Template talk:Nine Inch Nails

Template update

I revamped the template style to make it a bit less obtrusive and monolitic at the bottom of pages. I based the redesign off of Template:Radiohead. I kept all the links intact with the exception of some of the "related articles," of which I removed some of the more superfluous ones; e.g., Flood, who only produced one album; Phantasy, where NIN once rehersed back in Ohio; the non-official/non-NIN recordings (bootlegs and remixes) which can be found on the discography, etc. - Rynne 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

added tnavbar. Naufana : talk 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated all formatting and styles to comply with Template:Navbox musical artist as part of WikiProject Musicians Tabanger  01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this specific look, with the big dots? –Pomte 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please read the aforementioned Template:Navbox musical artist. This is the standardized template, as part of WikiProject Musicians.  Tabanger  19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It was one particular person's idea to use this specific style. If you look at that template's talk page, I'm the only one who brought up any (now outdated) problems. I'm not necessarily opposing this, just wondering, and there was an inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Band-specific templates out of hand?. –Pomte 22:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, I just used what I found in the links at WikiProject Musicians. His template is published and yours isn't. I didn't see your comments or sample template on the Talk pages. If you feel strongly enough about it, push the changes through. This, obviously, is not the correct venue to have that discussion.  Tabanger  02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Mars

Is he really a necessary inclusion? I don't think it's right to include a link on this widely-accessed template to a page that will in all likelihood never exist. I've never encountered anything on this guy except that he was 'fired' midway through the tour and nobody's heard from him since. BotleySmith 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But hey, he toured witn the band for two years before Woolley came, maybe longer then Jeff Ward. Just write someting about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.150.218 (talk • contribs)

Redlinks should not be added to templates. Once Lee Mars has an article, then he can be linked on the template.

It's not BotleySmith's, or anyone's, obligation to write an article for you. If you think there's enough information to write an encyclopedic article on Lee Mars, Wikipedia encourages you to contribute yourself. Laziness is no excuse, 86.57.150.218. -- Rynne 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mars did NOT tour with the band for two years, he was probably around them for less time than Alex Carapetis (who actually has done some notable stuff outside of NIN). See the NIN:Live article. BotleySmith 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

3/29/2007 - I just worked with Lee Mars on an awards show. He was mixing the front of house sound and although he was nice enough, he didn't do that great of a job.

hahahaha, that's awesome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.88.167 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Subcategories of Releases

• I propose splitting Major Releases in Discography up further into Major Studio Releases (5 of them), Remix Albums (3), and Live Releases (3). Are the numbers too few to warrant this?

• Option 30 and Exotic Birds are more of a Trent thing than a NIN thing. Do they really belong in this template?

• In order to avoid any confusion as to what the list of names represents, the 3 rows of musicians at the top could be labelled Frontman: Trent Reznor, Current Lineup: Aaron, Jeordie, etc, and Past Live Band Members: Richard Patrick, Jeff Ward, etc. Pomte 05:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts. How should it be formatted, though? BotleySmith 06:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Like how it is now.. or else I don't know what you mean. Botley from ETS, right? I lurk there too often. Pomte 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about a three-way split of Studio/Remix/Live albums, but I think that a "Studio Albums" (5) and "Remix and Live Albums" (6) would be large enough categories. I also like specifying the current and past live band members, but I don't think Reznor needs a clarifying label. Finally, I think Option 30 and Exotic Birds are fine as related links--I expect most people would be looking for them in relation to Reznor/NIN and having them on the NIN template seems imtuitive to me. -- Rynne 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pigface

I just stumbled onto an article for Pigface. What caught my was that Trent Reznor was an early member, and that he rewrote "Suck" from the Pigface version. I think it might be relevant in the template, particularly in the Related Articles section. Any opinions?
--Drewcifer3000 04:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Trent should be called a member (look how many "members" there are in the Pigface article). His answer in this interview (search "pigface") makes it sound like a one-day thing. NIN do play "Suck" at almost every show, but it's quite different than the Pigface version. Pomte 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pomte, it isn't relevant enough include on the NIN template. Trent *was* a member of Pigface (there's videos of him performing "Suck" with them on tour), but it's too brief of an involvement and too far outside the sphere of NIN to be put on the template. The links on the Trent Reznor article are adequate enough links to Pigface. -- rynne 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Limitless Potential

