Talk:Fat (EP)

Title

hey, i'm gonna change the name of the article from Fat EP to Fat (EP). --Chickenguy13 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's right there on the cover. "E.P." is part of the title. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not, for example, Green Day's Slappy says Slappy E.P. on the cover, but the article is just called Slappy, are you gonna go change that? --Chickenguy13 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about other crap; I'm talking about this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus christ, you think you could be a little nicer? That was an example, okay? and i'm not stupid, i know what article you're talking about. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't overreact. I'm merely stating that just because something's wrong elsewhere doesn't mean it has to be wrong here. I'm not going to scour Wikipedia and check every article about an EP to compare to this one. I'm discussing only this article. Other articles can be discussed at their own talk pages. If we want to discuss a larger issue, such as the titling of EP articles across WP, we can do that at WP:ALBUMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're overeacting, you're being an ass. You know what, i'm just gonna rename the article back to what it was, i'm sick of arguing. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stay civil. Name-calling will not help your cause or your reputation; it will only get you in trouble. And please don't make cut-and-paste moves: reversing a move requires the intervention of an administrator, as the edit history must be moved along with the page. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, people on here just make me so mad, you act like you're so godly and i'm a piece of shit, i have every right to get mad, you expect me to be a saint and never get mad, and that's not gonna happen, you're just mad because i'm not kissing your ass, and i'm so sick of you always starting fights with me, you guys aren't nice AT ALL!, and if you don't want me to call you names, BE NICE! Anyways, the reason i moved it like that was because i tried to move it normally, but it wouldn't let me do it normally, sorry about that too, all i seem to do is make mistakes, and the second i make a mistake, you guys jump all over me, and you act like you're my parents and i have to do everything you say, and i don't, you get on me for EVERYTHING!, and i know not every edit i do is wrong, you just try to find reasons to yell at me cuz you can't live without yelling at me, you're a bully, and if you don't want me to call you names or anything, be a little nicer. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stay civil. That includes not cursing and pitching a huge fit when people correct you on your mistakes. Of course nobody's perfect, and mistakes are going to be made (we were all new once, and we all learned the ins & outs of Wikipedia by trial & error as we went along). I've given you simple instructions on your user page as to how to properly reverse a move. There's no reason to come back here and blow the matter entirely out of proportion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@IllaZilla You know what, it isn't all me, you revert practically every edit i do, like my recent one on 21st Century Breakdown, you just have it out for me, and you're the one that started the fight, all i did was move the article trying to fix it and you started it all, i was trying to be nice to you at first, but then you started getting snappy with me, and i'm not gonna just sit around and let you do that to me, and i did not pitch a huge fit, i don't care if i get corrected, what i'm mad about is that you're being mean about it, and i don't have to stay civil, you're not my parents, therefore you have no power over me, i don't have to do everything you say, you're the one blowing the matter entirely out of proportion, i'm sick of fighting with you so shut up, i don't wanna talk to you anymore. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

