Talk:Fun (band)

Untitled

I'm pretty sure fun. isn't a Saudi Arabian ballroom jazz band, the lead singer is formerly of The Format not The Photocopiers (although that may be true, I've just never heard of The Photocopiers). Also, The Format split more recently than 1923 and I seriously doubt Barack Obama asked the members of fun. to join his new project. Finally, I'd hope fun. didn't record their first single in Auschiwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.44.236 (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Singles

Being a bit picky here, but I've edited it twice already. A song posted on MySpace does not indicate that it's a single. "Walking the Dog" isn't a single. I know the lines are more blurred than they were when all singles were physical releases with b-sides, but "At Least I'm Not As Sad" and "All the Pretty Girls" have both been released (or will be released) as single downloads on digital retailers, including Amazon MP3 and iTunes. Both have been promoted as singles. The song in question has not been released nor does it have a planned release as a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.102.115 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The band referenced in this article is a new band that some may consider a supergroup of sorts. fun is comprised of three members; Nate Ruess, Jack Antonoff and Andrew Dost. These are primary players already in the bands: The Format, Steel Train and Anathallo (all on major/major-indie record labels).

These bands have been on major labels, played Coachella, Lollapalooza and countless other music festivals. All three bands have toured internationally and have very large fan bases.

fun is certain to become a staple in the ever growing indie music scene.

The band is already signed to Nettwork as a record label (with major label distribution) and management team and is going on a full national tour with major artist Jack's Mannequin.

Please consider this page as valid, as this is not another fly-by-night band. This page is sure to receive considerable traffic in the very near future, as the myspace page already has over 23,000 views in its 9 day old existence.

Thank you. Jason Barton rocketpoweredrocket

I wouldn't call it a supergroup just yet, because the members themselves don't have wikipedia articles. The same as Paint it Black and Bomb the Music Industry! aren't considered supergroups despite having members from Kid Dynamite (band) and Good Riddance in Paint it Black; and members from Mustard Plug, Laura Stevenson and the Cans, and Latterman in Bomb the Music Industry. Dflav1138 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs references

As far as the article's content is concerned, it may well satisfy the criteria for inclusion for bands/musical groups. However, the reason why it should be deleted in its current form is the lack of secondary sources covering the subject. See Wikipedia: Verifiability for more information. DubZog (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Additional references and information were added to the article in attempts to bring the article current with the guidelines.rocketpoweredrocket —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

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 move. Ucucha 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Fun (band) → Fun. — Most instances of the band's name, including its own website and this very article, spell the band's name with a period at the end. Tamajared (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Style choice. Use proper english regardless of the preference of the trademark owner (WP:MOSTM).--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - we don't (usually) include stylistic punctuation, and the major exceptions are backed up with plenty of independent use. Yahoo! even! gets! parodied! 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM 76.66.192.15 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 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.

Name

In any case, I've heard on a radio interview that the name of the band is "fun." due to a Swiss or other European metal band being named "fun", and that band requesting that they don's use the same name, causing Nate to put a simple dot afterwards. Given that information, of which I will not be able to readily produce, is it important to note that the band's proper name in usage for this article be "fun." instead of "fun"? I absolutely hate situations where we use a simple short term for a name of something in which that short term becomes the commonly used name, not the proper / legal name.

