not show the titles for the UK, Thailand and Chile spin-offs. However, each one of them has its own unique title (RuPaul's Drag Race UK, Drag Race Thailand and The Switch Drag Race). Not having the actual titles is inaccurate and can lead to confusion, because a reader could assume that they are just called "RuPaul's Drag Race COUNTRYNAME". The official titles for the spin-offs already feature the name of the country (with one exception, see later), so having them in the template is more accurate (as they are the actual names of the spin-offs) and readers can still identify the country easily. One more argument is that the other international spin-offs present in this very same template are all indicated with their official names (Canada's Drag Race, Drag Race España, Drag Race Holland and RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under). Following AnotherBeliever's logic then their links should be changed to appear as Canada, Holland, Australia and New Zealand and Spain - for consistency reasons. However, please note how doing so does not allow to see the official names of each spin-offs (which are all different, only some have 'RuPaul's' in the name and the country's placement is not always consistent -see "Canada's Drag Race", as opposed to "Drag Race Thailand" -). I believe that every spin-off should be included in the template in the same way, that is with its official title, which in most case is also enough to identify the country. The only exception is The Switch Drag Race, but the country can just be mentioned after. My proposed template is below. Thank you --78.148.25.46 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think having (Chile) in brackets after the title looks clumsy. Either stick to the status quo or go all the way and have just the official titles.

As an aside, watch the attitude.--Pokelova (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The status quo is to currently have half of the spin-offs with their official title and half of them with just the country name. I don't think the template should have this inconsistency. The (Chile) may not be the best suggestion, so hopefully somebody else will propose something better ('Chile' doesn't have to be part of the template, but I appreciate that some people would prefer it to be included). Personally I would just use the official titles, because the template is about the Drag Race franchise. The country is immediately clear from each of the spin-off's names (expect for The Switch Drag Race, but even then, The Switch's article almost immediately points out that it's a Chilean show). 78.148.25.46 (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a bit of a contradiction of your previous statement. You said "Not having the actual titles is inaccurate and can lead to confusion, because a reader could assume that they are just called "RuPaul's Drag Race COUNTRYNAME"", which as you point out is a confusion easily cleared up by clicking through to the article.--Pokelova (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not having the actual titles could confuse some readers into think that they are all called "RuPaul's Drag Race COUNTRYNAME". Yes, this can be easily cleared by reading the relevant articles. But is this necessary? Only one spin-off doesn't have the country in its name, while keeping the template as it is would mean having three spin-offs not having their correct names. I repeat, the template is about the Drag Race franchise; I don't see any reason why the actual official names should not be featured in it. 'United Kingdom' is not a synonym for 'RuPaul's Drag Race UK'. The country is ultimately irrelevant for the purpose of the template - which is to navigate through the pages about the franchise. The heading 'International' is enough to understand that they are regional spin-offs; it should not be the purpose of the template to illustrate whichever country it is. The country can be seen in each of the spinoff's pages or, conveniently enough, in the actual titles for these spin-offs (with only one exception). Furthermore, there is the consistency problem. The template should either have all the spin offs with their official names or with just the country name. I support the first option. The inclusion of (Chile) or other alternative for The Switch Drag Race can be considered or not - to me it's not essential, but it may be useful to some readers. At the moment, the template uses the countries' name for UK, Thailand and Chile. While Canada's Drag Race, Drag Race Holland, RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under and Drag Race España are included with the actual name. Clearly the 'status quo' is not consistent. My edit at least brought some consistency to the template, but it was reverted to the previous non-consistent and non-discussed format, with no explanation whatsoever - as typical of AnotherBeliever. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to make your case, and all other editors are invited to weigh in here, but stop coming for me individually. Stick to discussing the template and knock off the digs, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please, when reverting other users' edits provide a summary explaining why you did so. In this case, you simply reverted and, from what I can see, there has been no previous discussion on how to display the spin-offs on the template. So, I'm asking you now, why did you revert the edit? I suggest you have a read at WP:OWN, since this is not the first instance of you reverting edits for no apparent reason - even when the edits are reasonably valid or can be discussed before reverting. I invite you again to explain why you reverted my edit here, also a contribution for this case. Why do you think that having the country' name for just some of the spin-offs is how this template should be? 78.148.25.46 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with displaying only country names or only series names for consistency. But which? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

So, you agree there should be consistency, but when I edited the template to make it consistent you just... reverted my edit? I'm so confused 78.148.25.46 (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh calm down. I didn't like the inconsistency of "(Chile)", and when I reverted your edit I invited you to start this discussion. We're now discussing, so the process worked. Let's stay on topic, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you can agree that at least explaining in the summary why you reverted the edit would have been a good thing. Also, if your issue was just the '(Chile)' part, then why revert everything else? How is reverting with no explanation better editing the template, in good faith? Because I clearly didn't vandalise anything and I think the purpose of my edit was pretty clear to begin with. Why didn't you start the discussion yourself after my edit? 78.148.25.46 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to go around in circles here. Can we please just discuss how links should be displayed in the template? I am going to start a subsection for organizational purposes. Stick to the topic, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Country names vs. series titles

The above discussion keeps getting hijacked. Can we please just discuss whether the International section should display country names or series titles, please? State your preference(s) below, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Series titles only. Most titles already include the country's name, with the exceptions of The Switch Drag Race and RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under, where 'Down Under' stands for Australia and New Zealand. The purpose of the template is navigability between the franchise's articles, it does not have to explain what country is associated with each spin-off. Each spin-off has it's own variation of the title format, with some including "RuPaul's" while others don't and some positioning the country's name before or after "Drag Race". In the instance of The Switch Drag Race, the associated country can be easily identified in the series' article - although the inclusion of 'Chile' somewhere in the template could be useful to some readers. Personally, I'm fine with having 'Chile' or not. If countries are to be featured in the template then RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under should be linked as Australia and New Zealand or a variation with the countries reversed. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making your case. Now, time to let other editors weigh in. If you continue edit warring I will seek admin involvement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Template edit suggestion

As my edits to this template were reverted first by Another Believer (with the summary given as "I disagree" - I didn't think it was a reasonable argument here on wikipedia, due to WP:OWN), then by Naraht, who suggested that there was "no sign of talk page discussion", I'm proposing my edits below. A preview of the altered template (which of course can be further modified) follows below .