←We're not concerned about other crap; We're talking about this article. Oh i forgot to mention that you're not being civil IllaZilla. --Metallicaya! (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Chickenguy, this isn't a "fight", and I don't "have it out for you". It's like I told you a while back: some of your edits are improvements, and some aren't. The ones that are improvements are probably going to be left alone; the ones that aren't improvements are probably going to get reverted. For each of your edits that I've reverted, there are at least a half dozen that I haven't touched. Please stop accusing me of having some imagined vendetta against you, because I don't: you just happen to edit a number of articles that are on my watchlist. As for civility, I don't have to be your parent to tell you that cursing and whining aren't an appropriate way to interact in a collaborative encyclopedia project. You should be mature enough to figure that out on your own. Civility is one of Wikipedia's core policies, as is consensus. If you can't respect these core aspects of Wikipedia, then this probably isn't the place for you. I've reached out to you and tried to guide you along on a number of occasions; there's no call to fly off the handle when I have to correct one of your mistakes. Saying "shut up, i don't wann talk to you anymore" is entirely petulant and childish; not to mention that if you don't want to communicate, you can simply choose not to reply. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Metallicaya!, WP:OTHERCRAP is part of an essay explaining some common arguments that are either fallacious or just don't hold up. We are discussing the title of this article, not every article on Wikipedia. Saying "but this other thing is wrong too..." doesn't make it OK for this article to be wrong. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right, this is a fight, it wasn't at first, but you've taken it to that level, and it's obvious that you have something against me, and it's not imagined, it's true, and you may not have to be my parent to tell me not to curse or anything, but you act like your my parents, and i'm not whining, and you know what, you're not interacting to me appropriatly, you always make it my fault and i'm sick of it. And i'm not flying off the handle, you're taking this way too far, can't you just live with the fact that you're not being very nice, and you might not revert every edit i do, but you revert probably 90% of them. And you know what, i am mature, you're the one that's not being mature, and i have every right to tell you to "shut up" if you're making me mad, and you don't seem to care that you're hurting my feelings, you're being childish, you're throwing a fit because i'm not agreeing with you, and you act like i'm wrong for not wanting to talk to you, you're made me doubt any confidence that i had in myself about being a good editor, i've tried so hard to be nice to you and you're just mean to me anyway, and you do follow me around everywhere, don't deny it. --Chickenguy13 (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a new user, I find this battling post war, as well as the other responses to users who support this chickenguy quite disturbing. Your initial responses to this poster indeed sound quite obnoxious, such as "it's right there on the album cover" as if this poster can't read, or get upset when he tries to use an example to prove his point "I don't care about other crap," then use examples yourself to justify your opinion in your posts below. Accusing him of pitching a huge fit, when you make it obvious that you don't like people correcting you, as well as condeming his use of language when your use of crap in some circles would be considered vulgar. This indeed smacks of hypocrisy, and I can see why this poster is getting agitated, as your responses have certainly not been seemingly designed to come to any mutal peace, but seems to be said in the hopes of provoking and/or driving this poster from wikipedia. This may not be your intention, however, this poster is obviously young, and bristling at what no doubt he is seeing as a personal vendetta against him from you. Hopefully the number behind this poster's name is just a number and not his age, and hopefully this is a misunderstanding and you are not really exercising a vendetta as he says. I myself would not wish to be thought of as a 30 year old who was harrassing a 13 year old. In regards to the orignial discussion, I agree with Chickenguy and the rest of these posters. The ep is not part of the title. The official website for the band supports this and the band themselves should be the source to use. It is THEIR work and they should know what the title of their own work is, and their wishes should be followed. The fact that you insist that you put your opinion above that of the band is ridiculously arrogant. How can you even logically justify deciding you know more than the people who created this work, and deciding what is in fact only your opinion is the end all be all and must be obeyed. It is this kind of attitude and self serving arrogance that make many see Wikipedia as not much more than a web version of a supermarket tabloid. If the desire here is for Wikipedia to be actually seen as a website that is more than just trash, your interest should be not in if your opinion is right, but in what is the truth. Of course if the value of Wikipedia means nothing, and this is just a place for people to trash talk, argue and act like arrogant jerks, so be it. --Pookakiss3 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You could also choose to not reply, so perhaps you should follow your own advice. As I said in my earlier post, you are doing absolutely nothing but continuing to provoke this person. I did give you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that this was some misunderstanding, but I now see why he finds you so offensive. Sorry to break this to you, but it is obvious you need to work on your people skills. If I spoke to people like you are doing in the REAL world, I would be reprimanded, and possibly fired. however since Wikipedia isn't the REAL world, I guess you feel this is justified and acceptable behaviour. You are still wrong about the title, which I notice you have completely not addressed. Seems to me you do not like to be corrected. Funny how you are attacking someone for the very faults you are displaying like most hypocrits do. How very sad and pathetic. Words to the wise: If you correct a wise man he will thank you, correct an arrogant fool, he will cling to his beliefs and harrass and mock you. --Pookakiss3 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite simple, Pookakiss3: The band put the letters "E.P." on the cover of the release. They named it back in 1981. How else do you name an album, other than by printing the title on the cover? It's right there, plain as day for all to see, and has been for 29 years. That they refer to it differently on their website today doesn't magically undo what they titled it when it was actually released almost 30 years ago. Are we to simply ignore what is right there on the cover at the top of the article? Is referring to it by the title that is printed on its cover somehow acting against "the wishes of the band"? I think not. As for this being a test case for "the value of Wikipedia", I invite you to view the article as it was before I worked on it, compare it to the current revision, and judge for yourself whether this is all just "a web version of a supermarket tabloid".

