User:Randy Kryn/wikiquote

Car of History by Carlo Franzoni, 1819, features a life size statue of the muse Clio, and is the largest chariot clock ever made. National Statuary Hall, US Capitol.

from the chariot clock page

National Statuary Hall Collection viewed from the south

User talk:Five Antonios

• listening to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:POV railroad
• WP:9STEPS

User talk:69.230.48.47 fin

• Wikipedia:Fear all change

Wikisource and Wikiquote in navboxes

Hi Randy, why are you adding these back in, when it was decided that there was consensus not to amend the the guidelines to allow these external links? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Robsinden

 – This is where the discussion was started, this is where it should stay. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The close was "No action", and by no action it seems like the status quo can stay in place, which would include the inclusion of Wikiquotes and Wikisource texts. Sadads and I discussed this on his talk page and he seems in agreement. Please leave them alone until this is all sorted out, and if that means taking it to the next level I'd like to do it for just the two links, Wikiquote and Wikisource on templates related to writers and others who would be featured in those two projects. I'll be glad to help remove "commons" from templates. If you would like to remove the two other links, Wikiquote and Wikisource, or other sister projects, why not start with the links which have been on the {{Wikipedia}} template since December of 2009, and people can have a further discussion on that talk page? The "Wikipedia" template goes way beyond what I was asking for, and has links to many more sister projects than I think necessary for essential coverage of the topic, but still I think it should contain the Wikiquote link. Sadads and I discussed this at his talk page recently as well. Thanks, and I had intended to write you on this but things flew by. Randy Kryn 9:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No Randy, there was consensus not to amend the the guidelines to allow these external links. i.e. the guideline continues to not allow external links in navboxes, so any external links should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's how you read "No action" (and Sadads and I read seem to read it differently) then where do I take the question to the next level of appeal? Thanks. And as mentioned, before removing them from the author's templates, where they do so much good that I'm scratching my head like a monkey thinking why folks would want those taken off, please remove the links from the {{Wikipedia}} template, where they have been since December of 2009, I'll revert, and then we can continue the discussion on its talk page, where it may do the most good. I just clicked on some of the other sister-project links from that template and looked at a couple I've never seen before, people have done a lot of work on those. But I'll still stick to the quotes and texts, which seem appropriate for authors and other individuals templates in particular. Randy Kryn 9:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the guideline. It says "Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates". You and Sadads tried to get this changed to make an exception for sister projects but there was no consensus to make this amendment. Therefore sister project links are not excepted under the current guideline, and thus not allowed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I would like to appeal the non-Admin closer decision, where would I go to do that, on just the Wikiquote and Wikisource links, which was the original question and wasn't closed as yet (the close was including all the sister projects on templates). I think the next step in removing the links, if you insist on doing them (again, it's a guideline, not a policy, so can't we just keep those two links on appropriate pages?), would be on the Wikipedia template page, why not work from there to get more people involved in the discussion? Randy Kryn 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There's clearly nothing wrong with the close. Consensus is massively against the change to the guideline, so you won't get anywhere, but you could ask for a close review on an administrator's noticeboard maybe, so that someone else can point this out to you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And stop reverting the removal. You tried to get the guideline changed, it didn't happen. You can't go round acting as if it was changed, just because you don't like the outcome!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing them pending an appeal, as it would be quite a chore to keep on going back to find out where you removed the two (and it is only a guideline, not a policy). Thanks. Is that the next step in an appeal of this kind? And which admin noticeboard, the back-rooms of Wikipedia are vast and non-interconnected. I just saw you reversed, for example, the Horace template, and if wikiquotes and wikisource texts can't be on a template devoted to Horace then they should be in the external links section of every one of his books and other works where the template reaches. So please, before removing any more, please remove them from the {{Wikipedia}} template itself. Randy Kryn 10:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You won't get anywhere with an appeal - consensus was overwhelmingly clear, so there I'm not going to hold off making edits "pending appeal". Yes, it might be appropriate to link to the commons media for each Horace work, so do that if you like (there is a {{sister project}} template exactly for this kind of thing), but as per the current guideline, as it stands, and especially after the RFC, these should not be added to