Jump to content

Talk:Nine Inch Nails/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Singular vs. plural

OK, will everyone stop messing around with the verb tenses while we sort this out? People had been edit warring over verb tenses, leaving the article in a big mess, with some sentences referring to the band in singular and others in plural. This morning I fixed the article back to a single tense (singular) and three edits later its already back to a mix of the two.

According to American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, referring to the band in singular is proper American English, whether NIN is a "project" or a "band." According to Wikipedia:ENGVAR we need consistency within the article (instead of the current mess) and since NIN is an American group, I chose American English (again per [[Wikipedia:ENGVAR]]) and moved the article into singular. We need to confirm this decision here, move the article one usage or the other, and then stop this half-assed "I'm gonna change the usage in a few places and leave the rest of the article in the other usage" edit warring that has left the article such a mess -- Foetusized (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep it consistent. Singular tense is the correct tense in this case, so let's just leave it that way. Drewcifer (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted some confirmation before I made the changes again -- Foetusized (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please stop reverting the article back to a bad revision with a mix of singular and plural verbs for the band. Even if you think the article should be in plural, an inconsistent mix of both AmEng singular and BritEng plural is obviously wrong, and labeling reversions back to that version as "correct verb usage" is just wrong. Please discuss these changes here, before reverting back to the singular/plural mismatched mess -- Foetusized (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, we've got a consensus to keep it as singular tense here? That's how it seems to me, anyway. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the way I see it. Singular follows the rules at WP:ENGVAR (American English for an article about an American subject) and no one has posted here on the talk page explaining their support of the use of plural verbs in relation to NIN -- Foetusized (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Electronic rock

How about adding electronic rock to genre section? It is quite a new term and Nine Inch Nails has been considered as one of the most important figures of that genre. --217.24.78.200 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects, I add this genre to the article. --91.188.44.47 (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The electronic rock article is a nice article about the history of synthesizers in rock music, with some original research claims that it makes up a genre. I don't think so -- Foetusized (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I object completely --TJMcDJ (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dark Ambient

It has come to my attention that NIN had produced a bunch of Dark Ambient songs - and therefore the genre should be added to the wiki. Examples of Dark Ambient songs by NIN are: Corona Radiata and 999 999. Dark Ambient is primarily an electronic genre but it also has strong roots in metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.0.116 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that dark ambient should be added to the genres. Apart from the dark ambient songs in The Slip (album), there is all industrial ambient album Ghosts I-IV, and many songs such as Just Like You Imagined or The Frail. Also regarding the numerous dark ambient soundtrack work composed by Trent Reznor, the genre should be added. — Myxomatosis75 (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Reznor has been progressing in this very direction for over 15 years now: the popular/casual fan view is that he has been experimenting with dark ambient work since Ghosts I-IV recently in 2008. However a closer analysis would instead point evidence to the release of The Fragile in 1999, but in reality it all began on Reznor’s Quake score (under the Nine Inch Nails name, mind you) from 1996 makes for an interesting comparison with 2011’s The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo compositions - the use of anxious psychological soundscapes for mood generation is in high prevalence long before he teamed up with Atticus. And like TGWTDT, it opens with an incredible industrial scorcher (Quake Main Theme; Immigrant Song), before brooding back into an uneasy darkness throughout their entire respective albums. Add the Dark Ambient genre, I say. If no one objects, I will add this genre to the article. Ls883 (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Throwing Children

Is there a proper citation for the bit about Reznor throwing small children and animals into mosh pits in the live performances section? I've been unable to find anything, and the wording sort of smacks of trolling. Takerfoxx (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of him doing that. If you cant find a cite just delete it. nothing we cant fix if we find evidence later --TJMcDJ (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell No!!!

Pink Floyd would never be an influence on Trent. Trent Reznor likes bands like the normal, Bauhaus, and (most of all) David Bowie! The industrial feel to the whole band is because of Gary Numans Advancement to Industrial. is anyone else on the same page with what i am saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJMcDJ (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The article cited, The art of darkness, clearly states "If there was a template in his head, it was the album which touched him most when he was younger: Pink Floyd's "The Wall".". Your opinion is not a valid reference for the article. If what you say is true, find a third-party reliable reference and cite it. I'm reverting your changes. Mindmatrix 21:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Im gonna start off saying, my little bro felt like writing that and he doesnt understand the wiki standards, but i will say the article source for that may be unreliable if not said by Trent. At this moment i can't look at the source but Trent has been in many acts with Bowie , Numan , and Murphy kinda meaning by De facto we can say "low" is more of an influence. And if you look David Bowie was a big influence on Trent. I will look more into this later thanks for noting me on this. My little brother has been messing up my entries. --TJMcDJ (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
BotleySmith has already done so. However, the source (see this copy) only states "At the time, both were heavily into David Bowie's Low album, and Reznor cheerfully admitted that Spiral was heavily indebted to the Thin White Duke and his producer, Brian Eno..."; that is, it doesn't specifically note the influence of Low. Mindmatrix 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

here is a bit of infor that might help... this interview shows trents thoughts... by the wat im TJMcDJ but i cant get onto my account this very second Trent's and Bowie's Interview —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.226.189 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Concept albums

Currently the fragile article makes a unourced statement that album is a concept album. I have started a conversation about this [1]. 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of audio samples

The article was littered with samples of audio with virtually the same licensing. That's fine and dandy, but mind you these are non-free soundclips, not decoration. All of them violate the very first line in their licensing. "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus." In most cases, there were no mention at all of the songs let alone the content of the songs anywhere in the article. You cannot possibly say the use of the samples this way is rationalised. The samples were appropriately used in the musical style section. Fixer23 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Columbine influence?