Every season should be listed with their full official name, that is:
- Replace every instance of "original" with RuPaul's Drag Race. What does "original" means here? Who does refer to the show as "original"? Is there any reliable source referring to the show as the "original"? Is "original" unambiguous enough even for readers not familiar with the topic? It could replaced by similar generic terms like "main" or "standard", but these would still be ambiguous and arbitrary. Referring to the show with its proper name would remove any issues, while also not altering the template's aesthetic and functionality.
- Replace every instance of "All Stars" with RuPaul's Drag Race All Star. This is the official name of the show and I fail to identify reasons for why it shouldn't be used in the template. "All Stars" is not an official name for the show, it is ambiguous and, again, using the complete title doesn't alter the template anyhow.
- Use the correct names for the international spin-offs, instead of the country's name. Currently, the template doesn't feature the names of any "international" spin-offs; "United Kingdom" is used in place of "RuPaul's Drag Race UK", while "Chile" is used instead of "The Switch Drag Race" - just to point out two instances. There is no reasonable argument for not using the official names. Currently the template is full of ambiguity and a reader not familiar with the topic might assume that every spin-off follows the same naming convention (which, by the way, is not even displayed in the template, so what would this convention be? The only instance where any show is displayed with its full title is in the template's header). The international spin-offs have very different titles, for example:
  - Drag Race Holland and Drag Race Thailand (just Drag Race + country's name in English)
  - Drag Race Espana (Drag Race + country's name in local language)
  - Canada's Drag Race (Country's name followed by Drag Race)
  - RuPaul's Drag Race UK (RuPaul's + Drag Race + country's name)
  - RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under (RuPaul's + Drag Race + other denomination)
  - The Switch Drag Race (completely different format)

A similar template, The X Factor series, only features the countries' names - however, it is worth mentioning that every article linked by the template is named "The X Factor (nationality + TV series)" and the few versions of the show that have a different naming convention are listed with their full secondary title (Around the World, Celebrity, etc...). Here, without full names a reader might assume every series to be called "RuPaul's Drag Race + country's name in English", which as shown above is not correct. Furthermore, Down Under is not even dedicated to a single country. Lastly, switching to the correct names still doesn't affect the template functionality or appearance. A decision should be made on how to order the international spin-offs; currently they are in alphabetical order. This makes sense to me, but another option could be chronological order (although this is ambiguous without stating the starting year in the template).

My version of the template:

Since my edits were reverted with no justifiable reasons, other than underlying a lack of discussion (which is not mandatorily required by Wikipedia's guidelines), I invite editors to contribute to this discussion, by stating if they support these changes or if they don't (with the hope that reasonable motives will be included too). Thank you 92.28.190.117 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Navboxes are meant to be concise and helpful to readers. There's no need to repeat RuPaul's Drag Race over and over. I disagree with replacing "original" and I also disagree with replacing county names with full titles. "Down Under" is not intuitive to all readers, "The Switch Drag Race" indicates no country/region, and "UK" is an abbreviation. Displaying the country names gives readers geographic context immediately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no need to repeat RuPaul's Drage Race? It provides context to the related sections of this template - that is, a group of articles related to RuPaul's Drag Race. "Original" is currently present in the template many times as well, so would "there's no need to repeat original over and over - when the show has a proper name" be a valid counter-argument then? I feel like this argument lacks in substance. Navboxes should focus on navigability, not on providing information - your argument that the official international titles are not clear enough with their associated geographic context feels a bit weak here. That information belongs to the main articles, not to a navigational template. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Using "RuPaul's Drag Race" and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars" repeatedly does not give readers more context. The name of the template is "RuPaul's Drag Race" and "original" and "All Stars" are perfectly adequate for abbreviating and disambiguating "RuPaul's Drag Race" and "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't claim 'that using "RuPaul's Drag Race" and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars" repeatedly does give readers more context' - at the very least, it gives readers the same context that "original" gives, but without the ambiguity. According to who or what are the abbreviations "original" and "All Stars" perfectly adequate? To me they seem arbitrarily chosen terms (interestingly enough, I couldn't see a discussion about their inclusion in the template)that have no particular benefit over the complete official names. Furthermore, you selectively chosen not to address parts of my previous comments (specifically about the international versions and the purpose of navigational templates), which reinforces my opinion of your arguments being weak (or at least poorly worded). Given that you reverted my initial edit using only "I disagree" as the edit summary, and looking at some of your past contributions in articles related to Drag Race, I suggest you have a read at WP:OWN. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

