Talk:Poppy (singer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Hi, I've been advised to come here to talk about the deletion of the That Poppy article. As the person who took time to create and research the page, I'd rather it wasn't deleted. I've tried everything to keep the subject notable, including adding links to the BBC, but the constant re-edits and revisions of my input have begun to wreck the page. I suspect that some of the edits are well-meaning, there to increase the notoriety of the page, as they also add fresh links.TheFatJamoc (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That Poppy is not actually a real pop star,she's nothing but an art project created by Titanic Sinclair.I have no clue to why people are actually taking her as if she's a serious musical artist or something or why we don't talk about her (or should i say Titanic's) 'Music to sleep to' album that was streamed briefly on bandcamp. Crybbluvyduby (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Also,when has her music ever been described as "Bubblegum pop" yeah it's as pop as pop can be but as someone with an interest in the pop music genre myself,i would never label her as bubblegum.Bubblegum pop was mainly in popularity during the late 60's and early 70's,with heavy psychedelic/soft rock influences with innocent lyrical content,(Poppy's "lyrics" are NOT innocent) hence the style being done mostly by boy bands at the time and marketed primarily towards preteen girls. Just check it out for yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubblegum_pop Crybbluvyduby (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits

I reverted edits made by Mr.Robertson88, because not only is the information cited from mostly reliable secondhand sources, but it is also rather crucial to the article itself. The only sources cited that could be deemed as "self-published" are "Jake's Take", the chief content producer-writer of which received a top designation in the Small Business Influencer Awards run by Small Business Trends, and Ultimate Music by Josep Vinaixa. However, the latter reference is the only one that cites both her first and last name, and it seems to be fairly common knowledge that her first name is Moriah to dedicated fans of hers, as evidenced by an old Twitter account that was used well before she began her career, and has pictures of the same exact girl. Other than that, my sources are all viable publications and although they are mostly independent, she is not particularly well-known as it is, so there are not many options in that regard. This person also refers to my sources as "unrepeatable", which does not appear to be a viable reason for removal of content, and appears to be merely subjective.~ Benji ~ (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that her reception as an artist, as superfluous as it may seem, is crucial, as her music and persona are rather controversial and should be addressed as such. This is also important due to the fact that her character has very clear elements to her, but without citing actual publications that also say this, making these claims appears subjective and redundant. Benmite (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Reverting edits (yet again)

Can someone PLEASE tell GabrielMarx89 to stop reverting my edits? So far he has given no viable reason for doing so and seems to just be doing it at this point to annoy me. If the latter is the case, is there any way that an admin can get him banned from editing or something? Although I am not completely new to Wikipedia, I started fairly recently, and therefore do not know how I would go about this situation. It has gotten rather irritating and I have no doubt in my mind that it's going to happen again, with some other person who deletes my edits for no other reason than "i dunt lyk thiss so i duhleetid it," and who does it over and over again. Also, thank you to Adog104 for reverting said edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Benmite – No problem and have already warned the editor twice; but I would keep watching this article and if the [removing content with no explanation or it doesn't belong] persists then move it to WP:ANI. For now I'm watching three editors who've made accounts just to remove information from this article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Her notability as an artist is clear if you look at WP:Music. Her music has been featured in the television show Scream on MTV and had the remix of "Lowlife" played on rotation on BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A TV show that doesn't even have it's own Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crybbluvyduby (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It does have an article, the link was incorrect. It's called Scream (TV series). You may at least know the movies or those masks people wear on Halloween. --88.65.126.163 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

There's a video about That Poppy uploaded by Night Mind on Youtube: Who is Poppy?

What Nick is saying in the video is that the character might be a critique of pop culture and manufactured pop music, and could possibly be treated as an ARG (Alternate Reality Game) or something like that. The people in the comments, as well as elsewhere on YouTube and on the internet, are treating the whole Poppy thing as an ARG. Would any of this be at all relevant to the article, or is it too speculative? JimmyRRpage (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JimmyRRpage: It seems very speculative, I wouldn't put that information in about her as it's not reliable at the moment. (See WP:CRYSTAL) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JimmyRRpage: This is all mostly if not entirely speculation. I would not use someone who tries to compare the placement of a heart on a triangle to the placement of the Eye of Providence on the Great Seal of the United States in order to somehow make a connection to the Illuminati as "reliable". Also, "Nick" does not say that she "might" be, he simply says that she is, and opens no possibility for further discussion, even though nothing has been said on her behalf nor Island's behalf on whether or not this is true. As a matter of fact, neither her and Titanic Sinclair nor the company have even touched on this subject. He also makes a claim that Hollywood is using mind control to make pop stars and Japanese idols, and claims that they have "handlers", who somehow control their every move. He uses Cathy O'Brien's talk of "Monarch programming" to support this, even there is literally no evidence to support this other than other conspiracy theorists saying that she might be right. However, he neglects to mention that there are people who essentially tell them how to act in order to please the public who are not "handlers", and merely do not want them to make a complete fool of themselves and lose the company money, known as public relations. There is no factual evidence presented here, simply the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. This person also seems to have a sharp dislike of Poppy's music, claiming it is "generic pop music" with "nothing new or introspective being said". I hate to be so brash, but many people have tried to edit this article and did nothing but remove facts and replace them with speculation about the "character" of Poppy, and I imagine they also came from this source. The most that can be said about Poppy as of now that would even come close to supporting Night Mind's hypothesis is that That Poppy is a musical project as opposed to the pseudonym of the singer herself, which a myriad of publications cited have acknowledged. Benmite (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Benmite and Adog104: I would argue that y'all missed part of the video. He isn't connecting Moriah Pereira to the Illuminati; he's connecting the *character* That Poppy to the "Illuminati" (who only exist in the fictional context of the story of the character). That is, the "Illuminati", in this case, is part of the plot of the game/story. Many of the people treating the whole Poppy thing as a story ARG do not believe in an actual Illuminati. The idea is that Moriah and whoever she's working with are using the idea of the Illuminati as the lynchpin, perhaps, of the game; no one here actually believes the Illuminati are an actual thing in real life (I don't even believe that; I find conspiracy theories in general hilarious and ridiculous). It's all just part of the character and story. What I was wondering was whether the idea that the whole That Poppy persona might be part of an ARG (or at least exists as a critique of pop culture and manufactured pop music; and perhaps also exists as a critique of ridiculous conspiracy theories like The Illuminati) is relevant. I'm not talking about actual conspiracy theories (and neither is Nick or the commenters). Don't take the whole Illuminati thing seriously... it's meant to be part of the story, not an actual thing. Also, he wasn't just talking about the triangle with a heart, but also the fact that she first appears in the Lowlife music video sitting in the exact stance of Baphomet. JimmyRRpage (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Benmite and Adog104: Oh by the way! Nick at NightMind isn't actually a conspiracy theorist. The whole YouTube channel is designed around explaining online ARGs, Youtube-based CreepyPasta's (such as Marble Hornets), and so on. I agree that he could be more upfront about where he's explaining and where he's actually playing along with the ARG or CreepyPasta, but he will point out all elements of what he's explaining; if conspiracy theories (like the Illuminati) are part of that, he'll include them in the explanation. But that doesn't mean that he's a conspiracy theorist. It just means that a specific conspiracy theory is part of whatever he's breaking down for the video. Based on his Twitter page, he's actually a skeptic. JimmyRRpage (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

