Talk:Poppy

Literature

There is an important usage of red poppies in "the wolf" by Giovanni Verga. DUS7IN (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)de

Actual blood?

...not just from the red flower that grew in great numbers but also from the actual blood of the dead soldiers that lay scattered and untended to on the otherwise barren battlegrounds"

Um, no way. Blood quickly oxidizes, turning brown. There is no way a battlefield was blood red for very long, as this seems to imply. If it is meant to symbolize blood spilled in battle, fine. Say that, and not silliness like this.

Why are you reading this? Random, huh. It is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.107.227 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A rusty brown all over the land would probably be some pretty red dirt. It doesn't necessarily mean 🔴 red, my dude. (sorry if you get notified by this I just am really high and can't restrain myself because this is such a bizarre perspective to me lol) 96.3.27.144 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

I've recently taken pictures of dried poppy pods which may be used here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikedawson/358899904/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikedawson/358899906/ -- Mike 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Felt

In Canada, poppies are made of felt, not paper. I think this should be mentioned. I also think this article should not be merged. --Dallin Tanjo22 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging

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

The result was Keep.

Non admin house keeping close. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• NO! Do not merge!. A link on that page pointing to this page of Poppy is sufficient!

Please do not merge. This is a widely-known plant and symbol of the First World War that is significant enough to warrant its own page. More information is needed on the page, but it should not be merged simply on those grounds. JKBrooks85 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• DONT DO IT! please do not merge

Do not merge. I got here via a redirect from Poppy seed. While this article is currently useless, the more generic botanical article is sure to never be of use. 65.34.186.143 03:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• NO NO NO DO NOT MERGE, Just expand as Poppy. Stepp-Wulf 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)~

I'd rather it not be merged, as I'd never have guessed to type in paverawhatsit when I was trying to find different sorts of poppies.

Be aware that Poppy would still redirect to paverawhatsit after a merge. -GregoryWeir 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Do not merge. - Joe

Comment - If this article is to be about the family, it is best to merge. But I think it should instead be about the genus Papaver (which is what most people will want when they enter "poppy" without a qualifier), and it can link to the family. So basically I'm suggesting merging it with Papaver.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that these should definitely be merged. It makes no sense to have two separate pages. It is like having a page for United States and one for USA. Needs to be merged if it is done properly.

I like Curtis Clark's idea. Most of the information currently on this page is a discussion of the family Papaveraceae and should be merged there. Any information specifically relating to the Papaver genus should be merged there and I believe the redirect should eventually point there as well. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect "poppy" - all members of the papveraceae family are poppies and vice versa. Some of the cultural info in Papaver would probably be better placed in this newly merged article too. The article could also do with a lot more info on propagation. 220.253.62.20 07:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Curtis Clark and vote merge and redirect to papaver. With the exception of Prickly and California, most commonly known "true" poppies are also within this genus (ie Corn, Oriental, Flanders, Opium, Icelandic etc). Then again, maybe I'm just biased. ;) - Papaver 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking some more about that, and I've decided that Poppy should go to a disambiguation page:

---

Poppy can refer to:

• a member of the genus Papaver, the "true poppies", including the opium poppy.
• a member of the family Papaveraceae, the Poppy family, which includes the California poppy, the pricklepoppy, and the Himalayan poppy.

---

This way, must users will find what they are looking for. The existing content in Poppy can be added to either Papaver or Papaveraceae, as appropriate. What do you think?--Curtis Clark 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise between papaver/papaveracea, I like it. There are other "poppies" out there too that people may end up on the poppy page looking for (i.e. Poppy Z. Brite or tall poppy syndrome, poppy tea, maybe others?) -- Papaver 06:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do not merge if the name of the merged article is not "poppy" or if poppy does not remain as an article. I like specificity and accuracy, however, I don't like the practice of using a scientific name that most people have never heard of unless there is an exceptional reason to do so. It has been done on other articles, but a made up example would be renaming the lion article to "Panthera leo" to avoid confusion with other lions. A merge retaining the name would be acceptable, but it might be better to shortly describe true poppies and the other poppies in this article, with links to the other articles and some content moved to the other articles, as appropriate. I don't think a disambiguation page at "poppy" would be a good idea, since people could not link to an article that has information on all poppies, "true" or not. Linking to an ambiguous term can be advantageous when both meanings are appropriate or when the exact meaning is not specified in a source/reference. For example, if an article contained the word "poppies", but did not specify what type of poppies is meant, you would have to guess or link to the disambiguation page, which is frowned upon. -- Kjkolb 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge; there's not really any point and it would cause confusion.

