Talk:Snatch Game/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Move into main space soon?

Resolved

I want to thank editors who've collaborated on this draft thus far. I think the current draft remains incomplete, but there's enough sourcing to demonstrate notability. I propose moving the draft into main space within the next day or too, because I'd like to have Snatch Game be WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race's collaboration of the month for April. If other editors are comfortable with this, I will submit a technical move request soon, and we can all continue to make improvements. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with moving into main space, maybe work on the references a little bit. --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Sebasdfghjkl, Sounds good, and yes reference formatting would be helpful (and can be done in the main space as well). ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I support moving this draft into the main space too. The article still needs some work and can continue to be improved by the Wiki community at large, but the core of the page I think is sufficient enough to warrant a move. Yompi20 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yompi20, Thanks. Glad we're all in agreement here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I've submitted a request. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We're live! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Amazing! Was so fun to collaborate with you. --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources?

@Bearcat: First, thanks so much for your recent additions to this article and to many others related to RPDR. I am curious, do you have sources for your recent additions? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Subject has received plenty of secondary coverage. Nomination for speedy deletion is entirely inappropriate. ----Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat, ECW03, Sebasdfghjkl, and Yompi20: Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Topic has already been deemed non-notable by a deletion discussion. That's a very valid reason for a speedy. Also, your ping will most likely fall foul of WP:CANVAS. --woodensuperman 15:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Woodensuperman, Pinging previous talk page contributors is a problem? I'm just asking for other thoughts. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as they may not be neutral to the subject. --woodensuperman 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, the tag says the article "is substantially identical to the deleted version", and there's no way that's true. Bad nom. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason for deletion is identical. It is not notable outside of the context of the show. --woodensuperman 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
That reasoning would suggest all television episodes are non-notable. I'll just let others weigh in, I'm not going to go back and forth about this. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Most television episodes aren't notable. This isn't even an episode, but a recurring segment. --woodensuperman 15:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Woodensuperman, Yes, I understand. I'm saying "It is not notable outside of the context of the show" suggests all episodes are not notable, and obviously that's untrue. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
If the segment itself had achieved some kind of mass pop-culture awareness, only then would it be notable. See comments by Rhododendrites and DanielRigal on previous deletion discussion. --woodensuperman 15:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Woodensuperman, I'm done here. The segment has spanned a decade across multiple series and has notable people impersonating other notable people. There's a ton of secondary coverage, and actually this article should be further expanded to include reception of the segment in general and specific performances. Some celebrities have even reacted to the impersonations. Strong keep. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why this has been deleted and then restored. Admin that deleted it agrees that is was "substantially identical to what had been deleted" so there's absolutely no justification for this to remain. --woodensuperman 15:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Woodensuperman, Please let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't tell me what to do. The article should already have been speedily deleted. --woodensuperman 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat, ECW03, Kbabej, Sebasdfghjkl, and Yompi20: Pinging you all again, since the page has been deleted, restored, and moved into draft space (so I'm not sure the original pings went through). Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer:I personally think that there is enough coverage to warrant its own page as the article has many sources and is definitley better cited than other wikipedia pages I've seen. If the christmas special episode has its own page then I don't see why this shouldn't... ECW03 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer:I also agree that this article should not be removed. We can continue to strengthen the article to include more secondary sources and expand on Snatch Game's cultural impact, but I strongly disagree that this article should be deleted. Allowing an opportunity to improve the article I think would be a better approach. Yompi20 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being considered notable at all — if somebody can do a good job of writing and referencing a better article than the one that existed at the time of a deletion discussion, then an article is allowed to be recreated even though the topic had previously been deleted. For instance, politicians who created premature articles when they were just aspiring candidates for office, and got deleted on that basis, do sometimes actually win the election in the end and thus clear WP:NPOL; musicians who tried to use Wikipedia for the publicity when they were still just aspiring wannabes, and got deleted on that basis, do sometimes actually go on to clear WP:NMUSIC sometime later on; junior-league sports figures who were attempted at a time when they failed WP:NATHLETE do sometimes actually make the majors or get to the Olympics months or years later; and on and so forth. So if somebody can actually write a better article, and cite better sources to support it, than the first attempt, then the fact that it was deleted in the past does not permanently prohibit the article from ever being recreated at all. If the basis for notability has changed, because either new notability-boosting achievements or improved reliable sourcing can now be shown, then we consider the new version on its own merits and do not automatically redelete it just because it got deleted before.
The original article was weakly sourced, and this version is much, much better sourced — so if there's one thing this version of the article very definitely is not, that's "substantively identical to the deleted version". The original version definitely evinced a GNG fail as written, but while mileage may vary there's at least a plausible case to be made that this version now satisfies GNG on the improved sourcing, and this version also does far more to contextualize its significance to the Drag Race ecosystem than the first version did — so if you're still attached to its non-notability, the correct approach would be a new AFD discussion that evaluates this version and its sources on their own merits, not an immediate speedy. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, +1. I think I should avoid moving this draft into the main space, but might you be willing? (See below.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Main space