JimmyRRpage – Still, I wouldn't include any 'conspiracies' or speculation about the meaning of Pereira or her character Poppy, especially from a YouTube video, at all. Unless reliable sources are able to provide such evidence about Pereira's character or music's meaning it shouldn't be included into the article. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Adog104: Okay. That's fine, and fair. I do think the things Nick points out make it more than idle speculation (that the character is created as a critique, and perhaps should be taken as an ARG, largely because of her vlog channel which is genuinely weird if meant to be taken at face value), but I see what you're saying, as well. So I'll leave it alone. I guess I felt that it would be a perspective to include, but now that I think about it, I'm not sure where it would be put in the article in the first place (to be honest, thinking about it now, had I added it, it would have likely been just as a single sentence in the reception part of the article noting that some seem to be taking her as a character created to critique pop culture and manufactured pop music, and used the NightMind video as a reference for that; I definitely wouldn't have added a whole section about it and included the stuff about the Illuminati and all that, as that's part of the supposed game and not necessarily relevant to the article). I'll be honest... I think perhaps part of why there's an "edit war" going on with the article is because, at least in part, of the NightMind video. Nick definitely brought That Poppy to people who wouldn't have known of her otherwise (I'm just an example; that video is how I heard of her, and that seems to be the case for lots of others, at least based on the views and comments), so it's possible that a couple of the people randomly editing the page now looked for her after watching that video and are maybe trying to allude to what Nick said about the character... perhaps? And that's why I came here to ask instead of just editing it. I didn't want to just add to that. JimmyRRpage (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

JimmyRRpage; that's fine, asking others is good in case you need a second opinion about things you're unsure of editing in or out. I would just try to be careful about adding un-verifiable information of Pereira's character. It seems like WP:ANALYSIS. See WP:OR which may help with future referencing on the article. :) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Adog104 and Benmite: It's me again. Sorry. I know I keep hammering on this but I do think it's something worth noting. That Poppy's vlog channel just uploaded the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkWxkJnH3A

This may be a case of confirmation bias, but I do think the video goes a long way to supporting Nick at Night Mind's hypothesis of the character being a creation for an ARG. Is the video worth noting, or does the whole thing still not fit?

I do apologize for constantly bringing it up. I absolutely respect Wikipedia's rules on what can and can't be included on pages, which is why I keep bring it up on the talk page and not just editing it onto the article itself. But I do think this whole ARG is noteworthy, and I feel so even more after this most recent upload to her vlog channel. I'm not talking about an entire section dedicated to this in the article, but only a mention or perhaps a few sentences under the "Reception" heading. Thoughts? JimmyRRpage (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

JimmyRRpage; unless the words come out of Titanic Sinclairs mouth, and/or posted by a reliable source, then anything else is really much speculation at this point, I wouldn't think theories about Poppy should be posted on her Wikipedia page either since its in line with speculation and WP:OR. Treat Poppy, say, as you would with DHMIS. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Daz

TheFatJamoc: Is the part about reaction videos really necessary? Yes, at the moment, she is a trending topic, and therefore a lot of videos are being made about her. However, they are not being produced in great enough numbers nor are the videos that have been created important or popular enough that I would consider them particularly notable. Daz's Wikipedia page is, to say the least, poorly constructed, has a plethora of issues, and his notability is questionable. The only other popular YouTubers to have made videos on Poppy are Pyrocynical, whose video was not very notable whatsoever, considering the fact that he pushes videos out every day, and Night Mind, who, as I acknowledged before, is very clearly a conspiracy theorist. This is not to say that she's not capable of becoming the topic of more notable reaction videos (and no, I don't mean the Fine Bros, because their videos are just as bad) as in videos that actually cite facts or have a deeper analysis of her other than speculation, but until that does happen, I don't exactly understand what the point of adding that to the article is. Benmite (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair enough response. I included the Daz video because it had more hits than any of That Poppy's own videos, and was pushing a million views, but I didn't regard it as notable for content. I wasn't aware of how bad Daz's wikipedia page was, as I wasn't aware he had one. I didn't link to it in my addition, I didn't asssume he'd have one. TheFatJamoc (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A Whole Dedicated Subreddit

Based on Wiki's guidelines, this still isn't notable to include, perhaps even as a passing mention, in the main article, but I want to place it here on the talk page in case there is anything someone might find that's worthy of inclusion here.

r/that_Poppy/

There is a concerted effort to perhaps prove that Poppy is an ARG character of some kind. Again, keep in mind that any discussion of the Illuminati and Satan and so on is simply participation in what is perceived to be part of the supposed ARG, or outside discussion of the perceived ARG, and not meant to be taken as part of real life (that is, participants shouldn't necessarily be pegged as actual conspiracy theorists because they talk about the Illuminati as part of the game). JimmyRRpage (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Music career section

The entire music career section needs to be reworked for neutrality. It's terrible. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Her whole wiki page was written by a publicist. She has a filmography(?!?) because she *may* have appeared in an uncredited role? And the citation is a convo on YouTube?