• I agree with Curtis Clark and vote merge and redirect to papaver.

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.

Poppies *do* test positive

Poppies do influence the testing for Opiates. It sometimes happens here in Germany when the police controls drivers in the Evening if they are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. I haven't seen the Episode of MythBusters that supposedly disproved this rumour, but I did take the time to look at the episode guide of the Mythbusters Fanclub, and there it says the Episode actually confirmed the myth. Someone didn't do their homework, it seems. (For completeness' sake, the episode guide says that a European company confirmed that "the test can detect 300 to 1,200 nano grams (that’s one-billionth of a gram) of codeine." ).

(It's actually the metabolites of morphine that the codeine was demethylated into that the test detects) -- Mike (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say this so nobody complains about the edit (the space intended for giving reasons was a bit too small for all this).

-Jaz - :) :) :) :) :) :)

Yeah, I don't think I quite understand why this is listed as a "myth" when the article seems to claim that it's actually true (and it does, in fact, seem to be true). --Cheapestcostavoider 06:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--Curtis Clark 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not fixed, because it says it's an urban legend.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.30.248 (talk • contribs) .

Then fix it. (Actually, urban legends can be true; their "legendary" status is among people who have no clear evidence of the truth or falsity of the story.)--Curtis Clark 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually saw an episode on MTV of a program which I believe was called "Urban Legends" where they also proved that poppy seeds can generate a false positive. They gave two subjects drug tests, where both came up negative, then they had them eat a few bagels, one ate a poppy seed bagel, the other regular bagels. They then brought them to a second drug test, where the one who ate poppy seeds tested positive. They of course asked the drug tester if it were possible to test positive just from eating poppy seed bagels, and the tester insisted that it weren't possible. *shrug* hey, even the drug testers can have the wrong perception about this. --Puellanivis 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the section about drug tests removed? I think it should be in the article. subasd 11:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ...because poppy seed redirects to this article. subasd 11:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The immunoassay tests look for opiate compounds and since poppy seeds do contain such substances eating them before testing results in a positive test. It seems odd to call such a result a "false positive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.96.5 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ANZAC Day

There should be somewhere something about ANZAC day and poppies! --Caleb 04:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Opium content

We need a clarification as to whether only opium poppies produce seeds and parts that contains opium alkaloids or that ANY poppies species produce opium alkaloid parts including the red poppies. Is there any difference in the opium content among difference species? Would be nice to have a comparison. --Kvasir 06:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing poppy picture

Someone should upload this [1] picture, and add it to this article, because it is a stunning photo. It could even go all the way to Featured Picture status. Before all of you start talking about copyright issues, it clearly states on page 2 of the photographer's page [2] (on which the picture is displayed) that, "© This photo is public." He does want to be credited, as stated on Creative Commons liscenses for other pictures of his. I would do this myself, but I don't know how. Nauticashades 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• It turns out that he only puts certain pictures under Creative Commons liscenses on purpose, and permission must be asked for all others. However, all hope is not lost as howcheng has emailed the author asking to use some of his other pictures on Wkipedia, but he might let us use all of them, which would of course inlcude this one. W'ell just have to wait and see.

Version of English

Reverted some spellings to American English as per Wikipedia policy. Paddy

Which policy is that? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." As far as I can tell, the article was in Commonwealth English, and you only changed part of that to American.--Curtis Clark 14:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The official policy is to follow the original author. Take the history back to the beginning. In this case the original was in British English. Pollinator 02:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Double poppy?

What exactly is a 'double poppy' as referred to in Katherine Mansfield's 1912 short story, "The Woman at the Store"? Zigzig20s 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

'double poppies' are a group of different cultivars of opium poppies that have double flowers, some what shaped like double Peony flowers. Do a search on Papaver somniferum var. paeoniflorum

Sometimes the var part is left off - then look for:

• Papaver somniferum 'Pink Chiffon' with double bright pink flowers.
• Papaver somniferum 'Oase' with double bright scarlet flowers.
• Papaver somniferum 'White Cloud' with double pure white flowers.