I remember reading that the two kids who committed the high school massacre at Columbine were heavily influenced by NIN... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.117.72 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Only The Downward Spiral. An entry has been made on Harris and Klebold within that album's page, but there is no need to include such information on the band's page. Ls883 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: However... if a substantial amount of information can be formulated on the basis of NIN's controversy (read as: a couple of paragraphs -- for example, a size similar to this -> http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marilyn_Manson_(band)#Controversy ), not just one or two brief sentences, then I'd be willing to have it on the page. Ls883 (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Down In It" video

I propose that the entire section regarding the "Down In It" video and the resulting FBI investigation be removed from the main NIN page or replaced with the version of that story which appears on the page for the single. The version on the main page is a mess, even after I tried to rewrite it, while the other version is clear and features a direct quotation. The entire incident is also too much of a digression to deserve placement in the main NIN article when it also appears elsewhere.Fane1024 (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Swapped text from Nine Inch Nails with text from Down in It. A\/\93r-(0la 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nine Inch Nails - The Great Destroyer.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nine Inch Nails - The Great Destroyer.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative metal again

I know it was discussed before, nevertheless it seems like it didn't reach to a consensus. Allmusic lists them as an alternative metal[2][3] band and my opinion is that it should be also listed as alternative metal in the main infobox.Myxomatosis75 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm happy for this to go ahead. Ls883 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Well the consensus is currently for alternative metal to be added, so i'm adding it I call the big one bitey (talk) 8:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to play devil's advocate, isn't five genres in the list a bit excessive? Isn't including industrial rock, industrial metal, alternative rock and alternative metal a touch repetitive? Now that the more general alternative rock and alternative metal are included, can the more specific industrial rock and industrial metal be removed? -- Foetusized (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, five genres are OK, considering the bands eclectic style. Also why should industrial metal and industrial rock should be removed? They're usually recognized as the first band which brought the industrial music to the mass audience (with their music containing elements from industrial, heavy metal and alternative rock) and industrial rock/metal labeling is highly notable in this case. Their removal would only cause vagueness of genre identification. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Genres

When did Dark Ambient get added to the genres? Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Also for the record I think listing both rock and metal genres is the height of redundancy and not needed. Ridernyc (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Dark ambient was added in March 2012, discussion is here: Talk:Nine_Inch_Nails#Dark_Ambient. I brought up the duplication in alternative/industrial rock/metal in the section directly above, but the only response was pro-redundancy -- Foetusized (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well you can put me down as officially opposed to both the redundancy and the addition of Dark Ambient. My goal however is accomplished I just needed to make sure we had consensus when reverting changes made by Genre Warriors. Ridernyc (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to be more constructive than the "genre warriors", dont reduce a recording act to specific genres through some silly consensus (WP:GENRE#Behavior pattern and motivations). If the genres are unsourced to begin with, you cant blame the presumed genre warriors from making their edits. If the album article has any notability whatsoever, there should be at least one article or review discussing its music, which should be cited. Dan56 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to be constructive you need to discuss your changes and reach consensus. Not simply hide behind sources which we all know are notoriously bad when it comes to genres. I see you rolling back other peoples genre changes constantly, you know how the process works. Now would you like to make a case for why you feel The Fragile should be listed with a different set of genres? As you can see I don't agree with how the genres are currently listed but I'm not going to change them without consensus. Ridernyc (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
"Notoriously bad"? That sounds like you "believe that reliable sources are wrong and professional music journalists know nothing about music compared to them". Seriously, stick the most reliable source available on the topic. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The conversation has moved to The Fragile talk page. You can continue essay flinging there. Ridernyc (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:STICKTOSOURCES and WP:NPOV are guidelines, not essays, genius. Dan56 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Beside You In Time?

When looking up NIN songs on Billboard, "Beside You In Time" showed to have charted at 86, but I'm not sure what chart... I know there was also a Live album of the same name, but I think this is referring to the song. [http://www.billboard.com/song/nine-inch-nails/372909/beside-you-in-time <-He's the link. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Two things...

On genres - possibly relevant to add "Synthpop (early)" in a similar fashion to the Ministry page? Should be noted that this is a genre for both Pretty Hate Machine and Purest Feeling.

On associated acts - A Perfect Circle and Jane's Addiction are there. With the recent tours, should Queens of the Stone Age and Soundgarden be added? It would seem particularly the former, as TR has collaborated with them.

Swim Jonse (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Influence and legacy section

The "Influence and legacy" section only mentions the influence NIN had on other bands, however shouldn't it include too who they were influenced by? A bit like it's done on The Beatles article - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Beatles#Influences

Nine inch Nails doesn't mean anything?