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

Please change "That Poppy is an American singer and songwriter best known for her musical project That Poppy, also known as simply Poppy" to "That Poppy is an American singer and songwriter best known for her musical project That Poppy, also known as simply Poppy. She is a character portrayed by singer/songwriter Moriah Pereira"

139.216.118.112 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Real name

@Adog104: So Sputnikmusic isn't a reliable source? Our own article on it seems to indicate otherwise. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman; looking at the source, are summaries for an album a reliable source (especially from a "user" of Sputnikmusic and what is considered as a "Wiki-style metadata database")? It may be sufficient for some information in some cases (if they're reliable), but from the beginning summary alone, there seem to be contradictions from what other reliable sources have said about her origins and basic information.

For instance, Sputnikmusic's source says she originated in San Francisco, rather than from what the interviews from iHeartRadio and Racked have gathered saying she was from Nashville moved to Los Angeles. Moreover, like her age, her name seems to be intentionally concealed; although, some people speculate her age to be 15 and her name to be "Moriah Pereira", we should take these claims with a grain of salt (maybe as WP:BLPNAME says per her name). Likewise, if Wikipedia is not a reliable source, wouldn't a wiki-like website for music not be reliable as well? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Additional note, I've requested this page to be semi-protected recently on the counts of IP's inclusion of BLP issues regarding the name. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

She is borned in 1995 WhiteKillerTiger (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

WhiteKillerTiger; not without a reliable source. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Poppy is NOT Bubblegum pop

As someone who's exstensively looked into the subject of commercialism & music,i would never describe her modern J-Pop (reggae-ish) inspired Electropop EP as "Bubblegum pop" (a genre popular mostly through the 60's and 70's that was influenced by psychedelic rock).All i'm suggesting is some remove the bubblegum label as a genre on her page. Not trying to be annoying just trying to make sure there's nothing but FACTS here on wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubblegum_pop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-pop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electropop Crybbluvyduby (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

I want to edit the That Poppy page thank you Dankogrg (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Real Name

Her real name is Moriah Pereira, you should include it somewhere. 87.78.37.253 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering why people kept deleting her real name. I thought it was because Titanic Sinclaire's PR team wanted her to seem mysterious. Her name is Moriah Pereira, as can be verified from the Titanic Sinclaire website, and any google search. Stop deleting stuff, instead find a source for it yourself you lazy sod. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above - her name is Moriah Pereira. She is from Nashville, but attended school in Whitman MA. She is presently either 22 (per ussearch.com) or 23 (per some youtubers) years old. This is not difficult to find out and I think deleting this info is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.46.243 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, provide a reliable source stating anything you've said and we may include it in the article. For now its speculation and only rumored and it's not stupid deleting any poorly source/unreference material from a biography per what Wikipedia's policies says about biographies of any living persons. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of what I could find. It varies in reliability. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8824909/ http://thatpoppy.wikia.com/wiki/Moriah_Pereira http://the-mars-argo.wikia.com/wiki/That_Poppy_(Moriah_Pereira)

Also, when you Google "Moriah Pereira", it gets recognized as "That Poppy", which shows a box that even links to this very Wikipedia page. So that would mean even Google trusts this information to be true. I've tried to look up older versions of her official Instagram profile through the Internet Archive, but the page seems to be having problems. --Benimation (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Small fan wikis are anything but reliable sources. IMDB is an editable website, what makes some of its lists doubtful. - Alumnum (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you know that Google is largely automatic? If results are commonly associated with each other, they may start automatically appearing in Google's raw "quick facts" info. - Alumnum (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Google doesn't "trust the information to be true," it simply pulls up search information. Stating otherwise indicates that you have no clue as to how search engines work. Google doesn't verify the validity of the information found in searches. Further, user-edited sites are not reliable sources nor is Titanic Sinclair's. IMDB is user edited as is any Wikia you may find. Her old Instagarm account is also not a reliable source. There has been no actual evidence posted in this entry that establishes definitively that her name is Moriah Pereira or that she was born or raised in Nashville. The sources you state that vary in "reliability" are actually all unreliable sources. That's the reality of it. (Sellpink (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

It seems as if some of the editors here don't understand what 'reliable sources' actually are. IMDB and any Wikia is user edited and therefore unreliable by definition. The fact that the subject's alleged real name comes up in a Google search and the fact that "some YouTubers" attest to it means nothing. This is information is saying her name is 'such-and-such' but not proving it. They seem to believe that since the unsubstantiated information has been repeated multiple times on the internet it must be true. Sellpink (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lowlife video description

The Lowlife music video was well-received by Teen Vogue. In the video, Poppy turns on a portable stereo and sits with some reclining featureless white figures in front of a pyramid, signaling with her middle and forefingers amongst a set of porcelain statues of giraffes and monkeys. Meanwhile, a group of wheelchair-bound businessmen share a gas tank with inhalant masks as they review papers in manilla folders. Satan appears in an eggshell with Poppy and joins her and the featureless figures in interpretive dance. Satan and the girl then sit at a dining table set with human skeletal remains. Satan engages in a lengthy monologue which appears to bore Poppy despite his emphatic gesticulation. Satan's subsequent provocative ingestion of a banana causes the girl to become so offended that she can no longer stand Satan's company. As she storms away from the dinner table and off of what is then revealed to be a studio set in which the wheelchair-bound businessmen were observing filming, Satan follows, demanding further attention as she exits outdoors where rows of adoring fans are waiting in a roped-off area. Poppy very quickly signs autographs using a wall paintbrush and red paint, and then joins two women in the back seat of a sport utility vehicle, one of whom provides her with a breath of an inhalant from a mask similar to those used by the businessmen. Refreshed, the Poppy returns inside, walking backwards and pushing the businessmen's wheelchairs to far corners of the studio set and scattering their papers.