The double forms have been around for a while.Hardyplants 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Curtis Clark for fixing my spelling, my mistake- time for more sleep.Hardyplants 13:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection

A second meaning for the depiction and use of poppies in Greco-Roman myths is the symbolism of the bright scarlet colour as signifying the promise of resurrection after death. Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, 24. 15 p 96, ISBN 0-14-001026-2

Are you sure this is right, resurrection is a very specific term meaning coming back in a real physical body, while death in Greek thought involved an ethereal body on a different plane. Just wondering if you have the right term. Hardyplants 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thebaine

"Poppy seeds contain only trace amounts of opium, not enough to get a high, but enough to influence a drug test.
Experienced testers can tell the difference between use of heroin and consumption of poppy seeds by the presence of thebaine, a chemical only found when the person tested has been eating the seeds." [3] pixiequix 17:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agglo-American?

I'm not familiar with the term Agglo-American.

Meanwhile, it seems this article is having a hard time deciding whether to be part of a scientific treatise or a page in an underground drug reference. Cumbre 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A misspelling for Anglo-American it is safe to assume. 4.255.51.163 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

False positive?

The opiate test results after eating poppy are not at all false positives, but just positives. Why should it matter whether you eat poppy or smoke opium as long as the opiates end up in the blood (and urine)? Icek (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because eating the seeds is legal, it isn't drug abuse. It causes no hallucination or other negative effects on neural system: and besides it's an important Eastern European tradition. --Zslevi (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a false positive with respect to legality, but not a false positive of the opiate test. I suppose small amounts of opium would have the same effects (or rather lack of effects) as eating poppy seeds. (Why has being a tradition anything to do with this?) Icek (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The content being discussed here has been moved to the relevant article: Poppy seed. --Una Smith (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed. --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Remembrance poppies

Apparently remembrance day poppies in the USA, Canada, England and Scotland are all different. Can somebody find photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.76.213.203 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of their being US poppies, but the photo on Gordon Brown's wiki page shows a British poppy and the current poppy pin on this page is Cdn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.183 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

flanders field!

</gallery>we are the dead short days ago left felt dawn and to glow loved and were loved and now we lie in flaunder fields this is part of a song called flanders fields i thinck it is made from some one called (Jhon mcly) some thing like that.well i have got to say that in a play on monday which is tommorow and i realy like the song well poam it reminds me of when all of the soliders died in the flanders field but i call it poppy field for short and today was remembarance sunday so at eleven oclock you would be quiet and still on the inside and out side and maybe close your eyes if it would help and thick about when the soliders died died and the poppy fields for one or two miunites. --78.147.186.242 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)--78.147.186.242 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article has been getting an overhaul, with much content being merged into other articles. Given what content remains, a rename (page move) of the article may be called for. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Poppy. --Una Smith (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Poppy/draft reflects some ideas about disambiguation that I have been mulling over for a long time. Now I have made a start on expressing those ideas: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Primary topic not necessarily an article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR notice per WP:ARBMAC2 (2009 Macedonia ArbCom ruling)

I added a notice to the talk page advising editors that this article is subject to a one-revert-rule restriction with respect to the Macedonia naming issue (see the 2009 "Macedonia 2" Arbitration Committee ruling, WP:ARBMAC2#Tagging articles). I did this because the current text of the article mentions that a poppy is depicted on certain Macedonian bank notes. Note that there was an incident in September 2009 ([4]) in which an IP editor changed the article to use the banned terms "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROMian" — a change which was shortly thereafter reverted ([5]). I customized the notice to make it clear that the 1RR restriction applies only to this one issue, not to the article in general. It is my understanding that the "Macedonia 2" ArbCom ruling in question expects this sort of tagging to be done on the talk pages of all articles which mention the Republic of Macedonia (by whatever name). I should probably have done this last September, but better late than never. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz

I removed the sentence that said "Oddly, the poppy field affected the film's characters in the same order the cast members actually died" because that isn't accurate. Dorothy fell asleep in the poppy field before the Lion, but Bert Lahr died in 1967 whereas Judy Garland died in 1969. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:PoppyClose.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PoppyClose.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wearing of poppies in the US??

The article currently says: "In the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand artificial poppies (plastic in Canada, paper in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand) are worn to commemorate those who died in war. This form of commemoration is associated with Veterans Day in the United States and with Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth, both of which fall on November 11."