I'd be fine with also using some type of alternative sentence at the beginning of the article in which ' "fun" throughout this article is in reference to the groups actual name "fun." ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.236.42 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry didn't see the formatting guide. The question is whether or not the group calls themselves fun or fundot or funperiod or fun [end of sentence with a small breath break]. Although I doubt this is the case, since I'm pretty sure they would call themselves fun for brevity. either way name doesn't need to be changed unless it is different in enunciation.66.135.236.42 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The band is most commonly known with period at the end (whether pronounced or not). WP:COMMONNAME shows up. several reliable sources not only mention it as "fun." but continue to refer it later on. Also, this isn't a trademark issue either. the name should stick with "fun." another example is .hack where it has a period in the front, only difference is its actually pronounced dot-hack. regardless, most commonly known as with the period.Lucia Black (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some sources refer to them as fun. and some as Fun – for example, Spin [1] and NPR [2]. When there is disagreement about formatting among reliable sources, we typically use standard English formatting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As another data point, though I'm not if it changes anything in regard to "disagreement about formatting", in their most recent album (Some Nights), they consistently use "Fun." Not sure if this indicates their definitive intent, or perhaps a lack of definition, given that they have previously used "fun." consistently? Leekil (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The most consistent and common wway of spelling is "fun." So it should be renamed to "fun." There is no need to remove the period and add disamviguatiob when the disambiguation is longr than the actual name.Lucia Black (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather indifferent, but according to MOS:#Article_titles, "The final visible character should not be a punctuation mark unless it is part of a name..." Well, the period is part of their name for the legal reasons stated above. The band also repeated this story during a recent appearance on The Colbert Report (I can try to post the reference if necessary). Not a big deal to me, but I was bored, and figured I'd put my 2 cents in. Apr1fool (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but "fun." Redirects here, so whats the point of using a name more difficult to find.Lucia Black (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I know them by their name with a period. We'd ought to change it, just for ease of use. LM103 (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking around the web, I see it hard to maintain the argument that the . is superfluous. It's pretty clearly part of the name as properly used. We let people choose their own names. Thmazing (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HERE's a LEGIT SOURCE USING "fun.": [3]

It should be fun. and not listed as Fun because of the listed reasons above. If the band name didn't have the period listed after their name on every single album of theirs, I might agree that it wasn't important, but they do have it listed on every single album they've released, so it is clearly a part of their band name. That is how they represent themselves, which is how it should be presented. Workipaidia (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed renaming 2012

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. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Fun (band) → Fun. – I propose renaming this to "fun." because 1) the name "fun." does not suggest it is a "stylization" and is indeed the official and correct way of spelling it. 2) per WP:PRECISION suggest going fo the most precise name 3) "Fun." redirects here. So whats the point of making a more difficult name? 4) WP:COMMONNAME "fun." with a period is indeed the most common name as per what the references show at least.Lucia Black (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose MOS:TM per example "skate." is to be "Skate" -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment wp: trademark doesnt necesarilly help out for opposition. There are several other articles that are similar to this.Lucia Black (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ; what other articles are called aren't necessarily what they should be called. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The presence of punctuation, especially a simple full-stop, is not enough to disambiguate. The title "Fun (band)" is much more clear than "Fun.". BOVINEBOY2008 12:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about title not sentence struvture. We could use "fun" in the sentences but the name of the article should still be fun. To me at least. That said, wp:otherstuffexist isnt valid because its more of an example to show that mostm doesnt necesarily fall for it. Other than that it isnt a stylization. I suppose i could drop it if it were exact.Lucia Black (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:otherstuff is usually used to show that a position claiming other articles with the same form exist is weak without a policy or a guideline to back it up. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Bovineboy. And if other stuff does really exist with a final period, then that needs moving too. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Difference there is no policy enforcement. Regardless it isnt a "stylization" its a trademark name so instead of saying "stylized as" we shiukd put "trademarked as". Thats the only way ill let it slide.Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a trademark that makes use of stylized formatting. Why do you say it's not a stylization? Powers ^T 22:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

not exactly. Stlyzation would mean the stylized name would not match the technical name. For example: BL@ZE would be a stylization if the technical trademarked/official spelling was "Blaze". So "stylized as" would fit. However if the official and technical name is "BL@ZE" then we put "trademarked as" because it goes beyond stylization purposes only.Lucia Black (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist. Powers ^T 12:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ok ill give you an example. Many rock bands add "rock dots" such as the band Girugamesh often adds rock dots or metal umlauts. The band L'Arc-en-Ciel often replaces the dashes with tildes. Sometimes names will have mixed caps and miniscules. Its very real. And its easy to distinguish. "fun." Is not stylization because its technical/official spelling. If it was officially "Fun" and they added the period and miniscule for effect then it woukd be "stylized". Theres no such thing as "stlyized format" because it can be anything that doesnt match the officoal name.Lucia Black (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're putting so much emphasis on what's official. In general, we don't care what's official. If you're arguing that it matters because of a distinction between "stylized" and "trademarked", you're still drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist. Your example doesn't prove anything; it just illustrates your claim without actually providing any evidence for it. Powers ^T 19:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It seems very unlikely that most people typing "fun." into the search box are actually looking for this obscure band. bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Indie Rock?

