Talk:Who the Fuck Are Arctic Monkeys?

Second EP?

Article says this is the second EP by the Arctic Monkeys. If it is so, what is the first EP? barraponto (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Chart eligibility

In the second paragraph it says that "their next record would in fact be a 5-track EP [1], thereby disqualifying it for chart calculations". Looking at page 4 of the chart rules here, it's my understanding that it will be excluded from the singles chart but will be included in the album chart instead. If I've understood the rules correctly it seems that the article at present is incorrect. --Fozi999 21:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ive changed it to: "disqualifying it from the UK singles chart". Im not too sure how it works; ive never seen an EP in the album charts before but that dosnt mean much. Wright123 17:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading a thread about this issue on the official arctic monkeys forum [2] and it seems it can't enter the album chart because of it's price. They seem to have it on good authority. Shall i change it or is this not a reliable enough source? Thanks Wright123 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Official Charts link from above clearly states how price discrimination is applied, and there is nothing there that could possibly suggest that a 5-track EP priced at £3.99 should not be allowed in... as far as I can see. Even if it is under 20 minutes long, it is still over 3-tracks in length, and therefore will qualify. DJR (Talk) 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just found this:

Budget 0.50 - 4.24

3.3 Albums Chart: Budget Albums Budget albums are excluded from the published Album Charts and are shown on the printed chart report with their sales index and asterisks (***) in place of a chart position

Seems like it will be excluded. Wright123 19:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was from: The official chart company Wright123 19:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I think that 'the view from the afternoon' article should be changed into an article about the song and 'who the fuck are the arctic monkeys' should be about the EP. Nothing needs changing or merging. Wright123 18:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Keep it like it is. DJR (Talk) 15:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with Djr. Keep it as it is. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Shall we leave it for say 5 days unless someone disagrees, and then take it down?Wright123 20:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - that seems like fair enough. DJR (Talk) 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Removed Wright123 13:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

p2p

Who came up with the 15th? A perfect rip has been online since at least the 6th. --Fozi999 18:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We'll just forget the exact date - leave it as April 2006. DJR (Talk) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the changes and they seem fair enough to me. I was just curious where this date of the 15th came from. --Fozi999 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea myself - I got back from holiday and that's what it read...! DJR (Talk) 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal

Moved. Kyle Barbour 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Although this page was originally created at its proper name, it has subsequently been moved and a redirect page stops it being moved back by non-admins. As stated on the cover sleeve of the CD and on the band's official website (see link), the EP has no "?" whereas the individual song does. I think it's quite important that Wikipedia strives for accuracy in pinickity areas such as this, and would request the page be moved back to its correct name. DJR (T) 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

• as nom. DJR (T) 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Well this is strange - on my EP it HAS the question mark on the side --Befuddled Steve 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Same for me... just checked. On the cover, the side and anywhere else on the packaging. -Ally 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Same here, so I moved it back. --PEJL 09:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Fair use rationale for Image:Whothefarethearcticmonkeyspromo.jpg

Image:Whothefarethearcticmonkeyspromo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)