... and now's when I move on to other tasks. Best of luck, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I was trying to understand your point of view, but I can see that after your "I disagree" edit summary, your poor argumentations and now this there isn't much to it. I'll give this discussion a couple of days to see if some other user contributes constructively to it, but please don't revert any further edits without a reasonable justification. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll revert as I see fit, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, have a look at WP:OWN, particularly at the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR section. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Knock it off, seriously. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see both sides here, but lean toward the proposed changes. In particular, I agree that the label "Original" is confusing and should be replaced by the show's actual name. As for the names of the international seasons, in most cases it's clear from the show's proper title where it takes place. The main exception is The Switch Drag Race. If it's really a problem that the corresponding country isn't identifiable from the name, we could add "Chile" in parentheses after it, though I'm not convinced that this is a serious problem. If readers aren't familiar with that franchise by name, they can just hover the link and see "Chilean" within the first few words. Colin M (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel that using the countries gives a consistency to the article section on the international versions. In addition navigation templates do not need to tell the information available from the pages. If an article referred to a queen's attendance at multiple versions, it is reasonable to imagine the following. Cinder Fella is a queen who was on [[Drag Race (franchise)|RuPaul's Drag Race]] [[Season 14|RuPaul's Drag Race (season 14)]] . Cinder Fella was the second Malaysian queen on the [[RuPaul's Drag Race|original]] series and according to RuPaul would have been the first Malaysian queen on [[RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars|All Stars]]. She later judged the version in [[RuPaul's Drag Race (Japan)|Japan]] Naraht (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this comment very confusing. Could you rephrase it if possible? Thanks? 92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

gives a consistency to the article section on the international versions Not sure what you mean by this. RuPaul's Drag Race#International versions currently uses the series titles. I guess maybe you're talking about the Drag Race (franchise) article? But "Country" is just one of several columns there (including the series name). And I'm not sure I follow the significance of your example. Just because something can be used as the visible part of a piped link to X in the prose of an article doesn't mean it's an appropriate navbox label. e.g. you could also have a link like [[RuPaul|the eponymous host]] in an article, but that doesn't mean the navbox link for RuPaul should be labelled "the eponymous host". Colin M (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

92.28.190.117, are you the same editor who started this discussion above? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert

92.28.190.117, I've reverted your recent overhauls. You're edit warring and I strongly suggest you quit while you're ahead. Please propose specific changes and gain editor consensus before implementing. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeesh, this is getting messy. 92.28.190.117, I will second that you should probably slow your roll. Given the contentious recent history of this template, reverting a revert of your change is not a great look. I would suggest instead posting to this talk page, pinging AB and giving the reason for your change (and/or the reason you think their revert reason was invalid). If after, say, a day, you don't get any response, then you might consider reverting. (Also, bringing this to ANI seems premature, and I think it has potential to WP:BOOMERANG at this point.)

Though AB, I think it would also have been helpful for you to give some talk page feedback on 92's latest edits if you disagree with them, since they're not just a rehash of the changes described above (though there are some commonalities). I personally think the changes were productive - in particular, I think reducing the number of collapsing sections makes the contents of the navbox easier to navigate. I think it also remediates some ambiguities in the current version. e.g. if a reader is looking for an article about an episode of one of the international franchises, should they expand the "Episodes" section or the "International" section? Colin M (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, I have proposed a possible solution here. The IP editor has not acknowledged/agreed yet, but would you be ok with starting these discussions from scratch? I am asking since you weighed in above. I want all editors to have the chance to weigh in, but these discussions have become muddy. I'm all for improving this template, but based on editor consensus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I don't necessarily think this should be the standard for all changes to this template going forward (I'm a firm believer in WP:BOLD), but if IP editor is okay with it, then I'm happy with any option that will help us move forward on this. Colin M (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, Thanks. I'm not sure if you want to support this proposal at the ANI thread, too? I am hoping the IP editor will agree and we can continue to discuss proposed changes in a more productive manner. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

An unregistered editor is edit warring. @Pokelova: Are you willing to revert the most recent change to the status quo version of the article while the above discussion is taking place. I've tried explaining, and posted a note on the editor's talk page, but they persist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You have issues with ownership and this demonstrates it. Asking another user to revert my edits, just to avoid being flagged for edit warring, is not a legitimate practice. You just want all the pages that you care about to be the way that you want them to be. You revert other users' contributions that you don't like with no explanations. When some user tries to edit a page, you revert the edit, without never starting a discussion yourself. Funny how starting discussions is a one-way only thing for you; it's always the other users that have to make a point for their case, while you keep on reverting everything you don't like without discussing or giving explanations. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not discussing further. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Template:RuPaul's_Drag_Race ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fred van Leer

Is Fred van Leer a judge as well? If not, we might want to move his name to the general Related section, instead of the Judges section. @Thijslandsmeer: Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In season 1 he critiqued the contestants, so I think it’s safe to assume he is. Thijslandsmeer (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Current Template Check.

All articles which include the template have links in the template. All articles but *one* linked in the template include the template. The exception is the link for Pit Crew member "Max Currie" links to Rūrangi a film directed by Max Currie. I'm OK with this exception, but I thought I'd note it.Naraht (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed Max Currie from the template since not independently notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

And I'm also OK with the removal. :)Naraht (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Miss Congeniality

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

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

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

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

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

The point of a navigation template is to link to relevant pages, not provide information. Oath2order (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@161.38.221.112: Please do not add Cynthia Lee Fontaine and Ivy Winters to this template; they do not have pages. Oath2order (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Split idea

As this navbox keeps getting larger and larger, I come with this proposal to split the "Contestants" section into a new navbox, in which we could sort all contestants into different sections, each season per section. The winners of the regular seasons may appear in bold letters, and the Miss Congeniality with a (c) or something. The winners of the All Stars seasons may be placed at the bottom, or we can even list all All Stars contestants again, with the winners in bold letters as well. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As a follow up, we can add also sections for contestants of international series. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I created this draft to give you an idea of how I visualize this new navbox. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The template is quite large. Personally, I am fine with the current RPDR template, but I'm curious to see what other editors think. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Another Believer. I also think it is somehow large, perhaps because I included All Stars contestants as well. Perhaps we can cut this section and just add some notice to the All Star winners (like I did for winners and Miss Cs), or create another navbox for All Stars contestants (I know that this second option sounds weird, but RuPaul keeps releasing more and more AS seasons, so it will be necessary at some point). --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

