Talk:Nine Inch Nails/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Featured Article?

After going through the article with a good once-over of copyedits, I think the article is ready for Featured Article candidacy. The previous FA review was done about a year ago, and as far as I can tell all of the issues raised there have been addressed. If anyone has any objections to a renomination let me know, otherwise I'll nominate the article in a week. Drewcifer3000 08:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - though I'm unsure how this edit removes POV. The citation seems to explain that other people regard NIN as an influence and TDS particularly as a masterpiece. I think one more pass for fact-checking wouldn't be too much to ask before FA status is sought. BotleySmith 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main problem with that particular sentence was the "magnum opus" part - it seems completely biased and POV (especially since that term is never actually used in the article). Drewcifer3000 05:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the same text could be put back in with the term "masterpiece" substituted? It just seems slightly odd to take out a reliable source just because it is quoted inaccurately. BotleySmith 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I've done my best to fact-check the article thoroughly, and changed references wherever necessary, but another set of eyes might be nice. Another set of copyedits would also be nice... Drewcifer3000 05:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this edit by User:Phr0gor basically reverted a ton of the copyedits we just made. Also he slipped this unnecessary image which has already been taken of the article once back into the article at the same time. I was going to revert it, but I wanted to double check here. Drewcifer3000 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, I reverted it. If anyone has any problems with that let me know. Drewcifer3000 19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just need a careful check of the citation formatting, and we should be ready for FA review #2. BotleySmith 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, should the date attribute of {{cite web}} have the date linked like this [[2007-08-24]]? I noticed a few of them like that and a few that weren't. Drewcifer3000 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been linking them like that, so the reference date appears in the format the reader prefers (or the most compact one by default). The accessdate attribute doesn't require it, however. BotleySmith 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw pooh, I had a feeling that was it. I think I undid a few. I'll fix it. Drewcifer3000 02:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's as good as its gonna get. Here goes nothing.... Drewcifer3000 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I'm sorry I don't have the time to dedicate to this. A few comments about content of interest rather than style, so nothing to do with the FAC:

• Was the Broken Movie meant to be officially known as Broken?

That is what the opening titles say (well, actually they say "n" and "ninbroken", but neither of those make sense as real titles). BotleySmith 06:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• It mentions the Gave Up video being shot at the Tate house, but not the recording of TDS. The latter is much more well-known (rightly so) and relevant in the broad scope when discussing NIN, I think.

Actually: "Reznor began living and recording full-time at Le Pig, working on a follow-up free of restrictions from his record label." It used to say "full-length follow-up" but that reads a bit cheesy. Perhaps I'll add something nearby that explicitly mentions the album by name. In reality, while the media made a stink about the Tate house, there was no conscious decision on Reznor's part to record there, and he claims that its history is irrelevant to the content of the actual music on TDS — it could have been made anywhere. As such, I'm alright with the implication that "Gave Up" is the only NIN-related release that involves the house explicitly. BotleySmith 06:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• No mention of the FBI controversy with the Down in It video, not even in the Pretty Hate Machine article. That episode of Hard Copy should be a fine source.

I suppose so - but does anyone know how to locate its air-date or other citable information? BotleySmith 06:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Despite this acclaim, the band has had several feuds with the corporate side of the recording industry." Despite? Or in spite of?

Fixed. BotleySmith 06:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. –Pomte 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everybody who worked on the article and gave suggestions. We finally made it! I'm going to try nominating the article for English Wikipedia's front page on the release date of the new remix album (November 20, 2007). BotleySmith 06:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are the album names in bold (in the text of the article)? Tommy Stardust 16:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"With Teeth" sales: RIAA certifications vs. Nielsen soundscans

I was just know researching NIN's sales when I stumbled upon AbsolutePunk.net. There's a thread there which reports With Teeth selling 939,416 units (based upon an April 16th 2006 Soundscan [1]). That should be enough to merit a platinum certification, right? So I checked out RIAA's database and, lo and behold, With Teeth is still on gold [2] status...

Mind you, Fear Factory won a gold certification for Obsolete (1998) on February the 2nd, 2001 [3]. Strange, because an April 21st 2002 Soundscan showed that Obsolete had sold 406,247 copies so far [4], and not the required 500,000 to make it gold record [5].

