Talk:Verity (meme)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Verity

• ... that a character resembling a smiley face has become a popular internet meme?
• ALT1 ... that according to USA Today, Verity (pictured) "could be the new '6-7'"?

• Source:

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: quite sorry if the formatting is off, never done a DYK nomination before

Created by Walking-sea-cat (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC).

• I have rewritten the article and added ALT1. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 20:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The article is at AfD, but is likely to survive (as a disclosure of involvement in the AfD discussion, I have voted for the article to be kept). Beta Beta Beta - talk 00:07, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I have closed the discussion as WP:SNOW. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Barring the AfD/RM discussions, there's multiple obvious issues here: the term "Verity" is ambiguous & could refer to Verity, which the article even references. The smiley face's neither "Verity" itself or necessary to understand what it is. The hook(s) just aren't interesting either. "Basic image becomes meme." "Meme is popular and compared to other meme." The only interesting hook I can think of here is some word play like "... that Anne Hathaway made reference to "Verity (web series)" while promoting "Verity (film)"?" Anne Hathaway is a good attention grabber. Other than that, I don't think there's anything here. Travis Mulch (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
  • "Verity" is unambiguous here because of the picture. Also, I personally think 6-7 is much more click-attractive than Anne Hathaway. People will see "Verity" and "6-7" and lose their minds. The picture contributes to this. I am of course biased though because I'm Gen Z and don't watch many films. But I'm pretty sure ALT1 would blow up. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 02:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
    • @CopperyMarrow15: That's not how DYK works. "Verity" is indistinguishable from Harvey Ball's smiley aside from eye size/placement. People will see this image and think it's about one of the far more common uses of a yellow smiley. When's the last time you saw a non-yellow smiling emoji? Walmart's used the design everywhere for decades. Hooks are decided on factual accuracy and inherent interest in those facts, not whether or not people will "lose their minds", or if the hook will "blow up". The hooks aren't interesting/appropriate for Main page viewers that aren't very young, and not familiar with Minecraft, horror series, or internet memes. Verity is the meme of the week we'll forget by next month. Anne Hathaway is an award-winning, multi-billion-dollar grossing actress who's been subject to media coverage for two decades. Travis Mulch (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
      • Even for someone who's out of the loop, ALT1 is intriguing. The familiarity of the bright yellow smiley face would catch their eye, and the unfamiliarity of the terms "Verity" and "6-7" would make them think "What on earth am I looking at? I should click to find out." Also, I do think that the goal of DYK is, at least partially, to write hooks that "blow up". We want people to click on links and read our newest content; that's the whole point. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 05:39, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
        • You're right that people would think "What on earth am I looking at?", and that's it. You're missing the entire point of wide appeal. Travis Mulch (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
          • Anne Hathaway's name is mentioned in the article now, so you're free to write your own hook about her if you want. I doubt I'll let go of ALT1 though, and I still think the picture is a good attention-grabber. I'll let the reviewer decide. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 00:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
            • Still not how DYK works, because both nominators and reviewers must abide by the same criteria. Travis Mulch (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
              • You're talking about criterion 7, right? I already explained that I personally think criterion 7 is met. You are welcome to disagree. But because we disagree, we need a third opinion. That's what I mean. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 01:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify

The following discussion 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.

---

I think the article should become a draft beacuse it pushes WP:GNG to its limits and it is not fully notabile YET. Furbchess (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I now realized it meets WP:GNG Furbchess (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2026 (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.

Requested move 26 September 2026

Verity (meme) → Verity (web series)Verity (web series) – per "I think the page should be titled Verity (web series), not Verity (meme). The main subject is the web series and the meme is an aspect of that subject." -ArtemisiaGentileschiFan Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, the article is about the web series, not the meme at all. Cheromaniii (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@[[User:Issac I Navarro|Issac I believe that Verity (Meme) shall be retitled to Verity (Web series) as the article is focused on the official web series. Claiphic (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Claiphic, I only fixed the Request Move template that was started by @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the page should be titled Verity (web series), not Verity (meme). The main subject is the web series and the meme is an aspect of that subject. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TikTok, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. I agree too Furbchess (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. The web series is the topic of the article first and foremost, even though the meme is the part that makes it notable. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 21:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. I agree Triple T, more like Tung Tung (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree per nom. I am very surprised it somehow survived AfD. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree Other Meme web series have (web series), not (Meme) WXchaser (^{Say what?}) 21:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Although the memes are a major part of the article (and probably the main reason it has become notable), the article is still primarily about the web series. CoolJhon (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

We might as well close this discussion, as there is no way we are going to have 8 people dissagre. WXchaser (^{Say what?}) 22:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@WXchaser There is WP:RMCOMMENT, I suppose it might be able to be closed under WP:SNOW. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Verity wasn't born as a meme KittyTeggie (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. And anything related to the meme should be contained within a section about it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – nevah queer. 08:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom Wikiman (Talk) 16:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

shouldn't the page be named "Verity™ (web series)"? Oo1o1o12 (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

No. See WP:COMMONNAME. All the sources just call it "Verity". –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 22:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