References

Do others think that description of the Lowlife video should have been deleted? EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, only the first sentence (about Teen Vogue) was properly cited. The rest was an OR-fest sourced to the video itself. It was inappropriate for you to add it, in my opinion. I do appreciate you asking here versus edit warring over it, though. Most editors would at least hit their third revision before stopping by a talk page and typically I get insulted or disparaged when they do. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Where in WP:NOR are descriptions of audiovisual works based on primary sources forbidden? Under your interpretation, every "Plot" section of our articles on nearly every film, fiction book, television show, and video game would have to be deleted, but in fact style guidelines codify their content parameters, format, and length. Absent a reason actually based in a guideline, policy, or even a longstanding essay, I intend to restore the paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's probably too much detail for a BLP article unless she is primarily known for the video. Also how did you infer that it was "Satan"? The summary seemed to cross the line from reporting into analysis, violating WP:OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The guy in the devil suit is canonically supposed to be Satan per Comedy Central's Snapchat featuring Poppy as announced on Poppy's official Twitter. What details do you propose taking out? EllenCT (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, he looked like the devil to me and to you and you have self-published sources that agree. Since I don't use common sense it still looks like OR to me. This is a girl that recently did a live video of her eating cereal. I don't see why any of these details belong in an encyclopedic article about a girl who used to be a singer before she became the new Mars Argo. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you prefer "an actor dressed as Satan"? (Or, "the devil"?) It's just a paragraph, and far shorter than the Style Guide's recommendation for such descriptions. EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My preference is nothing at all until a reliable secondary source discusses it, and then only what the source backs up. Yes, I would remove 99% of the plots from Wikipedia if it were up to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"Lead single “Lowlife” and third track “Altar” both display these elements at their absolute best. “Lowlife” features a slow chugging, reggae-fused guitar line and a mixture of low churning bass synths that carry an infectious hook with the passing of each horn. The track on it’s surface level details a relationship with toxic lining, referring to this hypothetical man as the “highlight to my lowlife” and covering base with Poppy experiencing abandonment issues without them. Below that however, lines begin to highlight the “dark side” of the Poppy persona with the second verse, which details This bad taste, these headaches/Wake up on the floor again, ah yeah/My torn dress, this failed test/Soon they will be erased. While fairly speculative, these lines illustrate the abusive experiments many alleged “monarch victims” experience through extensive drug and sex abuse. "[1]

"The first single off the EP (“Lowlife”) features some heavy inspiration from Gwen Stefani, but dare I say Poppy sports a much better voice than Stefani has ever had. Sure, she lacks a bit of the grit and angst that Stefani does so well, but overall, Poppy has more range and is a bit more dynamic at a very young age."[2]

"From the blatant Satanic and subtle Illuminati references in the Lowlife music video, to lyrics reflecting emptiness and loss of identity and purpose, to shoutouts to Japanese idol culture, to Poppy's personal channel that's just bizarre, it all paints a very pointed and obvious picture with a strong concept. Probably like most other people who have discovered Poppy around the last few months as of this review, I was exposed to the oddity of her extremely demure and soft-spoken yet surreal personal videos before heading into her music, which totally contrasts with that; she has a strong (but not overpowering) vocal style, the music is upbeat, and she has a somewhat rebellious edge to the lyrics (one of my favorite parts of the EP). It definitely feels like an art installation almost, a critique of current pop music and culture. So about the music. Lowlife isn't anything new (if you've heard a No Doubt song, you get the idea of what's going on here, just a bit more electronic-influenced), but I can't deny that it's striking and catchy. The melody is super-strong and the lyrics have a dry sense of self-deprecating humor to them when the music video is anything but. Hell, I'd say it's better than anything either No Doubt or Gwen Stefani are putting out these days. Just from these lyrics, you can sort of catch onto the concept here; New day but the same lines, I feel like a victim of the dollar sign ... This bad taste, these headaches, wake up on the floor again / My torn dress, this failed test, soon they will be erased... not exactly subtle."[3]

Do you think those would serve the reader better than the description of the video? EllenCT (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

Her real name is Moriah Pereira but goes by "That Poppy" Mmmcay (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Mmmcay: We can't add the name unless it's been verified. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

She's not anymore in Island Records

As proved here she dropped out of Island Records and here Titanic Sinclair says that Poppy released "I'm Poppy" at her own label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.29.73 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for Poppy's name?

Hello. Read over the reliable source page but still unsure — I'm not familiar with Wikipedia rules.

This 2011 video shows That Poppy doing vocal exercises under the name Moriah Pereira. The video is not public anymore, but changed to unlisted (meaning, it can still be viewed). Can this be used as a source?

71.168.238.202 (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Sro23 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there are enough sources to at least include it as her rumored name. --Benimation (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

ASCAP website shows her legal name as PEREIRA MORIAH ROSE in Last, First, middle format. For those not familiar, ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) is a music royalty tracking association. This should end the debate over her name. Beckman0322 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't. ASCAP accepts information, but wouldn't be able to verify it. Again, they are taking the word of whoever fills out the information that it is reliable. It proves absolutely nothing as it is still user-provided, unverifiable and as such an unreliable source. The link also appears to be invalid. (Sellpink (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

References

Moriah Pereira != Semi-protected page, why?

