Talk:Mouth to Mouth (Lipps Inc. album)

Comments[edit]

The Professional review of Robert Christgau seems to me of a user of that site. Not sure if it is important enough to be mentioned. STrek77 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved per discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth to Mouth (Lipps Inc. album) → Mouth to Mouth (Lipps Inc. EP) – There are only four tracks, despite the extensive time length. Should we call this an EP? George Ho (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the RM of Lana Del Rey's EP/album. If we can't get agreement on something marketed as an EP, I doubt we can do so here, unless reliable sources call it an EP. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:JARGON -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BDD - unless there are sources stating it was an EP, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's called an album by others. There's no source cited to say it's an EP and I couldn't find one - the proposal appears to be original research (and records of this length are often described as albums or mini-albums). Peter James (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.