what exactly makes them "rock"? despite some success on the pop charts, they are clearly in the broadway/showtunes genre.

i hesitate to say "easy listening", but at best they might be compared to chicago or bread. "pop" maybe, but hardly "rock". 66.105.218.39 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, saying they are "indie pop" isn't correct either. Read the Wiki article on indie pop and ask yourself whether it makes any sense whatsoever to include a band like Fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.237.175 (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The band is indie. They have been since the start. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fueled By Ramen is not indie. Nor is the band's music indie. UpendraSamaranayake (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been listening to this band for a while now and I can assure you that their type of music is indie thus making them an indie band. When it comes to music, the word "indie" is not taken literal as in the word "independent". Indie is a certain type of genre in music. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been listening to real indie like Neutral Milk Hotel, Belle & Sebastian, Tullycraft, etc. for a long time now and I can safely say they are not indie. Listening to fun. for a long time does not qualify you to judge them as indie. Further the current source says they are power pop and does not mention indie anywhere. Perhaps you can find a source that states they are indie pop? UpendraSamaranayake (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A) That's not what I meant. B) Sure. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I found an Allmusic source that labels them as indie pop and added it to the article. It's Kesha's biography and talks about their collaboration on "Die Young". However, their official Allmusic bio calls them both indie pop and indie rock, as well as regular pop.--Thevampireashlee (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic can't really be considered an authoritative source, especially not compared to the band's own words: "We're not an indie band," he says. "That's never who we've been. Some Nights, for us, is a massive coming out of this band that wants to be this larger-than-life rock band." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.46.160.249 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on using name during prose

Some of the above sections mention in passing that we don't use the period when mentioning this band in prose and there is kind of a complied consensus for this, but I'd like there to be a real consensus. Is it agreed that we should omit the period when mentioning the band in running prose? Ego White Tray (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Still skeptical on this since it could cause some grmmar issues. WP:TRADEMARK really needs to refine itself on how we handle prose. Other than that i still reject the idea of saying the word "stylized" or that the period at the end is part of "stylzation". Looking back sources mention only the lowercase f us part of stylization.Lucia Black (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks and here's what it says: "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names." then "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"" and then "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration..." - So the Wikipedia Manual of Style on Trademarks is 100% clear to me that this band should be called "Fun" in all contexts except for a mention in the first sentence in the article. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In running text, the period ought to be omitted. That's implied by the consensus of the multiple move discussions already: The consensus is that Wikipedia refers to the band as "Fun" rather than as "fun." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There should be atleast a notice on the article stating the one and only reason why we are using Fun over fun. Is due to grammar issues.Lucia Black (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a note to the top of this talk page saying to always capitalize and never use the period. Please have a look. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats not what i meant. I was referring to a public notice like what C (anime) has.Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

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. 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: no move. -- tariqabjotu 04:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Fun (band) → Fun. – Note: Read first before you immediately add an "oppose per MOSTM". I know there have been two RMs in the past, one performed last year. I know that WP:MOSTM says that "fun." is an style and therefore the current title is correct. Consider that MOSTM is a guideline from here. The reason why I opened this RM is because they are mostly known as "fun." and sometimes "Fun.", and rare occasions "Fun". WP:COMMONAME, a subsection of the policy WP:AT, supports the move, like with Tech N9ne, Deadmau5 and Sunn O))) recent RMs (1, 2 and 3).