the navboxes, and should be removed. Also don't tell me which templates I can, can't, should or shouldn't edit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The closing was for 'No Action', which to me means Status Quo, which allows the grandfathering in of the very useful templates. Wikiquote and Wikisource, on individual's templates, where they have been for well over a year now. The reason I mention {{Wikipedia}} is that a group of sister-project links have been there since 2009, and that's one that many eyes must have seen without them being removed during the previous five and a half years. And it is Wikipedia's template about itself. I don't know if the closer took that template into account when it was closed with "No Action". So I'm just saying that it would be the template to change to make your point, and to allow for further discussion. Randy Kryn 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"No action" refers to whether the guideline should be changed, so the guideline remains at the status quo, not the templates you edited against the guideline. The guideline remains with "no external links" and since the discussion this specifically refers to the external links you tried to get excepted as any ambiguity on these was cleared up by the RFC. I'm not about to make any WP:POINTY changes to a template that may have a template specific reason for inclusion/exception. No further discussion is needed. The RFC was quite clear. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Francis Schonken: who closed the RFC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob Sindens interpretation is correct. No change to guideline = external links in navboxes not allowed. Really, did this need to be spelled out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Francis Schonken:. Then where do I go to appeal the decision? And how, Rob, is asking you to change the {{Wikipedia}} template pointy? It does make a point, yes, but that template is, in one sense, the lead template of the project, Wikipedia, itself, and if not only two but all outside links are allowed on that template than why can't the two I've put on over a year of work, which nobody complained about, be allowed as a valid and long-time exception to the guideline? Randy Kryn 12:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Randy, you really need to accept this gracefully an move on. There has been a specific discussion about this, that is why it cannot "be allowed as a valid and long-time exception to the guideline". And please don't repeat your trick of adding a blank line just to leave this inappropriate edit summary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a fine edit summary, you diminished the data available on the overall project from the template on James Joyce, I literally cannot understand why you would do that, and said so. No, this needs some form of appeal, and I asked Francis above where I would go to do that. As I said, I don't favor adding all the templates at once, but will confine my objections to the original question of 'Wikiquotes' and 'Wikisource', which had more support than the open-ended question put up by Sadads. People responded on that question who didn't respond on the Rfc. So that specific question is the one I'll address further. You haven't yet answered why you know about yet accept the Wikipedia template containing all of those links, but remove two very informative links from templates such as {{James Joyce}}. Randy Kryn 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what edit summaries are for. You didn't make any edit to the template at that time, you added a blank line *just* to make that point. That's disruptive editing. You really need to accept the decision reached through consensus at the RFC. This isn't Randypedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't revert your removal of James Joyce's quotes-page link on the James Joyce template, which I would do if it were Randypedia. Please keep a careful record of all of these you are removing, and can you promise to put them back if this gets decided differently? It's going to be a lot of work, remember, I put those on templates for over a year, hundreds of them. They are very good additions, add much pertinent data to the template, and will, I'm sure, be allowed at some point. Both on Wikipedia and Randypedia. Randy Kryn 13:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course I won't keep a record or promise anything of the sort!!! I don't see you removing all the additions you made against the guideline and the established consensus which has created work for others to tidy up after you... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tidy up? Removing major data seems like the better description. As you know, in the year I worked to add the data nobody reverted or complained about any of the edits, until you did. I knew nothing about the guideline then, and just went about my merry way - for a year - without objections. If that's not the definition of an allowed exception to the guideline then I don't know why exceptions are allowed anywhere. I still say the Below section of {{Wikipedia}} sticks out like a sore thumb, and politely ask you to cut that out the same as you've now done with Henry David Thoreau (Henry David Thoreau!). Randy Kryn 13:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So I removed it and you reverted!!! That's WP:POINTY and disruptive. Seriously Randy, what's your deal? Do you still not get it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(e.c.) Re. Appeal: this has been an RfC, so a community decision (my role was exclusively to interpret that there wasn't enough consensus to change the guidance), this means there's not much above it (meaning above what the current consensus in the community appears to be).