The name of Nine Inch Nails does't mean anything it cames just beacause it was easylly abreviated?, My god, who is going to believe that a band's name comes from nowhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.167.155 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR?

An editor has suggested that this article may need to undergo a featured article review, citing issues such as the prose quality and the lack of an Influences section. Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Nine_Inch_Nails/archive1 is currently on hold to allow interested contributors to try to address these concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm very much fond of the "on hold" period (which precedes the FAR if I understand correctly). I'm willing to put all I've got into saving this article, I think it'll fun and rewarding. However it's sort of bad timing for many of us, with the holidays and all. I'll be on wikibreak this Thursday through Sunday and the same the week following. Then New Years... anyway I'll do what I can! Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 05:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MusikAnimal, for starting the work and being willing to help. I'm going to spend some time reading through the article and maybe we can develop a worklist in a new section here on the Talk page to capture what needs to be done. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've created at to do at Talk:Nine Inch Nails/to do — MusikAnimal talk 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've scratched off all the to do's I could come up with, and added some more content in the process. Unfortunately I could not find a copy and transcript of the BBC Radio interview where Reznor apparently revealed many influences, but I was able to find some well-established influences through other sources. I've turned all the list-style facts into prose to the best of my ability, and as far as I can tell the article is now well-sourced. Finally, I ran AWB on the page to apply general fixes, but the software reported no changes were needed, which I find hard to believe. I never use AWB so I probably did it wrong. WikiLaurent / anyone, is there anything else you notice with the article falling short of FA criteria? Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria You mentioned at WT:FAR that there are inconsistencies in reference formatting. I'm happy to fix this, but I'm not exactly sure what is wrong. Could you be more specific? Is there a tool we could use automatically fix them? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 01:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
First you want to make sure all citations are complete and correct - no bare URLs or dead/broken links, page numbers for print sources, etc. Once that's done, similar sources should be similarly formatted. For example, consider your Rolling Stone citations - even looking only at the web ones, sometimes they're italicized and sometimes not (should be italicized), sometimes there's a publisher included and sometimes not (either is fine as long as consistent throughout), sometimes wikilinked and sometimes not (again pick a consistent formatting rule), sometimes you have Rollingstone.com and other times just Rolling Stone... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Okay! I've gone through all the sources and ensured the links either still work or added archived versions, checked for consistent formatting, and tried to address print sources without page numbers with websites containing copies of the text. I could easily be missing some, though. Let me know if you see anything else that needs to be done. Many thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 02:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey MusikAnimal, nice work so far. I'm still seeing an inconsistency in whether or not publishers are included for periodical works - could you make a decision either way, and then I can help with formatting? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: To be completely honest, I'm not certain what should constitute a publisher and what shouldn't, etc. For the {{cite web}} citations I reserved the publisher field for the original source of information. Usually they are the same as the website, but where they are not I would additionally use the "website" field to denote wherever the content is hosted. I believe this to be consistent with the documentation for {{cite web}}. So I guess I'm going with publisher as the standard for this article. Hopefully that makes sense... Thanks for the help! — MusikAnimal talk 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
So if you find that you're wanting to italicize something in the publisher parameter, that probably isn't a publisher. I've made some corrections to the citations, but they aren't consistent with what you suggest the standard should be - please check. Also, I've added a number of page-needed tags. Finally, can you check "Brit bands rock Kerrang! awards"? This citation has the same URL has the one immediately preceding it, but different citation details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Your usage of the citation templates is surely more inline with what is expected of a FA. Verifiability has always been important to me but I'm certainly no expert on formatting ;) There were three "kerrang!" citations, one of them had the details of one ref but the URL of the other – presumably a mistake, so I just removed it. I'm not sure what to do about the missing page numbers. For me, a trip to library is unlikely... so I'll opt for attempting to find alternative online sources. — MusikAnimal talk 00:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested correction

experimental mobile web doesn't show mobile menu when you tap top of Page, instead I visit Special:MobileMenu. 198.73.209.4 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be a suggested correction for all of Wikipedia, not this page itself.
Anyway, speaking of suggested corrections, I'm here to suggest changing dark ambient in the infobox to dark rock, or at least add dark rock to the infobox. Here's the source I pulled from the list of dark rock bands:

  • Guarino, Mark (April 23, 2000). "Reznor seethes dark rock in schizoid rage at UIC". Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL) via HighBeam Research (subscription required).

Dude00007, Ph. D., Sc. D. (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring by SuddenDeth

Since last month, SuddenDeth has been pushing several changes into this article which I consider unhelpful:

  • He wants members of the touring band listed as "Live members" which is awkward writing and not consistent with other band articles that have "official members" and touring musicians.
  • He is introducing a laundry-list of instruments played by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross which is unsourced, and this not meeting the criteria for a Featured article
  • He wants to list Not the Actual Events in the Discography even though the standard for discographies is to omit EPs. There is a long-standing consensus for Broken to be an exception there.