Why is this page protected? And why do you guys keep taking down her real name, Moriah Pereira? 124.190.207.57 (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming of any sorts or anything about a living person requires a reliable source to be provided. As underlined on any person living's talk page:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

Meaning we can't insert anything unsourced or poorly sourced, including names if its not from a reliable source.

For example, we can't include, for say, that my name is John Doe if I had an article entitled "Adog104" because first it would be wrong and second if its not verified by reliable sources then it could be taken as original research and therefor cannot be certainly reliable or verifiable information, and has to be removed immediately as its technically not correct. I seen the other day as well another editor had reverted an IP's edit on a person who had recently died due to them not providing a reliable source; and although the IP was right for including the information he was wrong to not provide a source as again as another example if someone "died" and a random user ploped the information onto the Wikipedia article without any sources it would be safe to say it should be reverted until any reliable sources are published about the persons death.

Also its good to take a look at WP:DOB and WP:NPF as it might explain some things. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 11:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

So why has this not been an issue for any other bio on the entire site, except this one? You can find her name all over the place, when something is common knowledge and not in contention it doesn't need citations in any literary or academic format the world over. Unless the SJW take over of Wiki has turned it truly stupid I would assume it would concede with such a format also. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No, and comments like are just what you make think and should be avoided in discussions (its wrong to assume improper notions of people or platforms in discussions, so please refrain as you did in the above response as well Sro23). Can you link any other biography of living persons with naming convention problems similar to That Poppy's (as you've not provided any)? Furthermore, the name "Moriah Pereira", although circulated, is not backed by reliable sources matching the character, That Poppy, to the name in question, and therefore should not be put into the article.

That name very much seems to be an internet rumor, something that Wikipedia does not include, and again shouldn't be included as per my comments above. In a given situation, much of the editors including the proposed name only provide that "its her real name" or some other excuse and provide no further explanation with sources which doesn't help. Unless there is reliable sources to confirm a name for a person, it's better off not to include the name and better off to include the widely published name for a person, as an example of this take Marshmello.

Given your comment, I don't think you fully understand the green highlighted text, whether common knowledge or not, reliable sources need to be provided regardless

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page...

This isn't so much about the person, its about the personality she is displayed as regarded sources in my opinion. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

Change views to 75,277,022 as of 07/03/2017 at 5:43pm GMT ItzDanP (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you know YouTube.com, the website? The number of views are accessible in a channel's "About" section. Or how do you think people got the number for February 1? YouTube provides the statistics themselves, you can't get more reliable than that. Do you even need a statement from YouTube how their algorithm works? --92.74.66.185 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it regardless, but it was probably rejected in caution to the high levels of BLP violations taking place on the page regarding other issues (see above). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 13:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Poppy is a famous internet star whom has 230,000 followers on youtube. Her identity is kept secret. 184.184.185.169 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 05:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about Moriah Pereira name

I have a question. If the Moriah Pereira name can't be listed on her page because it's unsourced, why is it listed on the credits for the Bubblebath EP? Clicking on the name even takes you back to her page. Are the Tidal credits for the album a valid source? In other words, if it's on the EP page with a valid source, it should be on her main page as well, I'd imagine. Otherwise, it might as well be removed entirely. Percivl (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It has become painfully obvious that this is her real name, but all of the evidence isn't enough for Wikipedia.. --Benimation (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't at all "obvious" that this is her real name. It's "obvious" that Titanic and Poppy would like us to believe it her real name. This is the same tactic porn stars us. They use a fake name and then create a second fake name and claim that's their real one. (Sellpink (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC))

Pretty much. And if we're going to go as far as listing her name in the credits on the EP page but not including it on her own page, that just seems absurd to me. Tidal is very much a valid source, isn't it? I'm really curious why this isn't enough to put it on her own page. Not to mention it confirms Titanic Sinclair's name being Corey Mixter, which is also widely-known. Percivl (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No Percivl, it is NOT a "valid source" I will explain it to you as simply as I can. You can use a pseudonym (fake name) on songwriting or production credits but that doesn't make it your real name nor does it prove anything at all. (Sellpink (talk))

I don't see why a writing credit should be considered a reliable source for the identification of the performer; it's circumstantial, not definitive. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

A writing credit could be (and very often is) made using a pseudonym. It doesn't prove or verify that this is her real name. I hope that is simple enough to understand. There is nothing "absurd" about it. (Sellpink (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

It's an anagram for "aerier morphia". What's aerier than morphia? Unrefined poppies. You didn't ask, but now you know. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And "Titanic Sinclair" has "clinician traits". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. I'm new to this wiki thing so I don't know if I'm using this tool right lol. Anyway, I'd let make a suggested edit to the page, from Poppy's latest released song, Computer Boy, was recorded with Mad Decent Record Labels. On the page, it says she's still with Island Records, but I don't think that's the case anymore. But a detail that contradicts with my suggestion is that Poppy's second recent song, I'm Poppy, was rerecorded with I'm Poppy Records, so I'm wondering the song with Mad Decent was a one time thing, but, Poppy made a new Spotify and iTunes account. So I'm wondering if this means that she is signed to Mad Decent. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin123otsego (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2017

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: see below. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

That Poppy → Poppy – artist rebranding Coaster550 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• • @Coaster550: Poppy already exists as a plant article. Either That Poppy should be moved to Poppy (singer) instead; or Poppy should be moved to Poppy (plant), implying a change of primary topic. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose change of primary topic. The plant is clearly primary. The girl's given name "Poppy" is taken from the name of the flower, so very likely the flower is the origin of the singer's assumed name. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARY and why are we even wasting our time on this one? If it's a "rebrand," then Poppy (singer) would be a simple move. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The plant is the primary topic, not a little-known artist named after it. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As already stated, the plant is clearly the primary topic. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• ?Who what now? Randy Kryn 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The plant is clearly primary. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2017 (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.