1. A first approach would be to wait some time, and take it up again once you feel community consensus might swing another way (see WP:CCC for guidance).
2. Maybe another part of the community thinks otherwise. It is possible to raise the point elsewhere, e.g. at WP:VPP. However if you do that before the RfC result has been archived, don't forget to link to the concluded discussion from the place where you raise the issue afresh (thus: "see prior concluded discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?]]" or soemthing in that vein with a clear link) (see WP:FORUMSHOP why this shouldn't be done too lightly, but you may feel not enough editors commented in the RfC so don't forget to mention that)
3. Not an "appeal", but a way forward might be to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates. Wikipedia:Navigation templates is an essay and has a lower threshold for implementing useful guidance in the form of sensible interpretations of guidelines. That way you won't get all you dream (overturning the guideline on this point) but maybe enough for some workable exceptions.
4. If you think someones behavior has been bad, and so bad that the outcome of the RfC was corrupted by it, you should go to WP:ArbCom. Just mentioning for completeness, I've read the RfC and some surrounding conversation and can tell you, there's nothing there that would make ArbCom even consider to take this as a case.
5. Other ways of finding consensus if you really can't agree with the current outcome of the RfC are listed at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions, but as said RfC is only one step lower than last resort WP:VPP, so I don't think trying out lower steps like Third Opinions or the like would lead to a different appreciation.
6. Ultimately, post on Jimbo's talk page, but be sure to read m:The Wrong Version#Involving Jimbo first. As you can see also this one I only list it for completeness, not for its practicality.

#2 and #3 might be the most practical ones to choose from, after having given #1 enough thought. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think #3 would hold any weight, as an essay doesn't trump a guideline. As we've had an explicit RFC on the matter, to amend an essay in direct contradiction of the results of the discussion couldn't be considered a workable interpretation of the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines are a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (bolding added), as the template on top of every guideline has it. Essays can contain thoughtful interpretations and rationales of how to go about with common sense and sensible exceptions in particular cases. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the very good summary and pathway guidance. I'll get back to this, have to go now. But no, I would not post this on Wales' talk page, although he may catch a glimpse of it if the links are removed on the main Wikipedia template, which really sticks out like a sore thumb in this discussion. That's why I keep pointing it out, I'm of the mind that what's good for {{Wikipedia}} is good, just for two links, for {{James Joyce}} (James Joyce!)Randy Kryn 13:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken:, hi, wondering, and with no disrespect (I don't know the workings of who closes and how that is chosen), if there is also an in-between option of requesting an admin look at the close and decide if maybe it still could remain open for amendments and a review. Also, since the {{Wikipedia}} template did have sister-links in the below section from late in 2009 until @Robsinden: removed them yesterday, his actions should shift this discussion over there for awhile. The fact that the Wikipedia template came into the Rfc discussion very late, and may have been missed by almost all of the people commenting on the page, might be cause to open up a new question, possibly on the Wikipedia template/navbox talk page. The Rfc question was an expansion of two previous discussions on the page, which concerned only two sister-links, not the whole ball of wax, but when the whole ball of wax was brought up as the Rfc topic at that point the question revolved around "should we expand the limits of a navbox to include Below-links to relevant sister projects"? Hundreds of templates of notable subjects had these already, inadvertently and from an ignorance of language of a guideline, and had contained these two Below-links for a year. Those of "Wikiquote" and "Wikisource texts", which link to the vast amount of quality information and quality work that our sister-project Wikipedia family created to share with humanity. These links appeared on templates on thousands of pages, very likely the majority of which didn't have an existing "Wikisource" or "Wikiquote" directional-template. Nobody complained. And if they were going to complain they really should have long before this. Over a year they were there, and that was a part of the discussion. So, discussion, arguments on talk pages and voting pages, and near the end, right at the end, right about the time someone was going to close the Rfc, I find that {{Wikipedia}} has contained sister-city links since late 2009. For over five and a half years. At that point, with that added evidence, I would say that the question we voted on may have been the wrong question, and the wrong or at least an early close. That the main 'Wikipedia' template - the template about itself - contained lots of sister-city links, contained them from 2009, and you can't say that with those being on that one that editors didn't have time to complain. From what I gather from the "no expansion" editors, their main and often only argument is that "navboxes are for navigation with the site, it's in the guidelines". That guideline language has been grandfathered out long ago, for we know now that major Wikipedia templates have contained widely-viewed links to sister-city projects since 2009. That, and the fact that after someone finally grumbled about them. There was an enquiry about them once on the talk page for the {{Wikipedia}} template, and that question was lightly answered and ended the discussion, a discussion on the Watch list of probably many admins, and everyone was fine with them. That discussion was brief, answered, and the end of that conversation until yesterday when Robsinden cut the links to our sister-city projects out of that template. And if you go back and read the two previous discussion on the talk-page and then the Rfc discussion, most of the people who were against allowing something which had been in place for years to remain didn't understand that they were voting on something which had been in place for years. Their main argument was that it was already in the guideline, so it must be real, and when it was proven to them that it wasn't real it was too late in the game to catch the attention of all the people that voted. So, long story longer (a red-link? there's no Wikipedia page or redirect to "Wall of text"???) , is there any precedence for reopening a Rfc discussion because important and possibly determinative evidence came in too late to become a factor in the overall discussion? Thanks, Randy Kryn 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. {{Wikipedia}}: there is some latitude for links outside the standard sister project link boxes to Wikipedia sister projects in Articles on Wikipedia (assuming that {{Wikipedia}} is used exclusively in articles that describe some aspect of Wikipedia). The policy about this is at WP:CIRCULAR, second paragraph of that section. That guidance doesn't describe use in navboxes, but afaics that might be a defensible exception, if and when consensus can be found about it e.g. at WP:VPP or Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates, or, as you indicate, on the template's talk page. The RfC discussions themselves didn't show a consensus for any exceptions at guideline level, that's why I didn't mention any in my closure, but it remains one of the possibilities for approach #3 I proposed above. And true, the fact that that template came up rather late in the discussion may mean that several people who had seen or commented in the discussion before didn't actually see that argument.