SuddenDeth has ignored repeated requests to discuss these changes here, and instead has been undoing edits mostly without comment. I'd like to get others' opinions on these edits and establish consensus one way or another. --Laser brain (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted their most recent edit to the discography. I did state in my summary that I'm for its inclusion, but only because it may resolve confusion as to why it's not included and Broken is. It's seen as groundbreaking in the band's history so it has reason to be included, whereas NTAE doesn't fit that reason as of now. Touring members sounds more appropriate given the band's status, and I currently have no opinion on the list of instruments/roles of Reznor and Ross besides the fact that it feels much too specific and can be wound down a few notches so long as it's referenced. Rhe dm i (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I've had to report SuddenDeath at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring since he keeps pushing this without joining the discussion. Anyway, the problem with the EPs is it's a slippery slope. It seems better to have none of them or all of them. I understand why Broken is there by itself, but obviously the edit notice and referring people to previous discussions isn't very effective. Numerous people have come by to add NTAE and it's a problem at other articles as well for bands that release EPs. I'm open to suggestions on how to resolve this. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we should include it since NIN has many EPs, but only 2 studio EPs and Not the Actual Events is the other one (besides Broken,) so It looks incomplete to include 1 studio EP, but not the other. In fact that means that Not the Actual Events is literally the only studio LP/EP not listed, which looks more arbitrarily left out than anything else. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not the Actual Events to be included in discography?

I'm pretty sure we've all had enough of the edit warring. Maybe it's time to start establishing consensus as to whether Not the Actual Events should be included in this article's discography section or not? I have literally no preference whatsoever in the matter, I'm just getting irritated seeing all the edit warring back and forth in my Watchlist. Discuss. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is adding it in bad faith (they're probably like, "Oh hey, something's missing, let me add it") but I'm also tired of the wars. There is a somewhat detailed rationale right above this for including it, but I'm not sure I understand what a "studio EP" is. Mrmoustache14, can you explain more? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't why it shouldn't be included, like Broken the EP was release with a Halo number. As far I know that the EP is a "studio EP", Not the Actual Events was recorded in a studio and includes new songs by the band, it's not a remix EP where outside contributors remix some old songs or a live EP with live recordings. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
By studio LP I mean that it's (like Broken) an EP of entirely new material recorded in studio. It's not a remix EP, a live EP, or an alternative takes/outtakes EP, it's an EP that NIN recorded as it's own product to stand on it's own, just like Broken. It had it's own recording sessions and everything. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm fine with including it by that rationale. I guess the fear was that it's a slippery slope and lots of people will try to add other EPs. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

EPs in discography section

The current MOS says that EPs aren't to be listed in the Discography section when the band has a dedicated discography section, which this band obvious does.

I tried to clean up in compliance, and was reverted on the grounds of there being "extensive discussion" on the subject. Can someone point me to these extensive discussions. The only one I'm seeing about "Not the Actual Events" is a very brief, low involvement, inconclusive discussion here, and some short, inconclusive discussions in 2008 and 2010 here.

Am I missing some other ones? Because neither of these seem "extensive" or conclusive on the matter. While I see some arguments about why Broken should be an exception (though its rather subjective) but none in regards to why the 2017 EPs should be an exception. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The MOS states "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works". The arguments for the 2017 EP's are the same as Broken, they are major studio releases of new, previously unreleased material, not remixes, live tracks, or singles. They are canon in the discography of nine inch nails, if that metaphor makes any sense. It does state "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be include" but to me I'm reading that as don't list them because most compilation, live albums, ect are not major works. A quote from WP:DISCOGSTYLE that is relevant here: "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals"

