Talk:Froot

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

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

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

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

Azealia911 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

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

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

Leak & release date

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

Requested move 11 March 2015

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Tourdates

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracklisting

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

Peer review

Froot

I have listed this article for peer review to make sure there are no significant issues before nominating it as a good article. Any and all feedback are appreciated. Thank you, Is it Juan? (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Camilasdandelions

As I was also an editor who was going to clean up this article (to make Marina good topic series), I have thought to address following these issues:

• There're plenty of unnecessary blockquotes in Background section, we'd better trim this to wikivoice.  Done.
• Plenty of primary sources, and if possible, secondary reliable sources should replace them.  Done?
• In Release and promotion, "while the album cover was unveiled the following day. Over the final 12 days before the album's release, each song (in the same order they appear on the track list) was released and promoted through a variety of outlets" and "In addition, "Froot", "Happy", "I'm a Ruin" and "Forget" all received official releases as singles." are not supported by citations. Fixed.
• Trimming Critical reception section following the rules of WP:RECEPTION. Fixed?
• Putting music samples in Composition section would be benefit IMO. Pending.
• Removing {{small}} template in Personnel section per MOS:SMALL. Removed.
• Removing album's title in tablecaptions per MOS:HEADERS. Removed.

Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions, should the extended play (EP) be merged under the promotion section? Rather than having its separate section which is placed at the end. Let me know, and thanks for peer reviewing this article! I was also planning to create a good topic for Marina's studio albums. Is it Juan? (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Is it Juan? I think it's better to keep it in its independent section. I also once tried merging that kind of subsequent EP in Release and promotion section (Would You Still Love Me If You Really Knew Me?), but some user suggested me to make its own indepedent section. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Alrighty! For the music samples, I am not very familiar with it and tried to upload a snippet a while back, which was unsuccessful. If adding one is beneficial for the article, your more than welcome to do it, since I have seen your work in many Tinashe-music articles. Is it Juan? (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll help you with it, after checking an entire article soon. Thank you for your contribution! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Z1720

@Is it Juan?: Comments after a quick skim:

• I added a citation needed tag to the article: all of these should be resolved before it goes to GAN.  Done.
• The "Critical reception" falls into the "X says Y" pattern, making the prose uninteresting. WP:RECEPTION has some ideas on how to avoid this. Fixed?
• Block quotes are tricky because their length could deter readers from reading it and could bring copyright concerns to the article. In "Background and production" there are three block quotes: The one in the box at the top of the section needs an explanation of what it is. The second one is relevant but I think would be more effective if summarised. The third one doesn't have any context in the article, and I think it can be removed.  Done?

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720, I rewrote the first quote with an explanation (not sure if needed), but as for the second block quote, I just merged it with the previous paragraph. That way there shouldn't be no copyright concerns, let me know how it looks! Is it Juan? (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant

• A number of citation tags, after handeling those make sure to double check for any other problems with citations.  Done.
• "through Instagram and Twitter" link both.  Done.
• "via a Twitter live-chat and personal letter directed toward her fans" unclear what role Instagram played in this. Removed.
• Why is AnyDecentMusic? a reliable source? Removed, for now. Added back the source.
• Italicize "The Line of Best Fit". Fixed.
• "State" -> "State.ie" to avoid confusion with the American version. Fixed.
• "Ref" -> "Ref(s)." No action.

Thats what I found Olliefant (she/her) 23:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Olliefant, I'm not exactly sure about the ADM? source. Various music-related articles (especially albums), have it down as a reference, so I wouldn't know if it should be removed or stay as is. Is it Juan? (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Olliefant (she/her) 07:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hm, as of right now, I have just removed the citation since the article itself was deleted, then draftify. If someone else reverts it believing it should stay, I will take it to the Noticeboard. Also for the "ref" template, it could not be changed, please see its usage. Is it Juan? (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Is it Juan? @Olliefant: Whether AnyDecentMusic is reliable is actually not important here, since a lot of music articles apply this source as an aggregator and also {{Music ratings}} template adopts it. Also it is a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 16:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

First point is irrelevant, I'll accept the second as valid evidence Olliefant (she/her) 20:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Froot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Is it Juan? (talk · contribs) 15:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs) 21:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Will review! Revision:

Infobox and lead

• |recorded= years, "2013–2014", are unsourced. "Written" doesn't mean that Marina "recorded" the album
  • Removed.
• These three |studios= are also unsourced, but I believe it is adapted from the liner notes. You'd better add this to the prose
  • Done.
• [[Neon Gold Records|Neon Gold]]: WP:NOPIPE
  • Fixed.
• 3 April 2015 through Atlantic and Neon Gold Records, although it was ultimately released on 13 March 2015 due to ➡️ 3 April 2015, through Atlantic and Neon Gold Records, although it was ultimately released on 13 March 2015, due to
  • Done.

Development and production

• Diamandis, starting to take on a new perspective for Froot to The Line of Best Fit. Period is not needed
  • Removed.
• on 13 October 2014: Add comma next to 2014
  • Added.
• Diamandis planned where as she soon finished her "incredible" past record and "Primadonna" (2012) came out, she already knew what she wanted to do with the third record. Please revise this sentence little bit more because I cannot understand
  • Revised.
• on Froot, Diamandis could create "the whole thing".: This is be rephrased to wikivoice
  • Done?
• The album is described as considerably "reflective" in comparison to her previous releases, and is said to be "centred around extremely different things; half of the album is about a relationship that I had to end". Who of where said so?
  • Diamandis stated this herself.