international versions

It is all or nothing in my opinion for the international versions, This is because if some are and are not included it is treating them differently. This appears to be a bias towards some series and others. There needs to be neutrality in their presentation. the inclusion of some and not others is not neutral as some do and do not have Ru Paul as a judge. They all have contestants with individual pages and lists of episodes either within or separately. Spain is different as it is currently casting.I see it as all or nothing. Include all the versions or none. not selectively. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is regarding my reversion of this edit. There is no need to create a new section for each international version when there are only a couple links related to that version. For example, for Drag Race Holland season 1 you just linked to Drag Race Holland again. Navigation template are not meant to display redirects, links to sections of articles, etc. They are meant to be helpful to readers for navigation purposes. We only need subsections where there are enough links to justify. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, none of the links in the present version of the template are missing; they're just organized in the most space-efficient way. As Another Believer explained, some series have drastically fewer links than others. This is already a very long (borderline too long) template. We should be conserving space where we can. Breaking this up into multiple templates at some point would also not be a bad idea, IMO. Armadillo pteryx 15:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, There may also be ways to collapse select content, if displaying all Drag Race-related pages within a single template is ideal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The question I have is what is the criteria for choosing which series do and do not get their own line and if there is criteria is it non-arbitrary and neutral? Sparkle1 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sparkle1, There's no strict rule, but I'd say there should at least be standalone season/series and contestant articles in order to qualify for a separate line. Otherwise, links can easily be displayed using parentheses. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To me, there are four categories of countries (other than the US), the question is which ones go into which groups.

Countries with Season and queen articles (ex Canada/UK)
Countries with queen articles (ex Chile)
Countries with no season articles, but *have* actually broadcast (Currenly no examples, I believe)
Countries that haven't broadcast (Spain).

The stable version for a while only broke out the first group. The question is whether group 2 should be equally broken out.Naraht (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, I'm confused. There are queens for Thailand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer Sorry. Correcting.Naraht (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, Thanks for clarifying. I don't think we should have a separate row for Chile because the two queen articles can easily be displayed via parentheses, instead of creating yet another line for this template. If season pages are created for Chile, then I would support subdividing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

By my own reasoning, I would be fine with upmerging Canada until there are season pages (which in all honestly, will likely be created soon). Currently, the 'season 1' link just directs to the series page, so technically we can just display the queens' names in parentheses. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've upmerged Canada for consistency. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Judges?

I'm sort of surprised that RuPaul, Michelle Visage, etc aren't in the Template...Naraht (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Naraht: Good point. I'm not opposed to adding them. Armadillo pteryx 18:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we adding judges across all franchises? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to answer with a question, but I guess it would be relevant: Is there any class of articles within the scope of the WikiProject that does not belong in the template? If so, what rule would we use to distinguish ones that do and don't belong? Armadillo pteryx 19:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx, That's my only hesitation with adding judges... where to draw the line. We might compile a list here and determine if worth including? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Maybe the best thing to do would be to first establish concretely which articles do and don't go in the template. This would probably also involve decisions about things previously discussed but not resolved, such as whether we should collapse portions of the template or break it into multiple templates, given the scope of articles that are potentially worth including. Armadillo pteryx 19:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What about Judges section with names sorted alphabetical by last name regardless of franchise? Essentially, just a list of people who have served as regular/semi-regular judges? Breaking down by franchise seems too complicated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That works for me. Armadillo pteryx 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Open to suggestions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I've made sure all of the judges displayed here so far have been tagged as part of WikiProject RPDR, though I noticed Íngrid Cruz's article does not mention the show at all. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Her pages on Spanish wikipedia mentions it in both text and her list of shows and the french page mentions it in her list of shows. I've added expand from spanish template to the page.Naraht (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

List of judges

Extended content

United States
- RuPaul
- Michelle Visage (current)
- Ross Mathews (alternating)
- Carson Kressley (alternating)
- Santino Rice (former)

Chile
- Íngrid Cruz

Canada
- Jeffrey Bowyer-Chapman
- Brooke Lynn Hytes (do we list again, even though already displayed in contestants section?)
- Stacey McKenzie

United Kingdom
- RuPaul
- Michelle Visage
- Alan Carr
- Graham Norton

Australia
- RuPaul
- Michelle Visage
- Rhys Nicholson

Discussion

Hello, sorry I have made a recent change without heeding your opinions here. I often forget about the Talk page, my apologies. I would understand that the current order in the navbox is alphabetically arranged by family name/surname, but as someone who has edited for Top Model and its separate navboxes, would it be possible to group them by franchise instead? k_cms (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

K CMS, The problem is some judges appear in more than one franchise (RuPaul, Visage) and we don't want to add a lot of additional rows to the template, especially if they are not necessary, or repeat entries. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer I suggest we could use the parenthesis listing method, similar to the pilot franchise debuts from the International group, so they appear in one line and don't take up too much space. k_cms (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

K CMS, I'm sorry but I'm not exactly sure I can picture what you're describing. Won't attempting to separate by franchise require repeat entries? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Believer It doesn't have to be. I was referring to the case made for franchises who debuted or expected to air their pilot season, such as Canada, Down Under and Espana, who appear to be in a continuous line and haven't been expanded to their own subgroup in the navbox. I suppose we could do the same for the judges? We can leave RuPaul and Visage to the original franchise, and the franchises where they appear as well could just be grouped in parenthesis and follow in the list. k_cms (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

K CMS, Are you able to show what the row would look like here on the talk page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Gia Gunn