So... what's the hold-up here? Why is the RIAA taking so long to give NIN another platinum record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.149.189 (talk) 17:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certification is basically a promotional tool paid for the record companies (it uses a verification and catalogue system separate from SoundScan, actually), essentially just so that they can plaster another sticker on the front of albums in record shops and boost sales. They probably won't bother for a band like NIN, where it won't make much of a difference to their potential audience this late in the game anyhow. BotleySmith 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Year Zero peer review

The Year Zero article is at peer review. Take a look over it and add comments/suggestions here. After the peer review is closed and the article has been worked on some, I want to nominate it as a good article for the third time, and hopefully have it listed this time. Cheers. -- Reaper X 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone help me out with copy-editing, and any additional comments? Thanks. -- Reaper X 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

One last request: could someone help with the Critical reception section? I really struggle with these. I could probably take care of the rest, and make this a good article. Cheers. -- Reaper X 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails to break up current live band

The current live band is breaking up, so I'm changing it.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/09/14/features/story05.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.156.96 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting until the new band is announced, if a new band is announced. There is an established history of Trent saying one thing and then doing another, for whatever reason. See also: Closure DVD, With Teeth Deluxe Packaging, denying a surround version of The Fragile exists despite a quote from a 2005 Keyboard interview explicitly naming it. Leviathant 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead says "After recording a new album, Reznor usually assembles a live band to perform with him; this live component is a separate entity from Nine Inch Nails in the recording studio.[2][3]" The band members section also states "Trent Reznor reported that he would disband the "rock band configuration" of his touring lineup after their concert in Honolulu, Hawaii on September 18, 2007, and would explore other means to perform Nine Inch Nails material on subsequent tours.[85]". I think this is sufficient. -- Reaper X 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D

Hey guys. May I ask for your input? I'm banging heads with User:Unless you over whether the article for Year Zero's remix album should be named Year Zero Remixed or Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions. The section dubbed Album titles and band names says "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." I interperet "Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D" as stylized typography, Unless doesn't. I want to have consensus at the talk page before moving it again, and I'd appreciate your input. Cheers. -- Reaper X 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make it Year Zero Remixed as it is a remix album. If we put it in leetspeak it would be confusing for someone who doesn't know NIN that well. Thundermaster367 13:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do a search on any retailer website for the album. Type in "Year Zero Remixed" and some websites wont even return a product. If it does it will return the album "Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D". It may be confusing to those that arn't a big fan of NIN, but that is the name of the album. Shavron 11:02, 19 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.5.143 (talk)

External links

User:R9tgokunks has been adding superfluous external links that do not meet WP:WEB in my opinion. I'm reverting them on the basis that this article almost failed GA nomination in the past for this very reason (see past talk archive for details), and I'd like to keep it at FA now that it's there. Also, adding a footnote that simply links to the "Year Zero resources" page AFTER the References section is poor form and doesn't really account for why those pages should be there in the first place. BotleySmith 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if Trent Reznor mentions them as a resource for his projects, and we are doing something about his projects, then shouldn't they be included? and besides they are all major sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R9tgokunks (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Botley on this. What Reznor himself quotes as sources doesn't really have anything to do with us here at Wikipedia: we're not here to just echo what Reznor says. This should be thought of as a reliable source of knowledge, which in turn leads to and is built upon similarly reilable resources. Forums and wikis are neither. Drewcifer 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that a link to NINWIKI is on almost every page relating to Nine Inch Nails?-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be taken off of those pages. Perhaps there is a reason why there is only one NIN related article (this one) that is rated GA-class or above. Not to say that external links are the only thing barring every other article from some higher assessment, but that would certainly be a factor. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? Drewcifer 06:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is only one 'wrong' involved. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this removal of a link to NinWiki, external links need not be reliable sources. In this case, NinWiki "contain[s] neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail..." Note though that to be linked, NinWiki requires "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The people behind NinWiki may consider whether they are fit to be added to m:Interwiki map. –Pomte 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reznor against music-copying?

On the site http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html , there is a quote by Reznor:

"Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn’t give you the right to do it. There’s nothing wrong with giving some tracks away or bits of stuff that’s fine. But it’s not everybody’s right. Once I record something, it’s not public domain to give it away freely. And that’s not trying to be the outdated musician who is trying to ‘stop technology. I love technology."