Re. Disputing the closure, meaning: disputing my single intervention closing the RfC. I tried to be comprehensive in my list of options above, but true, you got me there, that's one I completely forgot. I started my closure summary with "(non-admin closure)": technically, you can ask any admin to have a look at the way I closed it and whether it matches the thrust of the discussions in the RfC. I have no problem with that. For assessing a closure of a deletion discussion there is WP:DRV, but I'm not aware of a similar organized process for appealing RfC closures, except the less specific ones I indicated. Maybe I should have mentioned WP:AN or WP:ANI for requesting an admin's eye on whether what I did was due process etc. But as I'm less familiar with those noticeboards (I rarely go there) I don't know whether I'd be giving you good advice to go there. But sure, feel free to leave a note there, and probably an admin will pick it up and scrutinize my closure, no problem, no problem at all.

→ PPS: I found the applicable guidance: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, apart from the introductory paragraph of that section its third subsection Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Apparently it needs to be WP:AN, so I struck WP:ANI in the previous paragraph, otherwise I seem to have given correct information on the procedure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

After a close reading of the pro's and con's of that procedure there, I'd definitely have listed it as "included for completeness but a very low chance this would overturn my assessment of the RfC" if I'd have thought about it when writing my original list of options. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "who closes and how that is chosen" – I wasn't chosen or whatever. I picked it up at WP:ANRFC when posting another request for closure there (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 18#Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?): I saw the backlog of that page, thinking this is going to take ages before my request is going to be processed here, let's see whether I can help out with one that doesn't need an admin to close it, and as I was somewhat familiar with the topic (I had followed the discussions on the talk page where the RfC ran, but hadn't been interested and didn't really have an opinion on the matter) the choice was quickly made.

The argument that external links in existing templates remained uncontested for a long time was discussed at length in the RfC, but no consensus that that would make any difference for the guidance in the navbox guideline, so there too, that was all included in my "no consensus to change the guideline" summary.