I reverted a recent edit for other reasons, but an IP editor wanted to display Gia Gunn under The Switch. What should we do here? Normally navboxes do not display an entry more than once, but in this case Gia Gunn was on both RPDR and The Switch. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I give you Template:US_presidents and Grover Cleveland. And both instances of President Cleveland are linked. Naraht (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, So you're in favor of displaying twice? No prob!, just making sure there are no better options or dissenting votes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That was my edit. As noted, other navboxes list entries twice when relating to separate topics within the navbox. I think it should be displayed twice. As for the "Winners" edit, why does the UK have the winners listed in their own subgroup, but for example Thailand has both winners listed under the Contestants topic, Chile has Miss Leona under Contestants etc. It would be best to find a uniform way of displaying the information for the international seasons. 2804:14D:5CE0:8079:C91C:6590:8A8D:C99D (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added back Gia Gunn. I understand there's some inconsistency with displaying Contestants vs. Winners, but I don't see a need to add an extra 'Winners' row just to display one person's name. Open to what others think here as well... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the UK and Chile, all of the queens notable enough to have pages were the winners. So it is in sort of a different situation than the US & UK.Naraht (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Move

Could somebody please move this to Template: Drag Race (franchise)? --92.28.190.117 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss below. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes

This template should be moved to Template:Drag Race (franchise) as, in its current state, it lists articles related to the whole Drag Race (franchise). However, it's current name and heading (RuPaul's Drag Race and RuPaul's Drag Race) only refer to the US version of the show. Drag Race (franchise) exists, so the heading could point to it - in this way there would be coherency between the template's name and its content.
If the focus of the template is moved to Drag Race (franchise), then the main collapsing sessions could be: 1) US - listing all the seasons, contestants, episodes and direct spin-offs of RuPaul's Drag Race and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars. 2) International - listing all the international franchises, their seasons and contestants. 3) Related - everything else.
All names of the shows should be written with their full name. This is because there is not a standardised naming convention for the various shows and spin-off. Not having the full names could cause ambiguity and could lead readers not familiar with the topic to assume every spin-off is called "RuPaul's Drag Race something" (which is not correct, as demonstrated by Drag U o The Switch Drag Race). Furthermore, some of the words currently present in the template are arbitrarily chosen terms and ambiguous, that have no benefits over the actual full name. For example, "original" is used in place of RuPaul's Drag Race - but what does original mean here? And according to who or what is it the original? And how do you explain this in a template? Are we assuming that all the readers know that RuPaul's Drag Race is the original (as in the first in chronological order) serie? It is worth nothing that the template would still look as good even with the longer official names (see the proposed template below).
Especially for the International spin-offs, it is important to have the official name. They all have a different naming formula:
- Drag Race Holland and Drag Race Thailand (just Drag Race + country's name in English)
- Drag Race Espana (Drag Race + country's name in local language)
- Canada's Drag Race (Country's name followed by Drag Race)
- RuPaul's Drag Race UK (RuPaul's + Drag Race + country's name)
- RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under (RuPaul's + Drag Race + other denomination)
- The Switch Drag Race (completely different format)
A similar template, Template:The X Factor series, only features the countries' names - however, it is worth mentioning that every article linked by the template is named after the same formula, "The X Factor (nationality + TV series)", something that is not true to the Drag Race franchise. The few versions of the show that have a different naming convention are listed with their full secondary title (Around the World, Celebrity, etc...).
I don't think it's necessary to specify the country for the international spin-offs, as the purpose of this template is to navigate through the articles, not to be informative. The Switch Drag Race doesn't mention its country in the name, but adding the country in brackets is unnecessary per my preceding comment. There are also RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under (that doesn't specify "Australia and New Zealand" in its name), Drag Race Holland (which uses the informal "Holland", instead of "The Netherlands") and Drag Race Espana (which uses the Spanish name for Spain) - if it would be required to specify "Chile" for The Switch Drag Race, then for consistency reasons these other spin-offs should have the English name for the country(ies) next to the official names. But again, this template doesn't have informative purposes.
I find the following links to be not necessary in the template: Dancing Queen, Dragnificent! and We're Here - while these shows feature past Drag Race contestants, they are not related to the franchise anyhow. I have contrasting feelings about AJ and the Queen: it is unrelated to the franchise, however it features RuPaul and a significant number of Drag Race contestants. Producer Entertainment Group is also not directly related to the Drag Race franchise, so I'm not too sure about its inclusion either.

A possible version of the template according to all the proposed changes is posted below. I would like to know other users' opinions on the changes - whether you agree or not, or agree just with some. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

92.28.190.117, do you think you can separate these proposed changes into subsections appropriately, so editors can discuss specifics and not all of the proposed changes as a whole? If you'd prefer I create subsections, I don't mind. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Each specific point can be discussed here. There is no need to break down into different subsections as that would make things slower. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, fine I'll do it myself since you're unwilling. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the subsections. I don't know if this is standard practise for Wikipedia in situation like this or if there is any related policy. I thought that the way that I originally listed my suggestions was enough - I see that your way is better for discussion. However, instead of sighing and complaining, you could have just explained why you preferred the suggestions to be in subsections. This is analogous to your revert habits - just assuming that other users should do things your way, without really explaining why. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re: move to Template:Drag Race (franchise)

This template should be moved to Template:Drag Race (franchise) as, in its current state, it lists articles related to the whole Drag Race (franchise). However, it's current name and heading (RuPaul's Drag Race and RuPaul's Drag Race) only refer to the US version of the show. Drag Race (franchise) exists, so the heading could point to it - in this way there would be coherency between the template's name and its content.