An admin should just close this discussion. Furbchess (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Furbchess, That's not how things work. See WP:RMCLOSE. "move discussions should remain open for at least seven days" also WP:RMEC. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Furbchess (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro WP:SNOW literally exists for this reason. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, I am aware, I even brought up the snow clause above in my reply to @WXchaser. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure RMs can be snowed. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. An uninvolved editor can theoretically close a move request under WP:SNOW, but at any rate, this should not be done by the editor who made the move request, and never through cutting and pasting. I have reverted the cut-and-paste move that was performed here. In the current case, this not only broke the page history, but also meant that the new version of the page lacked the semi-protection (edit protection and move protection) put in place on the article. Please let the process play out normally. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral Either is fine. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 18:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I'll almost certainly be in the minority, and thats ok, but I think its more productive for the article to be about the meme, to me its the more enduring part of Verity, especially with Horror Skunx's music videos and such, which are the most intensely referenced. Kyethepie21 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kyethepie21 the article currently only briefly covers the meme; you would have to completely rewrite the article first to do this. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be rewritten beacuse it is good right now. Furbchess (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Strong support per nom Szxq (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Plot summary and relaible sources

When more relaible sources come, we should do a plot summary. Furbchess (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

We don’t need sources to make a plot summary right? WP:PLOTREF Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, it would really depend a lot on what that plot section would be like. KittyTeggie (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok but how should the plot section be ? Furbchess (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be like how it is in articles like Adventure Time: Fionna and Cake or TADC, where there’s a synopsis at the start and a summary of each episode is in the episode list. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 14:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good ideea. Furbchess (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

There should be a cast section too. Furbchess (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Canadian

What are the sources for the web series being Canadian ? Furbchess (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

thatmob's youtube channel (including his second channel "Mob +") says that it's located in canada Oo1o1o12 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks Furbchess (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

But isnt that WP:FANCRUFT Furbchess (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Furbchess It isn't; it's just a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be fine under WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok Furbchess (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

Bring in the “primary sources” template for splitting primary and secondary sources!

”In the text, these are preceded by a” blah blah blah you get it. ~2026-52483-83 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

What do You mean ? Furbchess (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

There are no primary sources. We don't need that template. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

We may need it if primary sources are included as citations still ~2026-52447-98 (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

True. Furbchess (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Other Verity songs + Verity Variants should be added.

There are still mutiple songs by horror skunx (and other artists), not just "It's Me, It's Verity". List of the songs:

The Verity Band - Be My Friend - this one contains verity "variants", or words ending with the suffix `ity`.

Lord Verity - Master of Humanity - This one centers around the main image of a remix of "It's Me, It's Verity".

your verity - This one is by CG5 AND Horror Skunx, although it feels important to list as it's been deemed more "lore accurate" by fans.

Those are all the songs I know of, but the verity variants mentioned earlier should be added as well. Thank you! ~2026-52655-74 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They can be mentioned if they are covered by reliable secondary sources. This isn't a fan wiki. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I do agree. Falsity, Cruelty, Lovity, Curiosity, and Misery are all important to the canon Verity Lore, as I believe That mob gave his approval? Also they feature in the HorrorSkunx song ~2026-53255-78 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Plot summary

Pinging @CopperyMarrow15 for this. I think adding a plot/overview for the series is a good idea. I tried to add one but you reverted it, so I think opening a discussion is a good idea. Wikiman (Talk) 22:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What you added didn't look like a plot summary to me. You just reworded a paragraph, and removed some important information in the process. That's why I reverted it.

If you or anyone else want to add a plot summary, go ahead. Follow MOS:PLOT and keep it under 700 words. Consider using The Amazing Digital Circus § Episodes as a guide.

–CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 23:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the article already has a pretty decent plot summary in these sentences: In the first episode, released in May 2026, ThatMob's self-insert protagonist meets Verity, an in-game virtual assistant resembling a yellow smiley face. Verity, voiced by YouTuber JustWhispy, becomes increasingly unsettling and maniacal over time and recites details about ThatMob's personal life. He eventually transforms into a hostile humanoid monster. I don't think much more is really needed since this is basically a very concise summary of the entire series. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

That's actually just a summary of the first episode. I never watched the series, but I did watch a YouTuber's review of it. If I remember correctly, he invites his friend into the game, and his friend gets killed, and then he discovers some secret underground library that his friend built, and he discovers the building where Verity was created, and then he kills himself for some reason. I never wrote about any of this because none of the sources care about it, nor do I. But if the people want a plot summary, I won't stop them. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 00:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Request to separate the original series from the fan-created media and viral music

I think that it would be a good idea to have the main overall focus at the start of this article be purely about the source material (being the web series) with only brief mentions of other fanworks, and then later in the Wikipedia article talk about the popular fanworks based on this IP.

For instance, at the time of me writing this suggestion, towards the beginning of the Wikipedia article under 'Reception' states "The original series and Horror Skunx's music video each received over twenty million views,[1] and several Minecraft mods received millions of downloads."

It might be a good idea to first mention the original work, such as the video series itself in its own sentence or paragraph mentioning view counts overall or individually, then in another paragraph or separate section mention the fan works and popular music videos created based on the character. Combining multiple different creators and projects in the same sentence and view count doesn't seem like a good idea as it makes the original series and the music video seem like they are one in the same which it is not. (I verified this by asking multiple people to read this article who were not already familiar with the IP and this was a common complaint or observation)

Before I remotely try to make an edit, I wanted to get feedback from other community members. Please let me know what you all think should be done involving structuring (or even restructuring) this article with these observations in mind. WttyWilla (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Hello, WttyWilla. I'm the one who wrote most of the text in this article, including the sentence you mentioned. I have now reworded the sentence to try to address your concerns. Do you think it's clearer now?
  It's pretty cool that you got people to read the article and received feedback from them. I'd love to know more about what they had to say.
  –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 01:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)