.RF23 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

But, in the same vein, I don't believe its rare for artists to release EP fully original material EPs either, with self-publishing and digital releases, artists find it easier to just do that. And yet, despite that, I don't see any particular trend of having EPs in discography sections like this. I'm seeing a reason why we could, but not a reason why we should. I'm still confused by the "extensive discussion" comment as well. I see an extremely weak consensus among very few participants -the discussions above do not show strong support for this approach. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I used "extensive discussion" to mean it had been brought up several times. But I do think there should be more discussion on it based on your points. RF23 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems like it's come up several times but I can't remember when or where. The argument was always that Broken was such an anomaly that it should get a pass. I could go either way personally. I'd rather see all of them or none of them. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I created the discussion above regarding Not the Actual Events, but I really had no opinion either way about it... at the time. I was just tired of constant edits and reverts spamming up my watchlist. I still haven't formed an absolute opinion on the subject, but with what Sergecross73 is saying above, I'm erring on the side of having them removed. The thing with Broken, is that fans of that style of Nine Inch Nails music want it considered the band's commercial breakthrough, despite the fact Pretty Hate Machine was a success beforehand. And it seems that this logic is somehow being extended towards Not the Actual Events and Add Violence also, without any real explanation about why those are exceptions. But tonnes of artists have released notable, high-selling EPs of new material, so Broken is nothing unique in that sense. Technically, The Fame Monster EP isn't at Lady Gaga#Discography. Smells Like Children isn't at Marilyn Manson (band)#Discography. Ditto Five Live at George Michael#Discography. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, from what I've gathered, Not the Actual Events and Add Violence are only really included because Broken is - they have no argument of their own really - and Broken was there because it was rather long for an EP (8 songs/30 minutes of music.) But I don't think we should be delving into subjective "how long or significant is it" type arguments over releases like this. We should go by how they're objectively labled by reliable sources, and it seems there's no dispute on their EP status really. I think all EPs should be removed. They're linked multiple places elsewhere - in the article and the navigation template at the bottom for starters. I also wonder if he'll release the EPs together as an album down the road, and then we could list that studio album release. (I thought I recalled Reznor saying he was thinking of doing that, but I couldn't find a source just now, so I could be thinking of another band.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I recall Trent saying something similar prior to Not the Actual Events, about releasing all 3 EPs "in one cool package". Not sure if he meant all the EPs bundled together as an LP, or simply the 3 separate EPs together in a box set. The latter doesn't really sound like something Trent would do, though. Why bother if fans already bought each individual EP? The impression the quote left on me was that the next NIN LP would be a double album, so the EPs were a more convenient way for casual fans to digest the material. And if that turns out to be the case, then NTAE, Add Violence and the next EP would all end up having to be removed anyway. Then the question we'd be left with: why should Broken be an exception to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies? None of the prior discussions really addressed that issue. In any case, it needs revisiting, because Wikipedia has come a long way since the late 2000s. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that link at the end there pretty much encapsulates the messy way that policy was being handled in the last 2000s - I think this is the time to rectify things. I don't see a reason to ignore the MOS. Without taking any action, I think the same slow motion edit wars and arguments are going to keep occurring, as they have for years and years now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this? My current read on things is more or less that it seems like an WP:IAR type argument could be used to keep the EPs in the list at the main article, there doesn't really seem to be much of a reason why that should be done. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My edit was reverted and I was told to take the discussion here. This is what I posted: "They are significant releases and are complete works, not b-sides, outtakes, or remixes. They should be considered a part of the canon of Nine Inch Nails releases, as are significant EPs by many bands across the site. In addition, the album Bad Witch is the conclusion of a trilogy of albums and is out of place if included without it's predecessors." I don't really see why people are so stubborn about this change. It only makes the article better; it doesn't have any negative ramifications. Surely everyone sees the difference between Broken and Things Falling Apart, for example. This is absolutely an example of WP:IAR. 68.203.8.74 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Your second point, IP, is sharp to me. It would make sense to have all those associated with Bad Witch listed. dannymusiceditor oops 23:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Which would be fine—if the band had bothered to explain how this 6-track (ie, EP-length) release is being advertised as an "LP". Trent/Atticus haven't, so we're left with the questions: How is Bad Witch an LP at all, if it's not just a marketing gimmick? And how does Bad Witch tie up with the two previous EPs? If anything, this is all a case of WP:NOTNOW, in that we should wait until more information is known about Bad Witch before we add it to the discography section at all, only to possibly have to remove it later on when more details emerge, per WP:Verifiability. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone give a good reason why a band with 31 releases, and only 11 main releases should have 3 of those releases absent from their main page? Especially considering that one of those releases contains the only two songs that the band has ever won Grammys for, that two of them are part of a series including a full length, that all three are composed entirely of unique tracks appearing nowhere else, that none of them are outtakes or compilations, and that the band's own website lists all three as part of their main releases http://www.nin.com/discography/? Can anyone explain how those very important things detract from the article, and how removing them makes it better? If the only reason you can come up with is that the MOS says that EPs are generally not included, then my rebuttal is that MOS:DISCOGRAPHY also says "in all cases, the format should follow from what's best for the article, and not vice versa," WP:DISCOGSTYLE says "if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article," with a link to WP:IAR, and WP:WPMAG says "the discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works," which in this case clearly includes these EPs, in my opinion. I think it's kind of ridiculous to need to cite so many rules, but it appears necessary. I'd also like to cite the "letter of the law" section of WP:WL, which explains my problem with the argument that the EPs shouldn't be included, and the section of WP:UCS about not always following a rigid definition of the guidelines, which I believe is the solution. Does anyone think that these aren't justifiable reasons to add the EPs to the article? If so, why not?68.203.8.74 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What are you considering the 11 "main releases"? --Laser brain (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The releases that are listed on nin.com under main releases. It's the non-compilation, non-remix, non-live releases that are intended to be the "albums" that Nine Inch Nails has released. There will be twelve when Bad Witch comes out.68.203.8.74 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
A band and/or label can call something an album, but doesn't necessarily make it an album. You can do with reading the above discussion in more detail, because a lot of what you're saying has already been discussed, and were some of the reasons the EPs were removed in the first place. So Broken won some Grammy awards, why does that mean Not the Actual Events and Add Violence be automatically included when the MOS says not to, when an article like Nine Inch Nails discography exists? As for your other reasons, I've already listed several much more massive EPs (The Fame Monster; Five Live) that aren't included on their artists' discography sub-section. There's what is an album, and there's what fans want to be albums. You can cite as many rules as you want, but your underlying argument isn't very persuasive, "in my opinion." Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Adding fuel to the fire, Bad Witch is going to be 30 minutes, which is shorter than Broken lol UnbreakableMass (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
And here is Trent on a fansite explaining that the only reason Bad Witch is being labelled an LP is so it can get a more prominent release on Spotify. Like I said, there are albums, and there are what bands call albums. This entire thing just demonstrates that the MOS serves its purpose, and that the discography issue should always be treated in general terms. When fans start arguing that specific bands or releases are special cases, it just causes problems. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I actually think that adds credence to my point that these are major releases and that the concept of an album is more important than classifications based on run-time. I would think that The Fame Monster should be included on Gaga's main page had it been a stand alone release and not a reissue with bonus tracks. And Five Live is in no way a major release, it's a collaboration between two bands, so it wouldn't be at home on either of their pages, and it consists almost entirely of live covers. Those are really bad comparisons. I think that Wikipedia's guideline on keeping EPs off the main page is in place because most EPs aren't major releases, and that it's more important to display a clear list of major works than to leave out some based on a very vaguely defined specification. My entire argument isn't based around guidelines, it's based around what I believe would make the article better. But if that's not important to the majority of people, then nothing I can say will change it. I am looking forward to how you're going to deal with this new release, though. It fits your specifications for an EP, based on Broken, but the band is calling it an album, which you say doesn't matter. On that same principle, I expect that you'll want to add EP7 to Autechre's main page, seeing as how it's 70 minutes long and it doesn't matter what the band calls it, right? 68.203.8.74 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have naturally veered off to Talk:Bad Witch. If you're so inclined, please feel free to continue this there. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nine Inch Nails. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards list cleanup?