I understand that the site MusicUnited.org is very pro-RIAA, but nonetheless, did Trent Reznor say this? Either it's a fake-quote, or it's a drastic change of heart. I think that this seeming contradiction should be documented. At any rate, more information about this would be appreciated. -- Eptin 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did say that. The quote itself dates from around five years ago — I remember it being in reference to Napster — the same time that most people were just beginning to hear about P2P sharing. A lot has changed since then, obviously, but I don't think it's "a drastic change of heart" at all: Reznor is still a control freak about how his music is distributed and experienced by his fans. Without any context around it, the quote is pretty meaningless except as RIAA propaganda, so I'm going to remove it until a better source for the whole interview is found. BotleySmith 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard Trent Reznor tell people to "steal his music" (a video of a gig, though it was in reply to the cost of hus albums in Austrailia), and there's also the USB Drive distribution of Year Zero material at gigs, in order to promote the album.  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely you can appreciate the difference between him authorizing that as a means of promotion/distribution and people taking music for free without permission just because they can. BotleySmith 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But, is it right for him to decide that one person can have it for free and another can't? I'm fully behind the idea of free music for promotion, and I am against stealing music (if you don't intend to buy anything) as Musicians/etc need to be paid (or else they wouldn't be able to be where they are or do what they do), but what about rare tracks and such? isn't it unfair to remove a means to get them, if they are unavailable by any other means? Sorry, I'm only here, because I'm curious about Reznor's views on this subject!  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this new interview with Trent sums it up nicely:

Look, when file sharing started to proliferate, I was upset about it. I had worked so hard to make music and was pissed that people thought it was OK to just steal it. But at a certain point, I just accepted that this is the way things are, and kids aren't going to spend money on an inferior product when they can just get it for free... I figure there are other revenue streams, and while I like being compensated for my work, I think it's more important to get it out to the public.

BotleySmith 03:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

TFA madness

Header sounds like some kind of wrestling or monster truck event. But the fact that this article is today's featured article will make it very vulnerable to vandalism. Keep an eye! -- Reaper X 03:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This surprised me; I tend to keep up on the Featured Article Queue. I'll be checking in occasionally to make sure the article is ok, but it doesn't seem like there's been too much trouble. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Name

Both Jesus and Freddy Krueger had long nails, but why Nine Inch? In the UK there is an old nonsense rhyme (I first heard it at least 40 years ago):

I don't know nobody what don't want no nine inch nails.
I don't know nobody what don't want no nine inch nails.
I know the King; I know the Queen; I know the Prince of Wales,
But...
I don't know nobody what don't want no nine inch nails.

I wonder if this bit of nonsense, perhaps unconsciously, prompted the selection of this name?
FredV (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed it was Trent being a wee bit rude ;) MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article actually answers that very question: "Reznor maintains that he coined the name because it "abbreviated easily", rather than for "any literal meaning"." Drewcifer (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A fan who was looking for unpublished recordings by the band actually dug up an old recording of that tune by novelty entertainer Jay Laurier. It's at least 70 years old, probably older... I doubt Reznor was aware of it. BotleySmith (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... Drewcifer (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Frequency festival performance

Even though this was called "The worst gig of the tour with the worst audience" by Trent, this is a notable part of the bands history. Is it worth giving it a mention?.Marcus Bowen (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Perhaps if it was reported in the media; otherwise, no. BotleySmith (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism in the opening section

Tell me whats wrong with the following

"while retaining a characteristically terrible sound using electronic instruments and processing. After recording a new album, Reznor usually assembles a live band to perform with him; this live component is a separate entity from Nine Inch Nails in the recording studio. On stage, NIN often employs spectacular visual elements to accompany its lackluster performances,"

Yeah. I removed the "terrible" and "lackluster" bits, I didn't do a revision because this was an easy to miss bit of vandalism and I didnt feel like rooting around the history. Watch out for more of it though! Harley peters (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Se7en Mention

It appears there is no mention that Nine Inch Nails contributed to the intro segment to the film Se7en, yet it is clear they did. Can someone find some citation and put this in the Nine Inch Nails article? Thanks. 76.116.109.221 (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NIN material has been featured in probably hundreds of films, television episodes, and trailers throughout its career, so mentioning all of them isn't particularly useful, especially since the music to set to Se7en's introduction isn't even an original piece. Besides, this would be something more suited to the Nine Inch Nails discography article, though a similar proposal has been brought up there as well. Drewcifer (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)