The Limitless Potential was added to related articles, and then reverted because NIN doesn't have involvement. But isn't the fact that it's a compilation of NIN remixes based on garageband files etc. released by Reznor notable enough for it's inclusion? Thoughts? -- Reaper X 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Duh, I'm the one who's been reverting them. Here's my rationale for removing. NIN is not directly involved in this project. All the other related articles feature direct contribution or involvement of NIN/Reznor. He created Purest Feeling, the Broken movie, and the Year Zero ARG. He founded Nothing Records. He was a member of Option 30, Exotic Birds, and Tapeworm. Although he released the remix files, he (or NIN) is not directly involved in the creation of the site or any content on The Limitless Potential. It is entirely fan-owned and fan-created. Works based on material originally by Nine Inch Nails. If that's the criteria for inclusion in the Related Articles section, then why not ninremixes.com? Why not The String Quartet Tribute to Nine Inch Nails? How about Johnny Cash? The line needs to be drawn somewhere. --  Tabanger  07:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with everything Tabanger said above. Not because the Limitless Potential isn't notable or worthy of inclusion, but we've gotta draw the line somewhere. Include Limitless Potential, and we've gotta include the String Quarter tribute, Johnny Case, Marilyn Manson, David Bowie, Saul Williams, Le Pig etc, etc, etc. Better to just avoid the slippery slope altogether. Drewcifer 11:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note -- I think it's kind of interesting that The Limitless Potential has been reviewed on The Onion AV Club as well as Metro (in the UK). However, Drewcifer makes a very good point: It is a slippery slope, with a lot of garbage at the bottom :p Leviathant (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, never mind. Can you tell I got here via Google, and didn't realize I was in the comments of the template, rather than the main article? Durr. TLP definitely doesn't belong here. Leviathant (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of "The Innocent" & "Lucky Pierre" to related articles

I noticed the band "The Innocent" is also one of Trent Reznor's past bands, one he was in after Option 30 and before Exotic Birds, so I've added this to Related Articles, between Option 30 and Exotic Birds. I've alos added "Lucky Pierre", a project Reznor worked as a member with in 1988. Feel free to edit or delete what I put if you don't feel it's right. -- 16:23, 23 November 23 2007 (UTC)

Current live band members

I've placed Alessandro Cortini and Josh Freese back as current live band members based on information on the ninofficial YouTube channel, where Cortini and Fresse are listed along with Reznor as band members. The last login date to that page was one day before this edit (i.e., on March 29, 2008), making this the most up-to-date verifiable source for current live band membership. -- 98.204.40.124 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Current and past live members

I just retooled the template so current and past live members have their own group listings. I hope no one objects but I really didn't like the way it was before. The spacing seemed... clunky. Naufana : talk 02:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

Why isn't Marilyn Manson under related bands? Last time I checked Reznor and Him had some history. I'm adding it. --KMFDM Fan (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Related Bands?

Why have so many bands been added to Related Bands? If bands such as modwheelmood are to be added (which comes under the category of 'bands featuring past NIN live members') then there are many others that should also be there, such as Tweaker, nearLY, Blindoldfreak, Jubilee etc and while you're at it why not Guns 'n' Roses, A Perfect Circle and DEVO? Personally I think the list should be shortened possibly to just bands Trent Reznor has featured in. Maybe Marilyn Manson and Saul Williams too. Not sure about those two though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.249.110 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think APC should be added. Unlike any other band mentioned above, it had three NIN members as its members at some point. I think it's worth something, even if none of these members was Trent. Objections? -NineInchRuiner (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

why red?

what's the reason for the template to be red?  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 07:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was experimenting. And forgot to revert. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable songs?

The section currently lists only two songs, neither of which were singles. What exactly defines notability in this context?Sheepdean (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Still

I'm removing Still from "studio albums and EPs" section. First of all, nobody releases valid studio albums (SA) as "companion", "secret", "bonus" CDs to live albums. Secondly, only +/- half of it is composed of actual new material, the rest being reworks of previously released songs. Finally, no reliable sources say that it is a SA, for example "With Teeth" is always said to be NIN's fourth, "Hesitation Marks" eigth etc. - obviously nobody counts "Still" as a SA. 83.31.168.28 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template revision

I figured I'd pop this in the talk page to avoid edit warring and so everyone can discuss further.

Recently @SnapSnap: (I really don't know how tagging works, so apologies if I'm making a balls of it) has been contributing some changes to the template in light of the release of the new EP. While I can appreciate the effort and good intent of the changes, I have a number of severe issues with new revision; one of which is the separation of promotional singles. I deemed it massively necessary because the singles are already in separate rows per album, and the template does not need to distinguish between what is a radio single or commercial single. I also think it's contradictory; you're having a separate row for a different sort of single, but not for EPs like Broken and Not the Actual Events, and remix EPs such as Fixed and live EPs like Live 2013, even though their difference is much more distinguishable and more likely to warrant separation in the template.Keep in mind that the template is not a discography, it is for navigational purposes.

As for the soundtracks, songs were especially by the band for the OSTs and are therefore relevant enough to warrant its inclusion in the template.

Some other queries I'd like to add are where Recoiled and Another Version of the Truth would fit in the template; because they're not officially released by NIN, although I'd advise against a separate category I think it's something we should question and discuss.