Question: Are you proposing (in this item) any change to the template itself other than the page title? Is the template page title at all visible to readers of the encyclopedia? If not, why bother. Seems like makework. - Bri.public (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't if moving the template to Template:Drag Race (franchise) is tedious or not - I don't really know the details involved with the process. If it's not necessary, then the template title can remain the same. What's important is the heading of the template. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hesitant support. I see how Drag Race (franchise) and The X Factor are analogous to RuPaul's Drag Race and The X Factor (British TV series), respectively. I think the difference is the RuPaul's Drag Race article still has a lot of information about the international series and spin-offs, and Drag Race (franchise) comes across as more of a List of Drag Race franchises. Of course, this can be changed, but I think that's why I'm somewhat hesitant to make Drag Race (franchise) the main Drag Race article over RuPaul's Drag Race at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Drag Race (franchise) definitely needs some work, I will try to put down some content soon. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Moving templates is a pain - in this case we would either have to leave a redirect from the old title (In which case the old name will continue to be used in articles) or we would have to update 300 articles to use the new template name. The title the template has is relatively descriptive of what it contains and this isn't a user facing part of the template so readers aren't going to see it anyway. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Support - Either a bot or a use of AutoWikiBrowser could do this pretty quickly.Naraht (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re: collapsed sections for US, International, and Related

If the focus of the template is moved to Drag Race (franchise), then the main collapsing sessions could be: 1) US - listing all the seasons, contestants, episodes and direct spin-offs of RuPaul's Drag Race and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars. 2) International - listing all the international franchises, their seasons and contestants. 3) Related - everything else.

Support. I think reducing the number of collapsing sections makes the contents of the navbox easier to navigate. I think it also remediates some ambiguities in the current version. e.g. if a reader is looking for an article about an episode of one of the international franchises, should they expand the "Episodes" section or the "International" section? Colin M (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Conditional support: I support having Drag Race (franchise) as the header with subsections "United States" (not "US"), "International", and "Related". However, I do not (yet at least) support implementing full series titles throughout the entire template, so please do not simply implement the template proposed above. But, specifically re: "United States", "International", and "Related", I support. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course the minor details can be vary, my "proposed" template is far from definitive. "United States" looks better overall. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re: full names for all shows

All names of the shows should be written with their full name. This is because there is not a standardised naming convention for the various shows and spin-off. Not having the full names could cause ambiguity and could lead readers not familiar with the topic to assume every spin-off is called "RuPaul's Drag Race something" (which is not correct, as demonstrated by Drag U o The Switch Drag Race). Furthermore, some of the words currently present in the template are arbitrarily chosen terms and ambiguous, that have no benefits over the actual full name. For example, "original" is used in place of RuPaul's Drag Race - but what does original mean here? And according to who or what is it the original? And how do you explain this in a template? Are we assuming that all the readers know that RuPaul's Drag Race is the original (as in the first in chronological order) serie? It is worth nothing that the template would still look as good even with the longer official names (see the proposed template below).

Support for the reasons stated by proposer. Colin M (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose (as proposed, but open to some changes). Writing out all of the show titles fully each time creates too much dead space. This template has a lot of links and I think we should be making reasonable attempts to keep the template as tight as possible. Under "United States", I support having categories "RuPaul's Drag Race" and "All Stars" (I think "RuPaul's Drag Race" is implied) for the seasons. Then, next to Winners and Episodes, I propose abbreviating as "Original" and "All Stars". We don't need to keep saying the full names of the show over and over. As for spin-offs, I prefer the abbreviated version used in the current template (RuPaul's Drag Race: Holi-slay Spectacular; Secret Celebrity; Untucked; Vegas Revue) over full titles. I understand there's value in using full titles but there's also value in trying to keep the template most helpful to readers and reducing redundancy. I believe the section below addresses international franchises, so I will comment there separately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's worth keeping in mind that readers looking at this template might not be as well-versed in the franchise as we are. So if they see a link with the text Secret Celebrity, they might assume it's literally a show called "Secret Celebrity" - it gives a very different impression from the full title, RuPaul's Secret Celebrity Drag Race. I agree that greater compactness is definitely a worthy goal, but I don't think going from "RuPaul's Drag Race" to "Original" in a few places is making a meaningful dent in the template's size. The main factor is the number of links, moreso than the size of the links/labels. If we really care about reducing the size of the navbox, I think we should focus on cutting less important links. WP:NAVBOX gives the criteria "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." and "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." It seems to me there's a pretty big distance between topics like Coco Montrese, Madonna: The Unauthorized Rusical, Alan Carr, etc. WP:PERFNAV seems especially relevant here: Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performers' articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. Colin M (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  Colin M, How do you feel about the size of the "Contestants" block in the example above? That's just so much dead space because of "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars" higher up. Maybe adding a line break b/w "RuPaul's Drag Race" and "All Stars" would help? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  It's not something that stuck out to me (perhaps because I'm viewing on a pretty wide monitor), but now that you mention it, I do like your idea of adding a line break. Colin M (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  I proposed some links that can be removed below. @Another Believe, could you explain what do you mean by line break? Thanks 92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  
  Also, if we're going to display the full titles of spin-offs, I suggest we sort alphabetically. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  Sure, that sounds reasonable to me. Colin M (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re: full/official names for International section

Especially for the International spin-offs, it is important to have the official name. They all have a different naming formula:
- Drag Race Holland and Drag Race Thailand (just Drag Race + country's name in English)
- Drag Race Espana (Drag Race + country's name in local language)
- Canada's Drag Race (Country's name followed by Drag Race)
- RuPaul's Drag Race UK (RuPaul's + Drag Race + country's name)
- RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under (RuPaul's + Drag Race + other denomination)
- The Switch Drag Race (completely different format)
A similar template, Template:The X Factor series, only features the countries' names - however, it is worth mentioning that every article linked by the template is named after the same formula, "The X Factor (nationality + TV series)", something that is not true to the Drag Race franchise. The few versions of the show that have a different naming convention are listed with their full secondary title (Around the World, Celebrity, etc...).
I don't think it's necessary to specify the country for the international spin-offs, as the purpose of this template is to navigate through the articles, not to be informative. The Switch Drag Race doesn't mention its country in the name, but adding the country in brackets is unnecessary per my preceding comment. There are also RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under (that doesn't specify "Australia and New Zealand" in its name), Drag Race Holland (which uses the informal "Holland", instead of "The Netherlands") and Drag Race Espana (which uses the Spanish name for Spain) - if it would be required to specify "Chile" for The Switch Drag Race, then for consistency reasons these other spin-offs should have the English name for the country(ies) next to the official names. But again, this template doesn't have informative purposes.