Themes and composition

• sweetest of piano melodies": What is this double quotation
  • Added.
• mid-tempo, 1970s, 1980s music can be wikilinked
  • Linked.
• A critic who from where?
  • Done.
• "Better Than That" was described as "sassy" and "a future heavy-hitter, doused in wah-wah axes and classic funk and rock delvings" by The Line of Best Fit, while Diamandis herself said it was "like classic rock". ➡️ The Line of Best Fit's Larry Day described "Better Than That" as "sassy" and "a future heavy-hitter, doused in wah-wah axes and classic funk and rock delvings", while Diamandis herself said it was "like classic rock".
  • Reworded.
• The closing track, "Immortal", is a "delicate, stripped-back ballad that finds her contemplating the transitory nature of life", which Idolator viewed as a recurring theme in Diamandis's "occasionally morbid oeuvre", but added that she "always manages to examine the topic from an original perspective.": Replace these with another one since Idolator cannot be accessed anymore
  • Replaced citation.

Promotion and release

• on 1 September 2014 through ➡️ on 1 September 2014, through
  • Done.
• The song soon premiered on 10 October,[29] which coincided with the singer's 29th birthday,[30] and was released digitally on 11 November 2014.[31] ➡️ The song soon premiered on Diamandis's 29th birthday, 10 October,[29][30] being released digitally on 11 November.[31]
  • Done.
• The track listing was confirmed on 9 November 2014
  • Done.
• boxed-set, containing six varicoloured 7-inch vinyl singles, containing six scratch and sniff stickers. ➡️ boxed-set, containing six varicoloured 7-inch vinyl singles, six scratch and sniff stickers.
  • Done.
• "Happy" on 12 December, ➡️ "Happy" on 12 December 2014,
  • Done.
• and was issued along with the previous song as the first purple 7-inch vinyl from the campaign.
  • Done.
• but Diamandis would later announce on 28 July 2019, she would be performing ➡️ but on 28 July 2019, Diamandis announced that she would perform
  • Done.

Concert tour

• Just "Tour" for section name seems enough
  • Done.
• Add alt
  • Done.
• headlining Neon Nature Tour on 23 June.[57] This also included ➡️ headlining Neon Nature Tour on 23 June,[57] which also included
  • Done.

Critical reception

• normalized ➡️ normalised
  • Done.
• "cohesive pop album": Attribute; who of where wrote this?
  • Added author.
• characterizing ➡️ characterising
  • Done.
• Others noted her voice, ranging from a "voluptuous alto" or switching to a "fluttering soprano in one swoop.": Who "others"?
  • Added author.
• Unlink The Guardian
  • Done.
• Unitalicize Digital Spy
  • Done
• having a "playful spark that's hard to dislike, but three albums in, it's still difficult to see where Marina's collage of influence fits in pop's spectrum.": Please rephrase it to more wikitoned-voice
  • Done.
• Remove Idolator content
  • Done.
• along with PopCrush in its Fan Choice Awards where it was selected as the Best Album with 36% of the votes.: PopCrush is not reliable source, but regardless of its reliability, this poor source should not be cited in Wikipedia
  • Removed.
• Unlink I'm a Ruin
  • Done.

Commercial performance

• As of August 2015, the album had sold 75,000 ➡️ As of August 2015, Froot had sold 75,000
  • Done.
• Sources needed for Switzerland and Finland
  • Added.

Track listing

• Pass

Personnel

• Remove "of Froot"
  • Done.
• Change the citation template to: <ref>{{cite AV media notes |author=(( )) |display-authors=0 |title=Froot |type=CD liner notes |others=[[Marina and the Diamonds]] |publisher=[[Atlantic Records]] |year=2015 |id=2564617166}}</ref>
  • Done.
• Do not use bold marks (pretending to be subsection header) per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, change it to real subsection (by using ===)
  • Done.

Certifications

• Pass

Release history

• I believe 2010s albums articles have type of this massive release history table. But as the MOS:ALBUM states that "As Wikipedia is not an exhaustive repository of information, do not include every version and re-release of an album.", I also once removed redundant contents from this article's release history table, which was highly complicated before. Although this might be hard to address, I recommend you to make Froot's release history table more simple like what I did in that article.
  • Done, hopefully this fixed section is what you had in mind.

Froot Acoustic EP

• Add |alt=
  • Done.
• 2014–2015 in infobox is unsourced
  • Removed.
• [[Self-publishing|Self-released]]: WP:NOPIPE
  • Removed.
• extended play by ➡️ extended play (EP) by
  • Done.
• on 8 June 2015 through her Myspace page,[132] and contains three ➡️ on 8 June 2015, through her Myspace page,[132] containing three
  • Done.
• Because Diamandis' Myspace is currently defunct, the acoustic songs are only available in YouTube. Unsourced
  • Done.

Footnotes

• Why don't you remove this from infobox and put it in the prose? (like drums recorded at...)
  • Done.

References

• Archive all sources
  • Done.
• Ref 14, 22: Questionable sources
  • Replaced sources.
• Ref 21, 54: Use |publisher= parameter
  • Done.
• Ref 26 is alive
  • Done.
• Ref 33: |author= is Liv
  • Added.
• Ref 36: Replace " with ' in title per H:CS1
  • Done.
• Ref 37: ISSN is unnecessary
  • Removed.
• Ref 46 is dead
  • Replaced.
• Ref 60: use |via=Facebook
  • Added.
• Ref 132: |publisher=Myspace?
  • Added.
• Ref 133-135: "video" should be go like "Video" (sentence case)
  • Done.

Comment

• @Is it Juan?: Initial reviews done. I'll look through the article once again after you addressed these. Make sure that you addressed all of them! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 04:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Camilasdandelions, hey, sorry for the slow response, but I have addressed every task on here! Is it Juan? (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'm happy to pass the article. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 05:29, 13 July 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.