Whether or not articles have the specific sister project templates while these external links were included in the navbox also didn't swing consensus in favor of having these links in the navboxes. Which indeed may mean that articles that use these navboxes would need to be checked whether they can be improved by sister-project template links: as for the guidance in the guideline that is however the solution that should be implemented. On a practical level I'd indeed suggest that you and Robsinden try to find a common ground on how to address that. It's not difficult to check the articles with a navbox and see whether they have sister project link-boxes, but as you indicate it may be a lot of articles. Maybe a WP:BOTREQ may help here. But no clue whether there would be a response there.

Re. "early close" – When I closed the RfC it was long passed "early close", despite a single late comment three days before I closed it.

Re. "is there any precedence for reopening a Rfc discussion because important and possibly determinative evidence came in too late to become a factor in the overall discussion?" Don't know whether there's precedence, and even if there is, I'd still recommend to start a new one per option suggestion #2 (and, in fact, #1) than reopen one with a no comment lapse of over two weeks. Also, as I indicated in the start of this comment above, the {{Wikipedia}} template is maybe too specific for articles with content on Wikipedia, as a WP:CIRCULAR-like exception, to extrapolate it to other navboxes, and, currently at least, not even stable enough to say it is an example of a viable exception.

PS. WP:Wall of text seems to work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the long post and ideas to move forward. I'll answer more in-depth sometime soon, only jumped onto the site for a little while and then off again. The 'Wall of text' Wikipedia link is almost good enough to transfer over into the body of Wikipedia itself, which, apparently, has no 'Wall of text' page (although many talk pages fit the bill). Thanks again! Randy Kryn 11:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of Template:Interlanguage link in template space

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. The previous RFC ended a week ago (plus one day). There are other questions that could be valid RFCs (such as officially determining if an interwiki link is truly an "external link"), but simply reopening the original discussion in a different venue does no good. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• As the closer of the previous RFC, I want to explicitly endorse the above close. I explicitly cautioned TonyTheTiger: Don't jump directly to Village Pump, the community likes to have some time for things to process and settle after an RFC.[1] Alsee (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the use of {{Interlanguage link}} in templates be allowed? An RFC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates on the use of Template:Interlanguage link in template space closed as no consensus. The participants in that discussion were as follows

Supporters: 1. TonyTheTiger (as RFC nominator), 2. Randy Kryn, 3. Gerda Arendt, 4. Jc86035, 5. Andrew Dalby, 6. Hawkeye7, 7. K.e.coffman, 8. Thincat, 9. Finnusertop, 10. Iazyges, 11. Sadads

Opponents: 1. Frietjes, 2. The Banner, 3. PBS, 4. MilborneOne, 5. Walter Görlitz, 6. Izno, 7. Plastikspork, 8. Robsinden, 9. Boghog, 10. Bkonrad +1 IP

• Also notifying non-responsive editors from prior RFC MirandaKeurr, Izkala, Primefac, and BU Rob13 as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates and Template talk:Interlanguage link.

At issue is the propriety of employing {{ILL}}, which creates a small foreign language wikipedia link to accompany redlinks, in the following ways Old revision of Template:The Sea-Wolf, Old revision of Template:White Fang, Old revision of Template:The Twelve Chairs, Old revision of Template:2010-2019VSFashion Show, Old revision of Template:2000-2009VSFashion Show, Old revision of Template:1995-1999VSFashion Show, Old revision of Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, Old revision of Template:1990–99 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, Old revision of Template:1970–79 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit.