Requested move 20 May 2017

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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

That Poppy → Poppy (singer) The artist uses the name Poppy on all social media and YouTube. Since it is their artist name (now), we should follow suit. Since Poppy has a primary topic about a plant, we should disambiguate this to (singer). (t) Josve05a (c) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, probably could do a non-controversial move. Someone finally talked some sense into her or her handlers and rebooted to the obvious name if no other notability-worthy singer has used it. Randy Kryn 21:42, 20 2017 (UTC)
• Support – changing to "Poppy (singer)" shouldn't be an issue per what Coaster500 had stated originally and per Josve05a. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - ask Coaster550 to withdraw the other requested move, then do it. Without the other request, it is noncontroversial. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2017 (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.

I've added a link to this page as a hatnote on Poppy, to come full circle. Randy Kryn 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Have editors checked the page views of Poppy and Poppy (singer) lately? Darn if she isn't getting numbers that indicate primary or at least joint primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of part

Coaster550; Can you please explain the removal of this line because personally I think it adds to the lead part about who the artist is created or portrayed by and it uses the exact same source. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• That Poppy's age is also unknown because the persona of Poppy does not identify with an age. It is believed that Poppy was created by Moriah Pereira due to her musical credits indicating this.

References

Does Poppy.Computer need its own article?

I know that bubblebath(2016) has its own article and I was wondering if the new album required a new wikipedia page. Hay232 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hay232; I think this will help to answering your question. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Vegan

According to an interview with Poppy found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl2u4fsQjWA Poppy is a vegan and I think this would be a worthwhile addition to the wikiepedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawbin (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Needs a secondary source. The Road Warriors repeatedly told interviewers they grew up together in Chicago. Aside from a few things, Poppy is just like them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Film at Sundance

A film by Poppy and Titanic Sinclair will be shown at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival, and also shown on YouTube Red, if someone would like to find some sources and add this to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's an illusion! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, I summarized the premiere with "The beagle has landed." Today, I watched the Poppy things I hadn't got to yet, and the last one starts with "And the eagle has landed." She literally scared the bejesus out of me, like she did to Sidney in Kids React to Poppy Reacts to Kids React to Poppy or like Bran did to Littlefinger. I had to tell someone, and can't tell my real friends or family without divulging my terrible secret (I'm InedibleHulk). So I'm telling you, Randy Kryn, she's magic. I'm also telling you in case you saw that edit summary and took it as a fanboy allusion. It was, but to Poochie. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Poppy project reads out as magic, or the closest thing to it in music. She somehow has created a personality and presence to get away with the otherwise "egotistical" things she says, and uses that, combined with the ambient music and a mix of production values, to give presentations which directly elicit supporting chemical reactions in viewers and listeners. The overall intent and effect is quite unique, so things like you describe are not unusual with something like this. And I hope you get your bejesus back. As this conversation should pertain to the improvement of the page, when sourced opinions or critiques along these lines are found, and future academic works analyzing the Poppy project and its related psychological and sociological effects emerge, they would be good additions to the text. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I see a fair bit of analysis in the wake of the launch/landing. Not exactly academic grade, but from professionals experienced in responding to visual and auditory stimuli. Senior Verge reporter Adi Robinson notes one worshipper has founded a religion called Poppyism and defines the genre as "surrealist metatextual parody". Admits the film's best grasped by "devoted fans with arcane knowledge" and speaks of a supposed TV series to follow. Supposed by whom is anyone's guess.

Daniel Fienberg of The Hollywood Reporter can't imagine a TV series holding up and believes Poppy is modeled after Ivanka Trump, rather than someone sensible, like a pop musician. I think we can discount his other views by that alone. Google suggests he may be confused by Trump's association with Poppy Harlow and poppy-coloured handbags.

Den of Geek's Tony Sokol has bought the premise, hook and sinker, agreeing the purpose is making the world happy and cute. Attributes the popularity of such a goal to Satan in general, without presuming it's anything mammonistic, luciferian or beelzebubesque. Just "social commentary on social media to calm modern anxieties" which "subliminally play into the fears of conspiratorial paranoia". Mentions a Gospel of Poppy in 2017, which seems a bit archaic to me, though I live in a part of the world YouTube Red exclusives don't (legally) reach. Might make perfect sense, in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, won't get youtube red. There is now a page for the film, I'm Poppy, and maybe you can add some of the sources above into that one. I've noticed from comments that there is a mirrored story-line effect with the overall Poppy project, as people tend to read into it their own inner-universe interpretation. As for the tv film/series, I find it humorous that its lead character is being played by a character. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I would, but another fan already has. Good thing my bejesus is still too drunk to see it happen again. And so soon apart. Damn odd. Poppy must be one of those siren queen deities that uses magic nectar to have her workers tune in, turn on and drop out in sync. I hear they're big in Japan.

But yeah, thanks for letting me know. As an online parody account myself, who mainstream media wrongly assumes is modeled after something green and purple instead of red and yellow, that whole show-within-a-show was the main attraction for me. Then her tunes turned out to be up there with Madonna and Britney Spears for catchiness, and that wasn't bad, either. If my real friends and family knew I appreciate pop music lately, they'd eat me alive, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

How could they eat you alive if you're inedible? Just play that song for your family and friends, they will probably agree that it has merit. But since talk pages should keep to discussion about improving the page, I'd think that will be happening as more sources cover the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. When I punch out, hang up the keyboard and put my human bandana on, I lose my superpowers. I gain others (like corporeality), but I'm up against some gnarly dudes. My mom would probably like it, though. Anyway, before I'm stripped of my talk page ability per NOTFORUM, I'll certainly keep an eye out for serious sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a worthy topic to keep an eye for sources. I've got a new question that I'll put in its own section below. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a productive conversation. 😂 -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly one year later, Poppy is a gnarly enough dude to want to eat her own fans alive if she catches any adoring her in the real world this February. Coincidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Birth date

Lazz_R, I have once again removed the birth date as it seems to have no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Painter?