I strenuously challenge the claim that the wearing of poppies is widespread in the US. In my experience, the custom is virtually unknown in the US at the present time. I also question the claim that the wearing of poppies in the US (to the extent that this practice currently exists at all) is or ever was associated with Veterans' Day (as opposed to Memorial Day).

Two sources are currently being cited in support of the claim that this is a customary practice in the US. The first is an article in The World Book Dictionary, which gives one definition of "poppy" as "an artificial flower resembling a poppy sold in an annual drive by the American Legion and several other veterans' groups as a means of raising funds for their charitable activities." This source does not say how widely such poppies are sold or worn, so it doesn't seem to me to be appropriate to use this source in a context where the implication is being made that the custom is widespread in the US (especially not in juxtaposition with the state of affairs in Commonwealth countries, where poppies are truly ubiquitous around Remembrance Day).

The second source is an 2004 excerpt from the Congressional Record, in which various members of Congress encourage the practice of wearing poppies on Memorial Day. It is mentioned (page 10121) that "there was a time in our Nation when all Americans on Memorial Day wore a red poppy" — but also that "Sadly, the true meaning of Memorial Day seems to have faded over the years". While this source does suggest that some people have supported a revival of the poppy tradition in the US, that is not the same as claiming that this is in fact a widespread tradition.

Additionally, the portion of the article which I quoted above claims that the wearing of poppies is "associated with Veterans Day in the United States" — whereas the Congressional Record source talks about Memorial Day, and the World Book Dictionary source doesn't talk about a specific timing of the "annual drive".

All in all, I do not believe the cited sources adequately substantiate the claim that this custom, in the US, is on a par with similar traditions in Commonwealth countries. And I do believe the great majority of American editors here would confirm that, now and in the reasonably recalled past, there is not and has not been any such tradition active in the US — and to insist on claiming the contrary based on ambiguous sources like this is (in my view) interpreting the maxim of "verifiability, not truth" in a way that no one would or should really want to do.

For what little it may be worth here: I wear a Canadian poppy every year in the couple of weeks leading up to Remembrance Day; and in the more than a dozen years during which I've kept up this tradition since moving back to the US, my experience has been that almost no one has the slightest clue regarding the significance of my "pretty red flower". Generally, the only people who have indicated to me that they recognized the symbol have been other Canadians, people who have spent time living in Commonwealth countries, or elderly people who remember the poppy tradition in the US from long, long ago. — Richwales (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:That Poppy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote

Hi, and a note to page watchers. The hatnote link to Poppy (singer) has been removed several times and I've put it back, so wondering if other editors could watch for this also. The singer's page usually has many more views than this article, which makes it per guidelines "worthy" of a hatnote (if not co-primary). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move from Poppy (disambiguation) to Poppy

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: not moved. Consensus is that the flower is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Zawl 05:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

---

• Poppy → Poppy (flower)
• Poppy (disambiguation) → Poppy

– Not the primary topic, as AlexanderHovanec thinks because there is also Poppy (singer). He attempted to move the page 3 times, but the move has been reverted by Plantdrew, Dekimasu, and last but not least, AlexTheWhovian, saying that discussion is needed here. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I was an uninvolved editor, and only reverted the move after it was listed at WP:RMTR as a controversial request. The moving editor should have filed an RM after the first revert, not the third. However, I believe that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here, in which the flower is the primary topic. -- Alex^TW 01:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• I support the change: In the words of Randy Kryn:

"The flower and the singer seem to be co-primaries. The singer has many more page views per day, week, and month. The flower because it's a known and popular flower, and has plenty of page views of its own. They seem to be good pages for a disamb. as each has an arguable claim to primary."

