Talk:Arctic Monkeys discography

message: Why is their first release included as an EP - two songs is hardly extended ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned in Colin Larkin's Encyclopedia of Music (2007) as an EP, presumably because it has a title different to that of the two tracks on the single, which is standard for an EP, but not for a single. But technically it is a single as it only has two tracks and playing time lasts less than 7 minutes, and that is how it is listed on Discogs: . It's kind of an oddity. I've now shown it as a single, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone changed it back to an EP. If that happens, it may be worth having a poll/discussion to get some kind of consensus. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note mentioning that this is sometimes listed as EP, with Larkin as the source. Muhandes (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

text: El Foz has edited, but not replied to this post into which they have been pinged, therefore, per WP:Silence, consensus in favour of Muhandes's edit is assumed until El Foz wishes to engage in this discussion. As such the edit is restored. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I meant to reply to this but it slipped my mind as I was building another article. Firstly, my apologies for the edit earlier on the article contradicting WP:Be Bold. I didn't mean for that to come across as jumping on the editor. I wrongly assumed they hadn't used the talk page to reach WP:consensus before editing and I didn't check the talk page. So my bad on that and I do apologize. As for the inclusion of the release I'm not convinced Discogs is an entirely reliable source for information on music releases as its user generated content. (See WP:UGC) I mean I could literally go an edit that on Discogs now if I was so inclined. I was always under the impression that the release in question was a demo/promo EP. I could be wrong. Perhaps more digging on this is required to reach consensus. EL Foz87 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked into the record in question. Found this in an article from NME . To quote the article  "But the moment when the Monkeys could truly measure their huge success as unsigned artists arrived when their two-track debut EP ‘Five Minutes With Arctic Monkeys’, released on the band’s own Bang Bang Recordings, sold out of physical copies near-instantly in May 2005. Even today, the EP is being resold online by collectors for hundreds of pounds." EL Foz87 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Found another article from a reliable source at Absolute Radio  Quoting the article: "The band’s large following on MySpace aided them in the promotion of their debut EP 'Five Minutes with Arctic Monkeys', which was released in 2005." EL Foz87 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian calls "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor" the band's debut single implying it's their first single. “Ten years ago, on 23 October 2005, Arctic Monkeys’ debut single I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor went straight in at No 1.” . Its conclusively an EP from the standpoint of reliable sources. I think the only conclusion is to include it on the discography as an EP. Seems the best place for it. EL Foz87 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The final piece of the puzzle is whether two tracks on a record can be quantified as an Extended Play. According to the Wikipedia page for Extended Plays "In the United Kingdom, the Official Chart Company defines a boundary between EP and album classification at 25 minutes of maximum length and no more than four tracks (not counting alternative versions of featured songs, if present).". So, I think it can be classed as an EP at two tracks in length. What does everyone else think here? EL Foz87 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five minutes