Talk:Froot

Edit warring on what are the album's singles besides the title track and what's not

So there has been edit warring and disputes on the article over the songs "Happy" and "Immortal", which some users claimed to be a part of the album's singles after the release of the title track (which is indeed supported by the article as a single). It has repeatedly been said that the former two are only promotional singles. Even these tweets by Marina say nothing about them being singles and are only just part of her "Froot of the Month" campaign. If she said they were singles, we still can't use Twitter as a source. @EduardoDiaminds, Kieranmcdermott1, Арина Романова, Bogglenose123, and MDNA:, I suggest I get your input on this since you are all involved in this. Anyone else's input is also welcome. IPadPerson (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What I'd like to say is that the only official single is I'm A Ruin. During the first listen on Huw Stephen's show on Radio 1 he confirmed that it's the lead single. Froot, Happy, and the other Froots Of The Month are just promotional releases. Merna and the Gagzonds (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as you source the first listen comment about I'm A Ruin being the lead, and the other Froots being promos, I have no problem with the singles box changing. I just assumed they were all singles as they all got a radio service, a video, and were released to iTunes... Happy even got it's own single release as a stand alone, and not just an instant download track from FROOT. We really should make a decision though, so we can change the info on the individual song pages, and Marinas discography. Azealia911 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

In the singles section add "Happy" released December 12th, 2014. "Immortal" released January 1st, 2015. "I'm A Ruin" released February 2nd, 2015. Blakebcb123 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Your request must be in a "X to Y" format. IPadPerson (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Leak & release date

Should it be mentioned that prior to the release the entire album had been leaked in February and that the release date was re-scheduled to be 2 weeks earlier? --2A02:810C:8C0:22C8:5CCC:47DC:1B19:E9CB (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus is that the album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

---

• Froot (album) → Froot
• Froot → Froot (disambiguation)

– This is the only article listed on the disambiguation page that goes by the plain title Froot (except for the title track, understandably). The other articles (Dan Froot, Froot Loops, fRoots, Fruit) are easily accessible by their current and more specific titles, and would not suffer from the alternate spelling being given to the Marina and the Diamonds album. Not to mention the fact that Froot Loops are never simply called "Froot", and Dan Froot has only seen visited 175 times in three months. It is within reasonable assumption that readers typing in that spelling are looking for this record, and those that were looking for actual fruit will be well on their way with a hatnote. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The album and song are the only two articles with the title "Froot", and between them, the album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by page views. kennethaw88 • talk 02:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as before; the album and song are the only two articles with the title "Froot", but WP:DAB says we do not disambiguate by article titles, and there is no WP:ABSOLUTEMAJORITYTOPIC in GBooks. There isn't even an overwhelming source margin between the song and album. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  Can you clarify? In ictu oculi, what do you mean by "we do not disambiguate by article titles"? I am not asking sarcastically, and I hope you do not take this as disrespectful. I am under the impression that we do disambiguate by article titles; this is why even though Oregon is not the most important topic in the universe, it does not require parenthetical disambiguation. It is distinguished from articles like life and human and love and peace and hope and China by nothing more or less than its article title. Red Slash 17:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  What In ictu means is that we do not consider only topics with a WP article in deciding whether and how to disambiguate. If a dab page has five listings, but only one has an article, that one does not necessarily automatically get the base name. Dohn joe (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  For the record what In ictu oculi means is what In ictu oculi said and not what Dohn joe says In ictu oculi means. That is part of it but even then the issue is not counting article hits. See WP:DAB . In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  Would you please answer my question, In ictu oculi? What do you mean by "we do not disambiguate by article titles"? Red Slash 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ABSOLUTEMAJORITYTOPIC (aka WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). There is an overwhelming viewing margin between the album and everything else (January 2015 views):
  • Froot (album): 32,309 views
  • Froot (song): 8,267 views
  • Froot Loops: 6,873 views
  • Dan Froot: 61 views
  • Kenneth Froot: 0 views (redlink)

The album is therefore much more likely to be sought than any other topic, and more than all the other topics combined, making it a clear primarytopic by usage, even when considering the PARTIALTITLEMATCHes, which we don't really need to. Long-term usage between the album and song probably favors the album as well. Dohn joe (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That is just WP:RECENT and based on web pages not books, it's a current pop item, of course it has current popularity by definition. But it doesn't have any long term significance in an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with In ictu oculi – where are the book results for Marina? Also, the "Froot" song got many page views upon initial interest (17.4k views in November, 11.6k views in December) and has tapered off as interest cooled (6.5k views last month). The album just came out; who's to say it won't do the same once its chart run has finished? –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the stats cited above. This seems like an easy call. -- Calidum 15:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and Dohn joe. Melonkelon (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this is easy enough. The cereal is a PTM, anyway. Red Slash 17:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No indication of long-term significance. Current pageview stats should be taken with a grain of salt since the Marina and the Diamonds album was just released yesterday. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Right, but there aren't really any other more significant uses of "Froot" are there, and this one does satisfy the usage criterion for primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously there are; the surname, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course the album satisfies the usage criterion right now – it just came out. Revisit this in a year or two and see if the pageviews still hold up. My guess is they won't. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 13:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that the album will settle at far higher than the 60 views a month for Dan Froot. In the meantime, isn't this still helping our readers right now? The beauty of WP is that, if things change in the future, we can readily adapt. Dohn joe (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, a move for popularity reasons should really not be discussed on the album's release week. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 19:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment just the fact that the album and the song have the same name should shoot down primary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing of spectacular interest, but Dan Froot is far more credible as primary topic. The smart money is that there isn't one. Andrewa (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the nominator of this request. IPadPerson (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:Cuchullain sorry but I think anyone their own view on the interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should wait for other RM closers. There evidently wasn't a consensus given User:Dekimasu (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Froot to Talk:Froot (album) without leaving a redirect (per discussion at Talk:Froot (song) and move request listed at WP:RM) (revert) after 22:56, 11 October 2014 Soffredo (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Froot to Talk:Froot (song) (Main page should be about album, similar to Electra Heart) (revert). To go by page views in the week following the release of the album in 13 March 2015 is not a reliable guide to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There were 7 support !votes vs. 3 oppose, and the support votes were well supported by evidence. The RM has been open for 3 weeks with no new responses for 11 days. There's no point in leaving it in the backlog any longer for the declining number of admins working in the RM area to deal with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Then relist it. With the historical problem of WP:SONGDAB and partial disambiguation, a song/album close could ideally have been left to an admin who doesn't vote in song/album RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, we wouldn't have dozens of articles in the RM backlog, many of which, like this one, have been sitting without comment for days after a consensus has been reached.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Tourdates

Please do not add future tourdates to this page - see WP:CONCERT if and when the tour has achieved some notability it can be added. In the meantime, this page needs to concentrate on the actual release. The tour really is secondary to that. Karst (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Froot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203232708/http://www.7digital.com/artist/marina-and-the-diamonds/release/froot-1 to http://www.7digital.com/artist/marina-and-the-diamonds/release/froot-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Tracklisting

Is there a point to having this big empty Template:Tracklist? WP:ALBUMSTYLE says there's no need unless there's information to add inside it. A bullet list would work fine, the template looks big, empty and needless. --Whitevenom187^{talk to me} 02:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)