An editor added the descriptor 'painter' in the lead sentence and I removed it. Are there sources that back up the descriptor, has she had an art show or a showing in a gallery? I know she painted a few canvases in her videos, and if she's sold them for a reputable amount of money that should be enough. Will happen sooner or later, no doubt, but would probably need a good source to show that it has already occurred and can be added now. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. If you paint in videos and those videos are viewed and covered, isn't that as good as dancing in a video is for "dancer"? Most of her films aren't sold (directly), but she's clearly acting in them. I think we already have more references in the article about her painting than Nikolaos Kantounis or Leo Belmonte do, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I just readded it while Wikilinking, then remembered this conversation. Not trying to be pushy. Revert if you'd like, but I still think she's more painter than dancer. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo

Sorry, but we have:

• a professional photo that looks like the YouTube videos that made Poppy famous, and
• a concert photo where part of her face is covered by hands and a microphone, and her eyes are closed

...and we're using the second one, just because it's a tad newer? -- Zanimum (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeah, now that you mention it, it would be nice if her full face were showing, and if her eyes were open. However official press photos typically aren't used on Wikipedia, or established profile shots. It's usually photos of the celebrity either in action, or on the red carpet, etc. (Public places = Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and WP:IUP) The most recent photos are typically used and of which meet the requirements. The image you tried to add almost seemed as if it didn't meet copyright guidelines; however, in the history, it said it was approved by the owner, so that's good. But if anything, more insight should be given before adding it to the article. In the past, one or two others have attempted to use the boxed-off profile-type image, but it was ultimately decided that a public place, body-shot-styled image would be more practical. This is a good case so others should add their thoughts. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The present image, with hands and microphone held up, actually shows the subject's face and tour persona quite well. Even with the eyes closed it makes for an artistic look, and I think it should stay as the page's "presentation" image. There aren't many Poppy images on Commons, so all of the present ones maybe should be used somewhere on the page until better photos are uploaded. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Poppy's not like other artists. If you stare into her eyes on a screen, you can't look away till the video ends. In a photograph, the video just keeps going. Too risky. Same reason we keep Medusa's real head in the Feminism section, where nobody will ever see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that only photographs that show her with her eyes closed be allowed in Wikipedia visible space. You make a good case. Maybe photos of her in sunglasses, or back-lit by shadow with just a vague outline of her head present, could be utilized. Editors must ponder this, but in the meantime, per topic, the present infobox image conveys the subject's performance quite well. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. When I look at it, I swear I can almost hear ambient noise surrounding me. How does she do it? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mirrors. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Damn, InedibleHulk, that was pretty misogynist of you. --Matt723star (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a joke. I've read that section "in real life", nothing bad happened. The more gaze, the merrier! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I said the same thing about the "Film at Sundance" section. What a productive conversation. 😂 -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It has, for me at least, been productive as I've done some good edits on our Medusa pages (and related side edit-runs, including a 16% increase in the category 'Snakes in art') because of Inedible's observations that the effect of looking into Poppy's eyes turns people stoned, or visa versa. It has a legitimate discordant place in the photo discussion, and serves to give Medusa another romp on the stage (what do you think happened to Charlotte? she wasn't always a mannequin!). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just use this photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jus10h/38194551311/in/photostream AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Rather not, we can see into her soul in that one. And she's holding her right hand like a paw. Her cheeks are also bit too pink (at least on this monitor). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Second album?

I watched a video where Poppy and Titanic were interviewed in Japan well after Poppy.Computer was released and they mention that their album was complete. Should there be a mention of a second album? --Matt723star (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Does an album become incomplete well after release? If not, were they talking about the first one? Was it released in Japan yet, or just the real world? Were they interviewed well after or did you watch the video well after? Where is this video? Can you share it? May you share it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This second album, as yet publicly unnamed, unheard, and with no release date, is already mentioned and cited near the bottom of the "2017-present" section. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh good. I didn't see it there, sorry. --Matt723star (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The release date is right behind you! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discography

Only a list of studio albums is needed to summarise the discography. —hueman1 (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In a good faith edit you removed two of the four entries. Four entries is certainly manageable and within bounds of a discography listing, and the two removed were her earliest works listed (the ambient music album and Bubblebath EP). Listing the linked 3:36 and Bubblebath in the discography section of the subject's article seems not only appropriate, but essential in the overview of her career and output. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section. Point is, only one list of works is needed to summarise the section, more than that is clutter. Please stop calling it "an album that happened to be called an EP" - If sources, and therefore Wikipedia, call it an EP, then it's an EP - there is no ambiguity. There are three albums that summarise the discography well, being albums. I don't know about 3:36 (Music to Sleep To), as that is an album, but just not released on major platforms, so therefore not considered a studio album I guess. But we do know for certain that Bubblebath is an EP, and per the guideline it should not be included as it only adds unneeded content to the summary. Lazz_R 14:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Bubblebath is the artist's first major release, with four songs including the popular "Lowlife" (the video has over 50 million youtube views). Including the EP in the small discography section seems essential to her recording history. The "guideline" you linked to in justifying the option of removing the entry is not a guideline, it's a community unvetted essay, and so it is an opinion. The entry should be left as is to let readers who search the small discography section have the option of awareness and link availability as well as to provide a key element of the artist's production history. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Huge part of a manageably small bigger picture. If not listed, some might leave thinking it didn't even exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Privacy of name and birth date