• Fun./fun.: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, etc.
• Fun: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

These links are used in fun.-related articles alone. If we consider they became popular with "We Are Young" (2011), these are not all of the links we can have, but when they release another album, they will increase. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 16:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• writing "fun." would be too difficult as it's lowercased and with a period at the end, making it look like it ends a sentence. even italicized, the period won't be slanted enough to notice. Still, i personally believe there is a way to use "fun." over "Fun (band)" by allowing the "fun." in the title but in prose using "Fun" and a notice that says "The name is referred to as 'Fun' to ensure readability". These things can be easily solved, and i proposed this multiple times within MOSTM but they simply ignore it.Lucia Black (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - we don't have to follow every trivial orthographic gimmick when many of the rock magazines don't. MOSTM is a sensible guideline in this case. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment its all how you look at it. Some believe if it's pronounced as "Fun" then the "." Doesn't have any significance but the fact is that the title is "Fun (Band)". It seems to suggest that there is no alternative. I can understand we follow sourcing, but it looks like we take more detours to avoid an issue that could easily become bigger.Lucia Black (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• SNAP OPPOSE PER MOSTM!!! GOTCHA!!!!! But in all seriousness, I do have to go oppose here. I don't see how using the period throughout the encyclopedia helps the readers. It introduces end punctuation to the middle of sentences, unless we are very careful to try to avoid writing sentences that way. It's furthermore highly misleading to imply that those links are a representative sample. It's likewise very difficult to actually construct a representative sample. That's part of the reason that, for questions of STYLE, we avoid "vote counting" standards and go with standard English instead. Croctotheface (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's perhaps worth noting for the record that I strongly supported using "Deadmau5" instead of "Deadmaus" because "Deadmau5" was so prevalent in high-level sources that it should be considered the standard English way to write the name. "Fun" with no period is quite common in sources, it's a better style because it's not jarring to use throughout the article, and it's not clear that the period actually affects the name of the band, just how we write the name. Croctotheface (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Fun." is not precise enough; it could look like a title of a TV episode. WP:NATURAL would encourage well-known natural disambiguation and discourage obscure / lesser-known natural disambiguation. We can't consider "fun." well-known based on current usage. I don't think anybody will associate the name "fun." with the band in the next ten years, but speculation would violate WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NC-P and WP:NCM don't say much about band names with punctuations, but NCM discourages typography. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep it objective. Whether it sounds like a tv series or not, if they type "fun." it will still lead to this article. So I can't see that as viable reason. Though "fun.", most definitely is more precise than you think.Lucia Black (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The common word will be too likely expected by readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2013 (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.

Recurring Return of 'WAS an American pop rock band'

At least 3 different people (well, 3 different IP Addresses) have changed the verb in the opening sentence from 'is' to 'was'. In Revision 1185795985, Revision 1219908471, and Revision 1220487870. I did not go all the way back in History. There may be more edits putting the band in past tense.

Farther down, the wiki article quotes the Fun Facebook page

 first and foremost to answer the question that has been raised most often: fun is not breaking up. fun was founded by the 3 of us at a time when we were coming out of our own bands. one thing that has always been so special about fun is that we exist as 3 individuals in music who come together to do something collaborative. we make fun records when we are super inspired to do so. currently nate is working on his first solo album, andrew is scoring films and jack is on tour and working on bleachers music. the 3 of us have always followed inspiration wherever it leads us. sometimes that inspiration leads to fun music, sometimes it leads to musical endeavors outside of fun. we see all of it as part of the ecosystem that makes fun, fun.

The quote is from a post still pinned to the default Fun Facebook page on 2024-04-29. I do not want to simply undo the last past-tense edit. I fear that somebody will put it back to past tense again, continuing the cycle.

In order of my preference, I would like

1. Somebody else with more Wikipedia authority to decide what to do about the repeated returns of the past tense
2. Somebody else with more knowledge of Fun to decide that the Facebook post is outdated: Fun should be declared defunct
3. Nobody else to do anything. I set the opening sentence to present tense. Somebody else probably sets it back to past tense.

71.162.138.11 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)