As for Chickenguy13, he is clearly letting his activity on Wikipedia cause him too much real-world stress. I invite anyone to compare his contributions to mine: I am certainly not "following him around" or "undoing all of his edits". Both of us edit dozens of articles in different topic areas, and our edits have overlapped on only a few, yet he blows it completely out of proportion and claims that I am "out to get him", that I revert "probably 90%" of his edits, and that it is causing him real-world embarrassment. Please. Again, I invite anyone to actually view our interactions; they are there in the edit histories for all to see: most of what I have reverted him on have been simple technical errors he's introduced, or minor mistakes related to linking and syntax. If you view the histories of our respective talk pages and the other talk pages we've interacted on, you'll see that I've tried to give him a helping hand on a number of occasions, even lending him assistance on other pages when he's asked for it. For him to fly off the handle, curse, claim a vendetta against him, and claim real-world misery as a result of such a small matter as this is simply overdramatization. I realize that Chickenguy13 is a relatively new editor; I have been patient with him and offered him polite guidance on several occasions. Yet he continues to repeat the same errors, and to claim all manner of harrassment when simple mistakes are corrected. I am perfectly happy to help new users out and nudge them in the right direction, but I am not a nanny and am not here to molly-coddle. If you'll look at the history of Chickenguy13's talk page, you'll see that other editors besides myself have had a similar experience when interacting with Chickenguy13.

So, Pookakiss3, while your opinion on my interactions is appreciated, I respectfully disagree with you. If you want to continue discussing the article's title, I invite you participate in the below requested move discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in the commentary about the above personal arguments, I am solely interested in the debate on the EP title. Here is the problem with what myself and these other commenters see as your semi-myopia. Look at your comment:

"The band put the letters "E.P." on the cover of the release. They named it back in 1981. How else do you name an album, other than by printing the title on the cover? It's right there, plain as day for all to see, and has been for 29 years. That they refer to it differently on their website today doesn't magically undo what they titled it when it was actually released almost 30 years ago."

I do not know how old you are nor do I presume to know, and I also don't know whether you were a fan or participant in the punk/alternative scene back in 1981-82, but I actually was, and I tried before to indicate to you, from personal experience, that back in those vinyl-only days, when young punk bands often could not afford to release an entire 12" vinyl LP, they put out a lot of multi-song 7" records instead. At the time, the two common formats to buy music if you were a fan of this music, were 7" and 12". In the United States, up until this point, 99% of 7" records were singles, with one song on each side. So in these early years of the EP, bands would VERY commonly have the word "EP" listed on covers, so that the consumers (usually teens without much disposable income) would know the record was more than just a single, that it had several songs and was thus value for their money. This was NOT intended as part of the name of the record in question. So to say "How else do you name an album, other than by printing the title on the cover" is to display wilful ignorance of something others are trying to enlighten you about. The band themselves clarifying the title on their website is not "changing" the title. They are telling you explicitly that "E.P" was a notation of format, not a "name." The title was "Fat" back in 1982 when I bought the record, and when expanded it was "Bonus Fat," and if it's someday released on some hitherto-unknown new format (say for argument's sake, Lightwave Beam, I'm just making that up), the "cover" might say: the "Fat" Lightwave Beam. You say you are open to respectful debate, yet when provided actual logical arguments based on historical experience, you revert to acting as if the question had been settled and questioning you was presumptuous. I second the other poster in detecting (whether you intend it or not) a whiff of arrogance, as if you indeed felt that your pronouncements held more weight than the clarifications by the actual creators of the work. For the record, the latter often (if not always) trumps a "cover." Cover artwork does not conclusively determine the title of a work of art, as you seem hell-bent on defending. In fact, many well-known works of art do not contain the title on the cover at all. And yes, that is relevant to this discussion. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I say again, your ridiculous arrogance is astounding. Who died and made you the all knowing and all seeing being of power on Wikipedia? Are you not simply a user as the rest of us here? I care not how many contributions you made on this site, if they are as wrong as you are on this topic they are worth nothing anyway. I digress, your edits ect are not the topic that we were discussing. We are talking about your hypocritical treatment of others, and blind self centered arrogance. I stand by my statement that you do not like to be corrected and attack those whose disagree with you. You invite people for discussion, then become disrespectful when challenged. The term EP came out and was used on albums (vinyl) to indicate it's format. The term "12 inch" was also used to indicate format, are you trying to say that any album with 12 inch on it is also part of the title? I can hardly believe how desperately you cling to your incorrect assumptions. To dispute every valid argument again and again proves beyond doubt that you are drunk on your own sense of self worth and importance. It's your way or the highway. Someone disagrees and you immediately take the attitude that you are above and beyond all others and your opinion is the absolute and total truth. You claim that the band named the album by putting the ep on the cover. I'm sure that there is a copyright notitation on the album...by your own argument, that also should be included in the title. So I guess when you purchase this, everyone should look for Fat Extended Play Copyright blah blah blah. Thank you Greg for being a voice of reason --Pookakiss3 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see anywhere where IllaZilla has been uncivil, rude or defensive. All I have been seen through is discussion has been WikiChildren attacking an established editor, that has done nothing but attempt to educate others on the proper policies & procedures of Wikipedia. As after some investigation, IllaZilla has reverted a total of 6 edits that Chickenguy13 has made all of which can easily be justified by one of Wikipedia's policies or procedures. Per the naming convention of articles, Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME among other things, which sometimes causes the name of the article to differ to what the owner of the intellectual property has chosen. Moving articles is a consensus based agree due to no one "owning" the information on Wikipedia & it being community driven. The cover art does clearly have "Fat E.P." on it & no one in this discussion has really presented a rational against the move back to it's original name that can be justified under Wikipedia article title naming conventions. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  05:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: It turns out that Chickenguy13, Pookakiss3, and Metallicaya! are all sockpuppets of the same person, and have all been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chickenguy13/Archive#02 November 2010. As such, I am striking all of their above comments. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Kotniski (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Fat (EP) → Fat EP — Over redirect. Article was improperly moved. "EP" is part of the title of the work, not a disambiguator, as seen in the cover image and as used throughout the article. A speedy maintenance move was declined for some reason (I'm not sure how the original mover was able to move the article over an existing redirect in the first place). IllaZilla (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