In closing the prior RFC, the closer (Alsee, noted that the broadly defined external links have been opposed in templates for a long time as was made clear in this 2012 edit to the guideline. The closer noted that an RFC on the subset of external links known as interwikis had been discussed in a prior 2015 RFC that closed with 3/4 opposed to an exception for using interwikis in templates. Above we considered an exception for a small subset of interwikis known as the foreign language wikipedias and the above RFC closed as no consensus. The prior RFC contested whether there was ever support for the 2015 change to the guideline opposing non-English wikipedia links. The prior RFC suggested coming to Village pump if that RFC close remained contentious.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• As nominator, I support the use of {{ILL}} in templates to supplement redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support allowing {{ill}} to be used in the Template namespace. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 15:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. With the comment that links to multiple other Wikipedias are distracting and unnecessary, since any other Wikipedias can be accessed from the first one reached. Andrew Dalby 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment A the previous RFC Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Request for comment: Use of interlanguage links in Wikipedia templates was proposed by User:TonyTheTiger and that RFC only closed on 7 March 2017 , this is forum shopping and is a time sink for everyone involved. I suggest that User:TonyTheTiger closed is RFC and waits at least six months to see if a conensus emerges. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment For clarity, in what way is this RFC different to the one which was begun last month? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 15:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy close. This is just going over identical ground to the recent RFC. But for the record, I oppose the proposition, as it does not assist navigation between articles on this Wikipedia, which is the sole purpose of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy close and oppose. Redundant to previous RfC. Boghog (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support international connection per the ill template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Restore long standing wording " within English " that simply clarifies the last 2 RfC.--Moxy (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close I oppose the proposal and I oppose the forumshopping. The Banner talk 18:11, 16 March 2017 (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.

Poppy is an American singer, songwriter, ambient music composer, dancer, and YouTube personality portrayed by Moriah Rose Pereira. In October, 2016, she released 3:36 (Music to Sleep To) to her Bandcamp account. Her debut studio album Poppy.Computer debuted a year later in 2017.

Poppy also possesses a variety of unreleased content in which has undergone full production but has been kept from release. Various galleries are posted online listing some of her unreleased music, but a plethora can be found under the Soundcloud account "That Poppy Archive".

For Poppy's released discography, see Poppy discography. Below is a list of all leaked music by Poppy (credited as "That Poppy"):

Original unreleased music

X	Song Title	Length	Notes
1	"Cannibal Queen"	2:13
2	"Died in Your Arms Tonight"	3:37	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
3	"Losing My Religion"	4:02	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
4	"Doesn't Have to Mean That I'm Wrong"	2:51	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
5	"Animal"	4:05	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
6	"Just My Type"	1:45	Single (stylized "just my type") featured on American Cartoon Network show We Bare Bears A studio version has also been leaked.
7	"Home"	3:56	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
8	"Everything I Know is Wrong (The Long Way Home)	2:21	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased "Everything I Know is Wrong (Demo 1.2)" has also been leaked.
9	"The Cave"	3:43	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
10	"Sunglasses at Night"	2:38	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
11	"It Ain't Me"	2:57	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
12	"Flowers in Your Hair	1:57	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
13	"Spooky"	2:51	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
14	"Low Life" (Deleted Verse)	0:36	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased A verse (of which has not been included in Poppy's released single "Low Life") has also been leaked.
15	"Stolen Dance"	2:30	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
16	"Am I What You Like?"	0:33	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased Only "snippets" have been released.
17	"Everybody Wants It All"	0:19	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
18	"Fade In To You"	5:03	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
19	"Hurtin' Kind"	2:24	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
20	"What If I"	3:48	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased
21	"Dance With Me"	2:24	Archive:That Poppy Unreleased The low quality version has been leaked. The instrumental has been leaked.
22	"Chewing Gum"	2:39	Deleted single Leaked various times in 2016, first on Poppy's official Soundcloud (before promptly being removed), followed by others' uploads Leaked lyrics then tweeted by Poppy It has been stated by Poppy that the song was meant for her hypothetical Side B of EP Bubblebath
23	"I'm Wrong"	2:55

Unreleased covers

X	Song Title	Original artists
1	"Little Talks"	Of Monsters and Men
2	"Santa Baby"	Eartha Kitt
3	"Hit the Road Jack"	Percy Mayfield
4	"Stolen Dance"	Milky Chance
5	"Lovefool"	The Cardigans
6	"Landlocked Blues"	Bright Eyes
7	"Skyfall"	Adele
8	"Bruises"	Chairlift
9	"Want U Back"	Cher Lloyd
10	"It's Time"	Imagine Dragons