Weak support: I'm open to using full titles over country names for the International section. I do not yet support using all full titles of shows throughout the entire template, so please do not simply implement the template proposed above. I propose sorting the titles alphabetically (Drag Race Holland, Drag Race Thailand, RuPaul's Drag Race UK, The Switch Drag Race), otherwise the order is not intuitive. Below, Canada's Drag Race, Drag Race España, and RuPaul's Drag Race Down Under should be sorted alphabetically. If we're moving from countries to titles, we need to sort appropriately so please do not just remove the piped links. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is the most reasonable to me. Don't assume that my proposed template above is 100% definitive - I overlooked some details, such as the orders of spin-offs etc... I'm not sure I fully understand your last sentence. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I just meant removing "Chile", "Netherlands", "Thailand", and "United Kingdom" would not display international series titles alphabetically, so we should adjust accordingly. I hope that clarifies what I meant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It does, thank you. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose See Template:Big Brother for examples.

Discussion re: related links

I find the following links to be not necessary in the template: Dancing Queen, Dragnificent! and We're Here - while these shows feature past Drag Race contestants, they are not related to the franchise anyhow. I have contrasting feelings about AJ and the Queen: it is unrelated to the franchise, however it features RuPaul and a significant number of Drag Race contestants. Producer Entertainment Group is also not directly related to the Drag Race franchise, so I'm not too sure about its inclusion either.

Comment: I'm on the fence about the TV shows. I'm leaning towards keeping because they all include multiple RPDR queens. All one has to do is look at the roster of the Producer Entertainment Group article to see relevancy. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "including multiple RPDR queens" is enough of a reason to include these articles in the template. These shows just happen to share some of the talents, but that's it. The AAA Girls is a music group formed by former contestants and, according to your logic, it should be included in the template too (I'm not saying it should, in my opinion). --92.28.190.117 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I'd be fine if The AAA Girls and their album + tour were added to the template. These articles and the other television series are clearly related to RPDR. I can't imagine any of these articles would not mention RPDR. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how articles such as The AAA Girls, We're Here etc... are "clearly related" to RPDR? --92.28.190.117 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Because the subjects feature multiple former contestants and RPDR is mentioned in the Wikipedia articles and sourcing about the topics (example for AAA Girls, example for We're Here). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you point me to guidelines about this? I still don't think that these argumentations are enough. All of these projects are independent from RPDR. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

We'll come to a consensus as other editors weigh in, but I think WP:NAV-WITHIN is most pertinent. We just need to decide if these links are worth including or not, based on how helpful they are to readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to WP:NAV. I find this advice particularly relevant as to why we shouldn't include these and possibly other articles in the template: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?. I think most of the ones mentioned by myself before fail to meet these requirments. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight hard to keep links in the Related section. I'd say the subjects are related, but I also understand the template shouldn't include links to every subject/project related to RPDR. I'll let others who feel more strongly decide. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I will also say, I don't think the Related section is too large. Meaning, when readers expand the Related section, I think the template offers very reasonable and helpful links for more information. We're not overwhelming readers with tangentially related links. This is why I'm not bothered by including links for TV shows, The AAA Girls, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ideas for reducing size of template

I support the proposed changes above. I think they're significant incremental improvements, but I don't think they go far enough in addressing the main issue with this template, which is that it is really big. It currently contains 281 links, and easily takes up a whole screen when fully expanded.

I have two ideas for reducing template size and increasing navigability between relevant articles. I think either measure would be a significant improvement in this respect, though theoretically both could be implemented. (If you anyone can think of others, feel free to add them in a new subsection.)

Idea 1: Remove all contestants and judges

It sounds drastic, but the policy on navboxes is actually pretty clear on this: Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performers' articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others.

There's an argument for ignoring this rule in this case because, compared to a typical scripted TV show or movie, for most Drag Race contestants, the show is a central factor in their career and notability. Though there are exceptions, where contestants have done significant work before or after Drag Race, such that they're not primarily known as just a "Ru Girl", e.g. Courtney Act, Bob the Drag Queen.

For judges, I think there's a pretty clear case for removal. For a lot of judges, judging Drag Race is only a minor aspect of their career, and so we can't satisfy WP:BIDI without putting undue weight on it. e.g. Graham Norton, Carson Kressley, Stacey McKenzie.

Idea 2: Split into separate navboxes per show

i.e. have one central "Drag Race (franchise)" navbox, with links to the article about each show within the franchise, along with season links for each show, spin-offs, and maybe a few other articles related to the overall franchise (but no links to individual contestants or episodes).

Then, for shows which have more than a handful of related artices, create a dedicated navbox with more specific links, e.g. to individual contestants and episodes. Some of the subcategories of Category:Reality television series navigational boxes give examples of what this looks like in practice. e.g. Template:Masked Singer, Template:The Masked Singer (American TV series).

