Talk:Pit Crew (Drag Race)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Pit Crew (Drag Race). 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 |
Sources
- https://instinctmagazine.com/yum-lets-take-a-closer-look-at-the-drag-race-pit-crew/
- https://www.out.com/entertainment/popnography/2014/02/19/meet-rupauls-drag-races-new-bulgier-pit-crew
- https://www.pride.com/tv/2019/1/22/everyones-thirsting-over-drag-race-pit-crew-recruit-wilson-lai
- https://www.advocate.com/television/2018/5/19/rupauls-drag-race-introduces-first-trans-pit-crew-member
- https://www.queerty.com/everyones-gagging-wilson-lai-pit-crews-hunkiest-new-member-20190128
- https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/01/30/drag-race-uk-body-shaming-pit-crew/
- http://www.newnownext.com/rupauls-drag-race-uk-pit-crew/09/2019/
- https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/fast-lane/article/2019/09/19/its-time-meet-drag-race-uk-pit-crew
---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Those sources have all been looked at. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: Please, let's not use Instagram (or social media in general), YouTube, or personal websites to verify details. I've already removed Instagram sources, but I'm not sure if these were used to confirm any specific claims within the text. Can you please remove any details for which you used Instagram as a source? I will be making some other trims as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The use is not forbidden, especially if it’s used to report on a subject’s own view of themselves. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.) These were reported in multiple reliable sources as their official Instagram accounts. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Gleeanon409, But what sorts of claims are being sourced by Instagram accounts? I'd rather have a higher-quality article with less detail than one with all much detail as possible based on sourcing like Instagram. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think the point of all the concern is if it’s true. Which I wouldn’t have added if I didn’t believe it. I’m not opposed to finding better sourcing, I think the sources should stay until better ones are found, which btw are likely to be using those same subjects as the origin. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Gleeanon409, I disagree. I'd rather remove all the less-than-ideal sourcing (and claims verified by them), and work to expand the article using only high-quality sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- In looking at the issue it seems the Wikipedia community has opted that Instagram can be used to source a subject’s statement about themselves. The main concern in those cases is to ensure the Instagram account is theirs; in this case we have four or five reliable sources all introducing the Brit Crew by their Instagram accounts so I think we’re on solid ground. If you wish we can ask at WP:RSNB to be sure. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think the point of all the concern is if it’s true. Which I wouldn’t have added if I didn’t believe it. I’m not opposed to finding better sourcing, I think the sources should stay until better ones are found, which btw are likely to be using those same subjects as the origin. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Gleeanon409, But what sorts of claims are being sourced by Instagram accounts? I'd rather have a higher-quality article with less detail than one with all much detail as possible based on sourcing like Instagram. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Cleanup?
I think most of the personal details here are not really relevant and only clutter the article. For example, Bryce being a straight ally an a ginger, Shawn getting tattoos in between seasons, or Matt being engaged to his boyfriend. I think for the sake of a clean article it would be better to stick to names and what seasons they were in.
I'd be willing to do the cleanup if there's consensus about that.
Thoughts? Not A Superhero (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am absolutely opposed to that, those details are reported by the media about those models, and it’s quite standard information that readers would expect to find, especially absent photos of them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not A Superhero, I, too, would prefer to see a tighter and less detailed overview of the Pit Crew. I don't mind some details about individuals, as long as sourcing supports, but I'd prefer to focus on things like first trans member, etc, over where they went to school or their relationship status. In other words, keep focus on the demographics and purpose of the Pit Crew. I'd also prefer to see the lists converted to prose, but I'm not sure other editors would agree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The very limited details we have present a thumbnail view of a human being. In most cases this is the only information about them on Wikipedia ... and the article is less than a week old! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that this information is the only one about them on Wikipedia may actually be an argument about it not belonging there. By WP:NOTEVERYTHING, information should only be here if it's encyclopedic, and I'm not sure if this information (or at least most of it) can be considered encyclopedic. I'm on the fence on whether the Pit Crew is notable enough to merit its own article, but even assuming it is, I don't think the individual members merit most of the personal details we're putting here. I personally think most of them ought to have only the name, the seasons they were in, and a few details IF they are relevant overall to the story of the Pit Crew (for example, first trans, Black, Asian, heterosexual or tattoed member, since the Pit Crew has been criticized for its admission criteria), or if they may be notable for other reasons, like appearance in other media or taking part in pageants with their own wikipedia pages. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not A Superhero, Agreed, except I do believe the Pit Crew are collectively notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that this information is the only one about them on Wikipedia may actually be an argument about it not belonging there. By WP:NOTEVERYTHING, information should only be here if it's encyclopedic, and I'm not sure if this information (or at least most of it) can be considered encyclopedic. I'm on the fence on whether the Pit Crew is notable enough to merit its own article, but even assuming it is, I don't think the individual members merit most of the personal details we're putting here. I personally think most of them ought to have only the name, the seasons they were in, and a few details IF they are relevant overall to the story of the Pit Crew (for example, first trans, Black, Asian, heterosexual or tattoed member, since the Pit Crew has been criticized for its admission criteria), or if they may be notable for other reasons, like appearance in other media or taking part in pageants with their own wikipedia pages. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've converted some of the bullets into prose, and put the text in chronological order instead of sorting by first name. Now we can work each section to give an overview for each series, in chronological order, and decide how much detail to include for individual members. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I came to this talk page because I was wondering if any other users had expressed concern with the level of trivialities that are being included in the description of the Pit Crew members. Apparently I'm not alone. I don't think we need such a detailed level of personal info for each member; this article is about the group on a television show, not on each individual member. --Kbabej (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- The sources feel that information is relevant and important. Each crew is, after all, a group of individuals. A good article would include a thumbnail sketch of each member thereby giving the reader a perspective of who the members are; a bad article would do something else.
- Aspects of the crew members help readers identify with their professions and main hobbies. Frankly there have been many crew members in the U.S. version but no one has looked into reporting on them so far. In doing so I think a path forward may emerge. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Tables? Other graphics?
Just thinking out loud here. I wonder if we could borrow anything from List of Aerosmith members and similar pages. Would any tables or timelines be helpful for this article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think tables like that immediately compromise the quality of information and how it’s presented. Blunt details lose the nuance easily conveyed in a prose-format list, and leave no real space for information outside the box, which is ironic for an industry that exists because it’s outside the box. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Requirements of Brit Crew
Under the Brit Crew section, the prose states "The casting requirements included that they were at least six feet tall, attractive, “athletic and toned physique”, no tattoos, aged 18-35, and comfortable in just underwear." Then, underneath the bulleted section of the cast listing, prose states the opposite: "fans and media outlets noted that while the original series involved stereotypically handsome men, the British counterpart was more diverse, allowed tattoos, and did not have such a strict height requirement of six feet or taller." That is completely contradictory. It also seems the second statement fails verification (as evidenced by the 'failed verification' tag added). Should the second statement be removed? --Kbabej (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Kbabej, By all means, please remove whichever content you believe is inappropriate. Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the contradictory information that failed verification. --Kbabej (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Kbabej, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the contradictory information that failed verification. --Kbabej (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)