Should the awards list be formatted into a table? If so, I'll do it. Topper13009 (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Feel free to make it look better or fix any mistakes I made.Topper13009 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we get another industrial metal source and add it?

I feel it belongs in the genres. Quite a few songs and the Broken EP are of this genre. I would do the sourcing myself but I struggle with the commands part as if you make one single mistake it gets reverted. Thanks in advance. MarilynMansonFan96 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please list your reliable sources indicating this genre applies to the band in general. --Laser brain (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

industrial vs industrial metal

Only the Broken EP and a couple other songs are industrial metal. The band have plenty of stuff I would call normal industrial (like the album Year Zero and the song "Closer"). I know that's original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, but here's my arguments without original research. Industrial metal has only 1 source (just like electro-industrial and industrial dance). Why should we add industrial metal for 1 source but then refuse to add industrial dance/electro-industrial. why out of all the genres with multiple sources, we should only refuse to add industrial? Industrial isn't a subgenre of industrial rock or a subgenre of industrial metal. Nonetheless, industrial rock is a subgenre of industrial and industrial metal is a subgenre of industrial rock, making industrial metal a subgenre of industrial. This means that industrial and even industrial rock will cover even Nine Inch Nails' industrial metal songs. It is extremely common for people on Wikipedia to decide that only the most sourced genres should be in the genre field, especially if there are so many sourced genres and Nine Inch Nails have so many sourced genres. We should only add the most sourced genres to the genre field. Statik N (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Statik N: At first, I disagreed with you, thinking that that industrial metal should be kept. But now that I read your explanation, I now agree with you. Industrial metal only describes a small fraction of their work. I also agree that industrial should be added because it has more sources. Also, industrial covers industrial dance and electro-industrial better. I don't really care if industrial stays or if industrial metal stays, but I think keeping industrial and removing industrial metal would be the better option. Bowling is life (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Industrial metal and whatnot aren't actually subgenres of industrial, they're subgenres of post-industrial. Actual industrial is like a punk version of musique-concrete, it's not what Nine Inch Nails or half the bands mislabeled as industrial do. On the wiki the distinction is clear. 05:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:545:1901:81BF:1739:9CD9:5F19 (talk)
Interesting that folks are now trying to edit war this into the infobox when we were discussing taking it out completely. The one source is quite flimsy in my opinion. Just because some random music writer decided to call the "industrial metal" in the tagline of one article doesn't mean that's a defining genre for the band. --Laser brain (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

not even a sentence about their appearance on twin peaks?

they were there in one of the most significant and talked about episodes in the third season's run, reznor himself has had associations with david lynch in the past. come on you nin-heads. --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit helpful, TOC way down there.

Wow this could use some editing, if anyone really cares any more about NIN to come across it here. So much in the intro can be dispersed elsewhere throughout the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:4:A600:8C78:4968:E04:5D1B (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Partially British band

Considering Atticus Ross, a permanent member, is from England, couldn't Nine Inch Nails be considered an English-American band? I'm not considering editing the article to change it as such. I'm just asking a question. ==User:Danielcool123 19:59, 15 December 2018 (GMT)

I'm not sure what the style guidelines is, but I've always considered a band's nationality to be based on where they were founded and has no bearings on where the members are from.RF23 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess you're right. ==User:Danielcool123 12:07, 16 December 2018 (GMT)
Trent Reznor came from New Castle, PA. Atticus Ross came from Ladbroke Grove, London, United Kingdom. Atticus came from UK, while Reznor came from US. Sincerely, U2mans (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty Hate Machine’s “minor success”

I’m not going to edit this myself because I’m unsure of the guidelines but this sentence strikes me as wildly inaccurate. Pretty Hate Machine in my memory was a nearly instant success and rapidly changed the musical landscape specially of “pop” music. This was a must have album for my generation. Minor success? It’s still to this day their most well known album. I think this should be changed to “almost instant smash success”. It was never just underground it immediately changed the mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZigmanFrood (talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"10 Inch Nails" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 10 Inch Nails. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"8 inch nails" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 8 inch nails. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Album covers of "Ghosts V: Together" and "Ghosts VI: Locusts"