Shouldn't her real name and birth date be private? Especially because of her response to the Mars Argo lawsuit against her. 85.64.33.163 (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I see birth date be reasonable, but real name is not necessary, as she uses her real name in her album credits as a songwriter. MunRis • †alk 18:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Poppy prefer "Victory Royale" in Fortnite?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aInNomibLQE&t=3m4s ? Afaf148 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

edit warring for Asad Malik

To editor XRView: Rather than edit war, discuss the issue per WP:BRD. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: Happy to discuss in detail. The reason I didn't include a source was because the already referenced Billboard article contained the additional information. A Jester's Tale was directed and created by Asad J. Malik as can be seen on the official IMDB page. The poster reads "A Jester's Tale - An Augmented Reality Experience from Asad J. Malik". Poppy can also be quoted on this Forbes article saying "It was designed by a guy named Asad [J. Malik, head of 1RIC], a very nice guy who created the technology."

Let me know if I can make this edit with these references. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XRView (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I self-reverted. In the future, please use your edit summary to communicate this stuff. Participation on wiki is collaborative. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your support. Just learning the ropes. Hope to contribute in meaningful and collaborative ways. Best. XRView (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A character

I don't feel like Poppy's article does a good enough job explaining how the character works. It's as if "Poppy" is "her real identity" and that's not accurate. The article needs to be much clearer that Poppy is separate from Moriah herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleylife (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It's in the very first sentence, with bold letters, how much clearer can it get? That's not a rhetorical question, either. What parts seem "as if" or "like really" to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Religious leader

The article classes Poppy as a "religious leader". I get that there is the Church of Poppy, and cult theme, but that all appears to be a exaggerated joke amongst Poppy and her fans. I wouldn't say that there is an actual Poppy religion. --86.158.158.145 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Then what power compels me to tell you you've got it all wrong and should join us? I'm not saying burn your old idols just yet. Just think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been cited by two reliable sources that say she's a religious leader, and I believe WP:VNT totally applies here. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What a very valuable contribution and valid point of view! I completely agree with you we should just completely take at face value what public figures, e.g. actors or, in this case, Poppy, are saying when they are actually in character. Please go ahead and add some more jobs to the article about Bruce Willis, e.g. private investigator (Moonlighting) and police officer (Die Hard). Oh, and taxi driver/pilot for sure as that's what he was portraying in The Fifth Element. --2A01:C22:B044:5000:941D:5772:5BB8:5D2E (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, this isnt brought up in the article at all, so how is it relevant enough to be in the bio? 2600:6C54:4E00:859:690A:D581:FF25:EF6C (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's in the third Career subsection. Not covered nearly as heavily here as in Pope Francis or Ayatollah Khamenei (among other examples), but for rather obvious reasons. There are levels to the religious leadership game, and Poppy is still green as grass, wet behind the ears and learning the ropes.

But she's already reached a far wider flock in her rookie year than Martin Luther did in his. Granted, if he had Twitter today and she had the hammer and nail then, he'd probably have a high-rated network TV deal already and she'd be promptly dewitched. But in non-alternative historiographic terms, she's on pace to retire ahead of L. Ron Hubbard on the all-time leaderboard.

Till then, if she's not charismatic and popular enough for unbelievers, they shouldn't have any problem simply ignoring what little truth the rest of us do share through reliable external sources of righteousness and authority in this seemingly nondescript and unassuming corner of Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only assume this is some sort of elaborate Wikipedia prank. The Wired source says she has inspired a "pseudo-religion", not that she's a religious leader. The Business Insider piece merely points back to the Wired piece and says "One fan has gone so far as to establish a religion dedicated to Poppy", not that she's a religious leader. It's a ridiculous claim to state she's a religious leaders based on these two sentences in two sources, and since that's the only scant mention of religion, and they don't call her a "leader", I'm taking it out. Wes sideman (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim is discussed in the articles, is present in her body of work, and exists in the sourced headline. "taking it out" is a non-consensus decision. Maybe this needs an RfC to decide the concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything you said here is wrong. No such claim in the articles cited. What, exactly, does "present in her body of work" mean? It doesn't say "religious leader" in the sourced headline, that's a lie. And there's 3 people taking this claim out, and 2 people that want it in, and while you're clearly a real editor, the other guy putting it in has only edited this page so I don't think you can take that one seriously. Wes sideman (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to ping @Bowling is life:, @Room330:, and @TheXuitts:, the people I think are involved in the recent edits to the relevant part of this. Wes sideman (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is NO SUCH CLAIM in the articles. Read them. The Wired article says she has inspired a "pseudo-religion", not that she's a religious leader. The Business Insider piece merely points back to the Wired piece and says "One fan has gone so far as to establish a religion dedicated to Poppy", not that she's a religious leader. Show me where it says she's a religious leader in those articles. Wes sideman (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: and @Randy Kryn: Let's stop with the reverting so we can reach a consensus. I had to request that the page be fully protected so the edit war stops. I don't think we should include religious leader as one of her occupations. The lead should be for main occupations only and the sources provided don't call her a religious leader. They just say that she inspired her own religion. Bowling is life (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are two articles that say she "inspired a fan to create a religion". That probably merits one sentence in the article, and not as an "occupation". Anyway, wouldn't the FAN that "created" the "pseudo-religion" be the leader of that religion? This is beyond silly. Wes sideman (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a question. Since Poppy is alive, doesn't this article fall under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Specifically where it says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Wes sideman (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Birthplace

There seems to be much debate over Poppy's birthplace. The story that I first heard was that she was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and her family moved to Nashville, Tennessee, when she was thirteen years old. However, I have also heard claims that she was born in Whitman, Massachusetts, and other claims that she was actually born in Nashville. Which of these are true? --86.178.34.122 (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)