You heard it here folks... statistics don't lie. We don't want the vast majority typing "Poppy" in the search box only to be redirected to the page of the flower. At the very least, since they're arguably co-primary, let it redirect to the disambiguation page... at this point there's no strict guidelines, it's only a philosophy. There's an acclaimed singer and personality that has taken up this term as an alias, so why would anyone get to decide which one is "primary" and which one is inferior? For the sake of efficiency, the only plausible choice would be to give each article the role of being "co-primary" to each other, as one is "more popular" and one has had the name for a longer period of time. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk)

Statistics don't lie, well they do of course, bu that's by the by; have you read what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Apple Inc. gets roughly three times the page views of Apple, but the tree/fruit is the primary topic. Here, there is a clear winner on the second point of the primary topic criteria: the flower has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." The flower will win by a wide margin when it comes to the preponderance of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia (try Google Books, for example). On the first criterion, see data for last month. The singer gets more hits, but not overwhelmingly so. Meanwhile, the disambiguation page gets only 18 hits a day, indicating that most people aren't showing up at the wrong page when the flower is at the base name. A hatnote to the singer should be sufficient in this case. Oppose. Dekimasuよ! 03:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I support the guidelines, so if the singer really isn't all that notable or "educational", then who am I to argue?

However I don't support the apple example. You see, we're dealing with a singer and a TYPE of flower. Not a singer who goes by "flower" and the article for "flower" in GENERAL. So say we were dealing with a small time singer named "Flower"... obviously the ACTUAL flower would be deemed primary. But here, a Poppy is only a TYPE of flower, therefore it wouldn't be proportionate to your argument. So "apple" is obviously primary -- Apple Inc. is using the name of a general object. But I don't feel it'd work the same way if a singer wants to use the name of a SPECIFIC (non-general) object.

It's kind of difficult to convey. I still think it's unanimous/essential in the disamb page being the "Poppy" holder, but I can't argue with Wikipedia's criteria. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

An apple is generally an actual apple, but specifically a type of fruit. Fruit is genuine fruit, yet a kind of food. Food is as real as it gets, but a particular subset of generic fuel, itself merely one form of material (reactive). Everything's part of something, means nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Criterion #2. The singer does not seem to be that notable even as singers go (no hits on major charts, etc.) —  AjaxSmack  04:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Give credit where it's due. The singer's entire album appears on two separate charts, both around 30th. The singer has also received rewards, and it's been agreed that they're a notable person. Like I said, page-view-wise, the singer is far more known than the species of flower. In fact, I'd bet my money that more Wikipedeans know of the singer than the type of flower... -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I expect that you'd lose your bet. Essentially the whole population of Britain know of the flower because of it's association with Armistice Day. A different species is the state flower of California. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I said major charts. The Billboard Indie and Heat charts are not major charts; the singer's albums have never made the Billboard 200 and her songs have never charted anywhere that I can tell. —  AjaxSmack  04:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what makes the intensity of her "fans" interesting. Not a household name/meme (yet?), but the singer owns such a unique niche in music and performance art circles that many of her fans look at her as the queen of the millennials, queen of the internet, and other such self-fulfilling terms. Interesting line-of-work/meant-to-be for a shy quiet determined girl from Boston, and the millennials and the rest are lucky to have her and her crew doing what they're apparently doing. As for Wikipedia, she's not seen as co-primary, but certainly, due to page views, hatnote worthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

How big a bet do you want to place? In UK, the primary meaning is the flower, and the secondary is Remembrance poppy (13k views in the last 30 days). The same may be true in Australia, Canada and New Zealand as well. (AU and NZ associate the paper poppy with ANZAC Day.) In the Indian subcontinent, the flower and its seed (34k views in the last 30 days) are primary meanings. Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear primary topic due to the singer being named based on the flower._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That's incorrect though. 😅 It's not that hard to figure out. It was explicitly mentioned that Poppy was the nickname a friend gave to the singer, simply because it sounded "cute", as they say. I'm guessing it was just derived from the term "Pop"; but it has nothing to even do with flowers. Do your research kind sir. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Actually, many people are referencing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and yet deciding to overlook:

* Wikipedia article traffic statistics (for the exact title of a page or a redirect) and redirect traffic statistics (for the total views of a page including traffic coming from its redirects)

Mentioned this one a plethora of times by now...

* Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or books. Note using this modified Google search string eliminates personal search bias.