On their webiste it is listed simply as "Fat" which would make Fat (EP) the natural disambiguation. The E.P. on the cover could be interpreted as just a label to make sure noone thinks it's an album (which would also explain why it's ("Fat" E.P. and not "Fat E.P."). cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chickenguy13 and Pax:Vobiscum. The actual title of the release is "Fat" alone. The "E.P" notation on the original cover merely provides format information, as shown in the band's official discography, and borne out by the fact that the expanded reissue of same was titled "Bonus Fat" and not "Bonus Fat E.P." Just because the article here incorrectly listed it that way throughout the article does not infer that it's the actual title in real life. The article title and all references should be changed. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A title is what appears on the cover of the work. Common practice at the albums project is to use "EP" in the article title if it appears that way on the album itself. If it is used on the cover of the work, it is considered part of the title and not a notation about format. Comparative examples include The Days of the Phoenix EP, the Yo! Check Out This Ride! EP, the So Impossible EP, the Left Coast Punk EP, and The Endless Bummer EP, to name a few. That the title has been altered in later years on other releases, and is colloquially referred to without the "EP", does not erase the title as it was originally printed on the album cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that seems kind of silly to me from a logic standpoint (using cover artwork as a final determinant for titles), since many albums do not list their title on the cover at all. It would seem to me that what the group themselves state as the correct title is the more serious source of information. The common practice also seems strange since at the time in question, many longer 7" and 12" records printed "EP" on the cover to clarify that the record for sale was longer than a 2-song single, not to infer that this was part of the work's title. Greg Fasolino (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – per IllaZilla. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Official website lists it as "Fat", as does Allmusic [1]. Covers commonly will say EP on them but that doesn't make it part of the name. This cover actually says "Fat" E.P. with the Fat inside the quotations like a name. As for the spurious "comparitive examples" pointed out by IllaZilla, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  What, may I ask, makes the comparitive examples "spurious"? They are, in fact, quite genuine. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  Purporting the other examples as precendent is false per WP:OSE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  It is not "false", although it may not be the strongest argument. Stating simple facts (that the releases have "EP" as part of the title on their covers, and that the articles also have "EP" identically in their titles) is not "spurious". Whether you consider that fact pertinent to the discussion at hand is a matter of how much weight you personally choose to give to precedent. I pointed out these examples to back up the assertion that this is the common naming convention used by WP:ALBUMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons that have already been given detailed attention above. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.