Overall discussion

Feel free to add comments here which don't relate to either of the specific ideas above (e.g. if you disagree with the premise that the navbox is currently too large). Colin M (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the template is too large because of how the subsections are collapsed. I agree, the template is large when fully expanded, but the template is only fully expanded if an editor elects to uncollapse multiple subsections. In other words, I am not bothered by the high number of links because they are organized and displayed in a way which is helpful to readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- But the fact that readers need to click (multiple times) to even see any of the links is itself an impediment to navigation, and makes it a lot less likely that readers will actually use the template. Colin M (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  Colin M, The proposed template has three subsections, so most readers will only need to click once to see the subsection of interest. As proposed, there are not additional collapsed sections requiring users to uncollapse further. I don't think this is overkill. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  Its initial visibility is set to "autocollapse". In practice, for every article I've checked that transcludes it, the entire navbox starts collapsed. In some cases it's not actually clear to me why this is. e.g. Bob the Drag Queen has no other navboxes and doesn't seem to have any other collapsible content (unless it counts the RPDR navbox's collapsible sections themselves?). But in any case, the net effect is that readers need to click once to expand the outer template and expose the sections, and then at least once more to expand one of the sections. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  Colin M, Yes, you're right. Then I would be fine turning off the autocollapse so the template displays with the header and 3 subsections (United States, International, Related) by default. This would mean users only have to click once to access any of the three subsections. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  I'm not sure that would be appropriate. For articles that have multiple navboxes (e.g. Courtney Act) having the RPDR navbox expanded by default (even if only to the extent of exposing the collapsed subsections) causes it to take up a disproportionate amount of space relative to the others, which seems like a due weight issue. In any case, even if it's default semi-expanded, I think 281 links is way too many when considering the principles behind navboxes. cf. WP:NAV-WITHIN: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? Would a reader really want to go from Drag Race Thailand (season 1) to Stacey McKenzie? From Ginny Lemon to List of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars episodes? From RuPaul's DragCon LA to Frock Destroyers? Colin M (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Pit Crew Members?

Should links to pages for Individual Pit Crew members be in the template in parentheses after the Pit Crew link? (I'm thinking specifically Shawn Morales).Naraht (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Naraht, I'm not opposed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done I just added his name to the template. ---Another Believer _(Talk)

Went through the Pit Crew page and the following were linked members of some version

But I'm not sure any of them have been so associated with the show that they should also be added. At a certain point, we'd end up with Pit Crew members who have been on screen for less time than the Choreographers and single episode guests.Naraht (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Naraht I don't mind continuing a discussion about the appropriateness of including Pit Crew members, but perhaps for now we could include a Pit Crew section under Judges with the complete list of names? This way we can discuss the section as a complete and not partial list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Down Under

G'day, g'day, g'day! How should we display "Australia" and "New Zealand" in the template? User:Pokelova originally used "&". I changed to a "/". For Monet X Change and Trinity we use a "+". Drag Race (franchise) uses no symbol at all. I don't feel too strongly, but wonder if some consistency here would be helpful. Thoughts, preferences? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe it would be best if we use a hyphen to bring them together, since both countries are widely known to be independent of each other and that the show features contestants from both countries. (E.g. Australia-New Zealand). As for the '+,' we can keep it for Monet and Trinity's case. k_cms (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

This edit request to Template:RuPaul's Drag Race has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think Spain should be given a full box section like all of the other international editions, particularly as production has already begun for season 2. Corego (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Corego: We can create a section for Spain once there are separate articles for Drag Race España, season 1 and season 2. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: If Australia/New Zealand has a section in the drop box with only one season article, so should Espana. --Corego (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Corego 'Down Under' has a series and a season article, as well as entries for specific contestants. As soon as there's a series AND season article for Spain, we can create a new section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Corego I agree with Another Believer. Spain can split into edition and season just like Australia. (I tend to avoid the term series in this case since the UK has had two series within its edition, the UK uses series where the US uses seasons).Naraht (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Bold active seasons?

I've seen other somewhat equivalent templates where active seasons are bolded. Is that something that would be appropriate here?Naraht (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me, but I'm not opposed if other editors find this helpful for readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Decided to be bold here and do this. I believe France is the only one bring broadcast at the moment?Naraht (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Correction, Also DU2 and Canada3.Naraht (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, I wonder if bolding might confuse readers. When you look at the International section right now, you see a couple numbers bolded and you see "France" bolded. Will readers understand why some numbers are bolded and some country names are bolded, but not others? I'm not sure bolding is necessary or particularly helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The way it looks with the bolding is not clear. To me it looks like the formatting got messed up somehow. And it would need constant updating as the seasons cycle through. --Kbabej (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I know it would need to be updated. But with two comments against, reverting might be the way to go. If either of you would like to do so, I'm fine with that. We seem to be doing this Bold - Discuss - Revert. :) Naraht (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Done I've reverted to the version without bolding. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Italy to expanded structure?

Italy now has a single season and an article for two queens, one of which is the winner. Australia/NZ which is expanded structure has a single season and articles for five queens, one of which is the winner. Should Italy be changed so it has the expanded structure like the other countries which have multiple articles related to them?Naraht (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Where's the season article for Drag Race Italia. I'm only seeing the series article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see the difference, Season 2 has been announced for Down under, so it made sense to split show from season, when season 2 gets announced for Italy, that will make sense as well. Note, if we get to the point where more than 3 or 4 of the queens get articles, it may make sense to do that anyway...

Right. So far our rule has been to create a new field for a series when there are entries for at least one season and one queen. Just seasons or just queens could be displayed using parentheses, but once there are numbers for seasons and letters for queens, the separation becomes helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, so what we have at this point is 1) a certain number of countries with multiple seasons/queens, 2) Italy which is one season without even another one announced and 3) Two countries (France and the Philippines) where they haven't started showing Season 1. I honestly think at this point the likelihood of getting to the announcement of a second season for a country without at least the winner of season 1 getting an article is virtually zero.Naraht (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

This edit request to Template:RuPaul's Drag Race has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Jinkx Monsoon to the winners category under All Stars without linking her as she is already linked above under regular season winners. 2406:E003:1D12:7701:2CB2:C2FF:939D:5FD3 (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Not sure it is the *best* answer, but not coming up with one better. If it were possible to have the AS winners displayed without the regular seasons, I'd suggest linking it anyway.Naraht (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We just might consider separating out Template:RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)