First Google result... nothing about flowers...

and deciding to only place their focus on the "primary long-term significance" factor. 😂 Come on admins, all your arguments are easily counterable. If you're this against redirecting to a disamb page, then at least supply a worthy reason. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You know up to a point he's right. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the moment does allow people to misread it and ignore the second part. Wikipedia would be more like an encyclopedia if we flipped PT2 up to PT1 and listed pageviews second, because some editors reading it don't get that far. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I'll buy that flip idea. Far too much heat and light is expended on fanclubs trying to get ephemeral topics promoted to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. IMO, unless there is one topic which every English-speaker knows, there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Should you open or know of any discussions on such issues, please {{ping}} me. I have strong views on the subject, which may or may not coincide with yours, either in general or in particular cases, so pinging me wouldn't be Wikipedia:Canvassing. Narky Blert (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Me as well. It seems like a good idea, and would fit well into the prioritizing concept of encyclopedic decision-making. Please ping me as well if someone puts this up for RfC consideration. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes it clear that there are two criteria that are commonly used, and that the decision is a matter for consensus, to be made on this page, pace AlexanderHovanec who is pushing very hard for only one of the two to be considered. In my view, the 'long term significance' criterion is the better one in this case. The Google search figures for popular singers are very susceptible to short-term spikes, and there's a high prospect that popularity today may evaporate tomorrow. A few singers may endure for decades but most don't. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the "long-term significance" issue is key here. Dekimasu and MichaelMaggs describe it well. TimBuck2 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Flower names" like "Poppy", "Rose" or "Violet" are derived from the flower and exist only because of the flower. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:TROUT In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support co-primaries although I see that this is already snowed. I like In ictu oculi's suggestion of switching the two criteria. By page views the singer is the clear primary, and, via CRYSTAL, that will continue for many years to come. If that's the case the disamb. page should be used for the two co-primary topics. At least the hatnote here helps, although it's been removed several times and I have to keep trotting back to replace it, so maybe some of the editors who watch this page can keep an eye out for that, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which would be the flower. To think that a barely notable Youtuber somehow affects a widely popular flower that's documented for thousands of years is...short sighted and ill-conceived, to say the least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Or visionary, to say the most (couldn't resist a teed-up follow-up). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose due to the overwhelming long-term historic significance of the plant. bd2412 T 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Long-term historic significance is overwhelming in this case. If in a thousand years Poppy the singer is more well known than the flower, let's revisit this at that time. First Light (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per long-term significance. It's even a little peculiar to have the singer mentioned in the hatnote. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Per guidelines, "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind", so if another similarly named page has the amount of views that the singer gets a day, which would make that page primary or co-primary if it weren't for the long-term significance, the page can be listed in the hatnote. Per Pink and many other pages' hatnotes. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Views are extremely ephemeral and passing, much like news, pop singers, movies, etc. Unlike flower names that have been widely used for hundreds or thousands of years. First Light (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the plant is the primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Poppy, the plant, is clearly the primary topic, from which the other uses are derived. Reference to the singer should be removed from the hatnote. Elevation of the singer to co-primary in Poppy (disambiguation) is absurd, and contravenes WP:NPOV. Plantsurfer 12:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• From the hatnote guidelines: "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind". The page views for the singer, which have outdistanced views of the page on the flower for a long time (here is the current 90 day look), indicate that many readers will just type in "Poppy" looking for the singer. That is the essence of Wikipedia hatnotes, to send readers to the correct page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Uh, no matter your stance on this proposed move, it can be agreed on to be helpful to have the singer in the hatnote (see Randy's reasons above). There's many accidental links to this page on pages that refer to the singer. The hatnote helps immediately direct readers to the page where they want to go. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The plant is WP:PRIMARY as having long-term significance. Page views of current phenomena are often inflated relative to their lasting importance. Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If the singer gains greater long-term primacy than similar cases such as Prince (musician) then revisit later. Certes (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral / Kinda weak support. While I understand that the flower has significance, there's many accidental links to this page on pages that refer to the singer. If having the disambiguation page in the main namespace helps direct people to the correct page, I'd kinda be for it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• By my check just now, there are no links at all to this page that refer to the singer. Maybe someone cleaned them up in the meantime? Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looking through recent changes (the latest month) where the edit summary contains "Poppy", there are 300 link changes: 290 changing Poppy to Poppy (flower) and none for the singer. Certes (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• oppose. Poppy is automatically thought of as the flower. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good grief! Of course the flower is the primary topic. WP:RECENTISM anybody? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• lol. Necrothesp, I have no idea why this hasn't been closed yet per snow. Poppy magick is keeping it afloat. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a great lack of petrichor here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Snow First Light (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Snow on poppies (Poppy on Snow)

---

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.