To editor Magog the Ogre: Hello, I think the album covers of these two albums is free/public domain per c:commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Album_covers what do you think? if I said right please move and tag them. Thanks--Editor-1 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: result of the discussion: NEIN (Inch Nails). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails → 22.86 Centimetre Nails – Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, this article should be converted to the more widely used metric system. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I hate 1 April. Enjoyer of World (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EPs in Discography (a discussion hasn't happened in 2 years)

April 1st Edit (no, not an April Fools joke): Based on the widespread agreement here, it was decided to add the 3 EPs to the Discography list, alongside the full-length albums. If you require more information and really want to read all of our paragraphs, please do so below. Thank you to everyone for chiming in and making sure that history is accurately portrayed. Xanarki (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

So, as everyone has noticed, Broken and Not the Actual Events and Add Violence is not under the Discography section. Anytime a casual fan comes along to add them, someone else removes them swiftly. I think a general discussion on this issue needs to be held again, as it hasn't happened since May 2018. Per Wiki's guidelines, EPs and similar releases should generally not be included; however, "generally" is the key word here. There is nothing set in stone within the guidelines. It varies artist-by-artist. For example, look at the Guns N' Roses page. They have their EP Lies within their main studio albums. Why? Because the general public agreed it was a main release, based on many factors (I brought this up as an example of a discussion and not as evidence for NIN). There are many other examples out there, both inclusions and exclusions.