Aside from the current revision, I'd advocate two number things;

• Move Seed Eight and Recoiled to the Remix section.
• Move Live 2013 and Another Version of the Truth to Live releases.

I've reverted it back to the way it was until we can reach a consensus because, going by the edit history, I'm not the only one who is in disagreement. Any other input to this discussion is greatly encouraged and greatly appreciated. --TheBronzeMex (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seed Eight and Live 2013 (Seed Seven) are 100% promotional releases, like all Seeds are designated to be, and do not belong with the other primary Nine Inch Nails releases. Recoiled and Another Version of the Truth are unofficial (sanctioned or not; it doesn't matter what nin.com says) and likewise also do not belong in the main categories. Having them combined would be confusing and detrimental to navigation. - gone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.121.185.236 (talk • contribs)

Promotional releases they may be, however they still constitute as live/remix albums which I believe is more relevant to where they are placed on the template. I'll give a pass perhaps on Recoiled and AVOTT, since Nine Inch Nails have nothing to do with their releases. Perhaps we could reach a compromise there? I've updated the template accordingly, let me know what you think. (I've also lumped the compilation releases like Collected and the tour samplers together if you're happy to have a look at that as well) --TheBronzeMex (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that the navbox is not a discography, but those two should still be consistent between each other. Seed Eight and Live 2013 are first and foremost EPs and should be classed as such, since EPs ≠ albums. For that reason I'm opposed to "X releases" groups as those are not specific enough and could create confusion. Including those soundtracks is misleading since it makes it seem like NIN is a lead artist (compare to Bowie's Christiane F. or Madonna's Evita) when they're actually multi-artist albums to which NIN contributed one or two songs each. I redirected the promo-only Collected to the main NIN article per WP:NMUSIC as it lacks significant independent coverage, so that should be removed from the template. As noted above, both Recoiled and AVOTT are unofficial. I had initially created a "Samplers and unofficial releases" section which also included those two sampler EPs, but now I'm not sure there should even be articles for those considering they all seem to lack significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Finally, the "Other" section is too vague, so I thought those articles should be moved into "Related articles". snapsnap ^(talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point on the soundtracks. I'm thinking perhaps we can move that and a few other articles such as Pretty Eight Machine and Radiant Decay to a "Related Albums" section, much like the Radiohead template. I'll update the template accordingly, along with moving some articles to the Related articles section and removing Collected. I still do think that the studio EPs and live/remix EPs should be distinguished in some way, because the difference in scale (I suppose is the word?) is large enough to warrant separation. Also, apologies about the "be aware that the navbox is not a discography" bit, looking back at that it looked a bit passive aggressive which was not my intention. --TheBronzeMex (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, you didn't come across as passive-aggressive. Grouping albums and EPs really isn't a good idea, considering those are two distinct types of release. Why should only studio EPs be listed under "Extended plays"? By that logic, studio albums and studio EPs would have to be grouped together, which would be incorrect as EPs are not albums. Both Live 2013 and Seed Eight have the word "EP" written on their respective covers. Also, I'm not really sure if those EP tour samplers belong among NIN's official releases since they're, well, samplers. snapsnap ^(talk) 02:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I do think it would be handier to distinguish the studio EPs personally. Otherwise would be grand I suppose anyway. The only thing I'm fairly strongly against is the separation of promotional singles as we discussed earlier; I feel we've already separated them by album and to seperate further wouldn't be necessary. Personally, I'm not really sure what to do with the samplers so I'll leave that entirely up to yourself, as well as the EPs if you want to sort them out accordingly. I do ask that the singles remain as they are though if that's cool. --TheBronzeMex (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll group all EPs together then. I'm fine with leaving the singles as they are. snapsnap ^(talk) 23:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed is over 40 minutes long, and officially listed by the BPI as an album, I moved it back to remix albums (Broken is an EP when tracks 7&8 are considered separate). It does NOT matter what an artist says or what is on the cover; all that matters is what it IS. The tour samplers are not Nine Inch Nails releases but (promo) compilations that feature a couple of their tracks. I put them under compilations, as that is what they are. As for the other two, Live 2013 and Seed Eight, Wikipedia editors seem to have a history of steadfastly wanting these (very obviously not meant for wide release) promo things cluttering up the nav section of musicians (especially tour EPs and regional compilations), so I'm powerless here and throw my hands up. They stay. - gone

Please note that soundtrack appearances should not be included, unless NIN were responsible for the entire soundtrack, as this would be nothing more than a compilation appearance, and causes WP:NAVBOXCREEP. Please note that when soundtracks are linked, per WP:FILMNAV we do not link to film articles, only the soundtrack articles. Also, there is no justification to break down the singles album by album. These make the navboxes too vertical and the reader is better served with a simple chronology here; more detailed information is available at the relevant discography article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)