Resolved

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Multiple editors wish to have the page in the main space. If Woodensuperman insists on a deletion discussion, then let's go to AfD again, but I don't think their opinion outweighs the others expressed above. I don't want to move the page back into the main space myself, but are you willing? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's ready to go, I have no objections to anyone moving it into mainspace. The move target isn't protected, so anyone should be able to do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights, I understand, but I don't want to do anything wrong here. One editor speedy nominated. I could not remove the tag because I created the page. The page was deleted, and I've had it restored. Multiple editors want the article in main space. I'm fine with anyone moving back, and I assume Woodensuperman will then go to AfD. Seems predictable, but want to make sure this is kosher, so I will let another editor do the move. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine; I don't want to do it either, as I'd rather keep in an administrative role, but anyone else can and it won't be deleted outright. I don't profess to know the subject well enough to know how an AfD would go, but moving it back into mainspace isn't itself a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@ECW03 and Yompi20: Are either of you willing to move the draft back into main space? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: The draft is back in the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD

---Another Believer (Talk) 13:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: The article was kept. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (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.

Old AfD template

Resolved

@Spartaz and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are either of you able to fix the template at the top of this page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it, some parameters were missing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Placements?

Since the HIGH/LOW placements have been removed from all the season articles, should they be removed from here too?86.42.45.199 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This has been resolved (now cells just say "Safe") ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bullet points or prose?

Within each section, we have bullet points for contestants and who they're impersonating. Should we convert the bullet points to prose? ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with bullet points. Maybe to not make it look so long we can put it in two columns. --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with bullet points too. I would be wary of splitting the bulleted lists into columns though. If the text is too condensed, we run the risk of the pictures and labels on the right not aligning with the corresponding text. Yompi20 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think we should put a "The following contestants and their respective impersonations" kinda thing before the list
Yes, I agree. I also think we should name the winner(s) after we show the list of queens and who they impersonated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it is for you both, but breaking the contestant list in columns looks REALLY bad on my screen. The images for Manila Luzon and Barbra Streisand, related to the text for All Stars 4, are all the way down in the reference list on my computer. I strongly believe we should remove the column breakouts and have a simple bulleted list for each episode. It looks so much better that way. Yompi20 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think we should list the queens and who they're impersonating first, then we don't have to mention the celebrity names again where the note who won each challenge (below the list of names). ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that. I'm seeing those edits being made and think it looks better and less clunky. Definitely an improvement! Yompi20 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Now that is edited I also think it looks bad. Maybe we can try with less images? I think it also looks very saturated of images --Sebasdfghjkl (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Sebasdfghjkl, Keep in mind, each section could still be expanded with more commentary from additional sourcing, so things may look less saturated over time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think the disjointed white spaces caused by the bulleted lists might be part of the problem. I'm still wondering if prose is the best way to go, and I'm thinking longterm as well, as I imagine prose would be preferred for Good article status, etc. I'm done editing for the evening but will take another look very soon. Thanks all for helping with this draft, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Press mention of this page...

---Another Believer (Talk) 12:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added the Press template to the top of this page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Daggers to mark deceased contestants/celebs?

Is this really germane? Have any secondary sources commented on like how often dead celebs have been portrayed, etc.? Seems odd to have these daggers throughout since it's not like it matters for the context of the show. Umimmak (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I looked at this page the other day and thought the exact same thing. It's not sourced, not in keeping with the context of the article, and it clutters the page. I think that unless someone feels otherwise about it, just be bold and delete. It seems to have been an addition without consensus.--Found5dollar (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I just removed them. If we need a discussion about possibly bringing them back it can happen there.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snatch_Game/Archive_1&oldid=1174353873"