From my understanding of the previous 2018 discussion, the vast majority actually AGREED to include the 3 EPs. Yet, they are still being taken down. So, I think that we should tally up the opinions right here, and within a month or so, decide the final outcome. Please say if the 3 EPs should be included or excluded (and if you wanna go the extra mile, state why). Xanarki (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lies is not an EP, it's considered a studio album (even though it's an ep stapled to another ep, but it's always been considered an album).RF23 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Obviously because I went to the trouble of typing this up, I am of course, in favor of including it. Reasons being: #1. Because of all 3 being marketed on an equal level from the main albums (even more so in regards to Ghosts). Broken and Add Violence also had numerous promotional/radio singles released plus music videos, thus the EPs are a foundation (just like any other studio album). #2. Broken is quite important historically. It reached Platinum sales with the RIAA and 1 of the songs won a Grammy (the other song was the '94 live version so it doesn't count). Both of these are referenced in the main article, yet, the EP isn't even listed with the other albums? Not the Actual Events is also important due to the fact that it was the first release after a 3 year hiatus. Without including it and Add Violence, the time gap between Hesitation Marks and Bad Witch is historically misleading...just like the historically misleading time gap between Pretty Hate Machine and The Downward Spiral! Finally, all 3 EPs charted in many countries, which is significant. #3. Everything I just said can be applied to remix albums, compilations, live albums, maxis, and so, the following statements are obvious, but I'll say it anyway. 100% of the material on all 3 EPs are new studio recordings (not live or remixes or re-recordings), the 3 EPs are not limited editions or promotional items, the 3 EPs had tours set around them just like a full studio album would (Broken contains 2 songs from the 1991 tour so it kind of counts), the 3 EPs are more than 15 minutes in length each (more on that below), the 3 EPs contains 5 or more songs each (more on that below), and the 1st EP was included on the Wikipedia page FOR OVER A DECADE because of its significance prior to the 2nd EP being released. #4. NIN has a separate discography page. This is actually in favor of including the EPs in the main article, because unlike the discography page, the main article would classify the 3 EPs as equally important, instead of confining them to their own section.
The only argument that I can see someone saying, is them pointing to the VAGUE guidelines posted on Wikipedia, so you can save your breath on that. Besides, an EP can be classified as a studio album, actually! As per the UK Chart Supervisory Committee, anything under 20 minutes is considered either a maxi single or a regular single (with no mention of EPs for anything over). As per the U.S. Recording Academy, anything under 15 minutes and 4 different songs or less is considered a single (with no mention of EPs for anything over). The RIAA has a cut-off of 30 minutes to classify as an EP though, so, I understand that if you were to use RIAA as a reference. Also, please don't point to other artists' articles as a reference point. Every artist is different, and I'm sure that by the end of the year, you'll be seeing more studio EPs lumped together with the LPs, as these arguments are still in its infancy stages.
If they were to be included, I have no opinion towards adding (EP) to the end of each release, or not. I don't think that matters either way.Xanarki (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the addition of these EPs in particular. They seem relevant to the artist's work & catalog. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Xanarki 100%. Those three EPs should be there. StuOnThis (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of adding Broken, Not the Actual Events and Add Violence to the list mainly because NIN them self classify them as "main releases" on their website; https://www.nin.com/discography/ . OBLIVIUS (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
*Support: Honestly, only studio albums in the discography section should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. In the context of Nine Inch Nails' discography, including Broken and the trilogy EP's makes sense, per the previously mentioned reasons. The band clearly consider them as main releases (the only reason they decided to release Bad Witch as an album was Spotify's bias that favors the records over EPs, which are lumped in with singles.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't think anyone would care enough to reply. Thanks so much; however, I'd like to bring this to the attention of Robvanvee and Bowling Is Life as they are the 2 most recent people to revert the innocent edits, and I want to know their argument other than a simple "no EPs" Xanarki (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should include EPs. Most other band articles just have studio albums listed on their main page and EPs can be found on their discography page. I don't see why we should make an exception here. Whether the EPs are considered major releases or not, they are still EPs. Per: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines in the discography section it states, "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article." Bowling is life (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I respect that view. I mean, "if everyone else isn't doing it, why should we?" I think that view is simply because nobody has ignited the issue. You're still seeing (or, not seeing, rather) the infancy stages. But, it's very reasonable to attempt a standardized format throughout all of Wikipedia. I just believe, that unlike a Members sub-section of only listing the current members, this very small Discography portion cannot be standardized. Every artist is different and must be treated on an article-to-article basis. If you try to do the "no EPs allowed...period...no exception" thing, then that's going against Wikipedia's 5th pillar of "sometimes improving requires making exceptions." I don't think your opinion will change after reading this, especially if it didn't after my 6 page novel above lol, but at least acknowledge that the positives outweigh the negatives, in regards to adding in the EPs...especially if all you're bringing to the dinner table is a vague quote from the guidelines ("mostly, usually, probably, generally").Xanarki (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, when I reverted those edits I was merely following general MOS protocol and was unaware of a consensus reached in 2018 regarding this issue (though I was watching the article at the time). May I suggest then that a hidden note be added to the discography section indicating that a consensus was reached on the talk page and that certain EP's warrant inclusion. As to whether I think they should be included, personally I'd go without but don't feel strongly enough about it to justify debating the issue. Perhaps this should also be discussed here as it applies to all music artist articles if we are to go on a case by case basis? Robvanvee 11:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there are other bands that have EPs in their discography section despite having a separate discography page for this very reason; they are considered main releases, have charted, and contain charting singles. Incubus is a good example. This is on top of the fact that there is a really fuzzy distinction between EPs and LPs sometimes (Bad Witch was only called an LP for marketing purposes). I really don't see the issue here besides two people gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping (no offense). StuOnThis (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Why bother saying no offense if it was your intention? I said I didn't really care either way, at least not enough to take it further so please explain how that is gatekeeping? If the consensus is to add them I suggested a hidden note and bringing it up at WikiProject Musicians as this guideline says to generally exclude, hence the reason for my reverting and not gatekeeping as you so offensively imply. Robvanvee 13:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Relax. I said no offense because I honestly didn't mean to offend anyone; it was just the best way I could figure at the moment to explain the situation from my (side's) perspective. I understand that there are guidelines you were adhering to, but they are not adamant rules. I do appreciate and support your suggestion about the hidden notes. StuOnThis (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
RobVanVee I actually brought up this issue on 2 talk pages, for WikiProject Musicians/Article Guidelines, and then on WikiProject Music. I only got 1 response over the past month. I guess the communities aren't too engaging anymore, I dunno. StuOnThis I was a bit surprised when you brought up Incubus. I went over to their page, and sure enough, they have EPs listed, as a separate section. I think their page is a bit flawed, though. The first EP I could understand listing, it's their major-label debut, with new studio tracks (DJ Lyfe hell yeah). That 2nd EP was just a promotional tool, filled with live tracks, and shouldn't be there. The 3rd EP is just 4 tracks under 20 minutes, which could be classified as a maxi-single instead, and shouldn't be listed. The 4th EP is non-existent, dunno why it's listed. Maybe I'll attack that page at some point, but it's been left alone for so long already...
Guns N' Roses is the best example of an EP listed within studio albums. Another example is The Beatles, which is a great example of the "article-by-article" basis. One of the most popular bands in history. In their section, they have Magical Mystery Tour listed as a main release. When originally released in the UK, it was an EP. When released again, it was a compilation (because they added previously released songs so that the U.S. could classify it as a "full" album). N.W.A is another example, as along with their 2 studio albums, they also have their equally important EP listed (along with a bunch of compilations, which I don't agree with, but given the group was only active for 4 years, maybe it makes sense). And yet, this issue has not hit other articles yet, but in time I'm sure it will. For example; Marilyn Manson should have their mainstream breakthrough Smells Like Children included; Limp Bizkit should have their mid-2000s EP The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) included, which represented a period of hiatus for them; Twiztid should have their 2002 EP Mirror Mirror included because it was marketed (and sold) just like a studio album. Etc etc etc.Xanarki (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so admittedly Incubus wasn't the best example, but everything you've brought to the table makes perfect sense. There are a plethora of instances where an artist's EPs can and should be considered just as important a release as their LPs. That is definitely the case with NIN. StuOnThis (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a week till I edit anything (gotta do minor adjustments on the 3 other pages at the same moment), just in case someone else jumps in front of the train. Thanks for being civil btw Robvanvee. I know what it's like to try to keep up with the norms and general opinions. I've seen a lot change in 15+ years on Wiki, and tiny things like this will continue to make those changes.Xanarki (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Xanarki: you should so something to differentiate the EPs and LPs in the discography section. Right now, it looks as though they've released 14 studio albums, which isn't the case. So maybe add EP (extended play is linked elsewhere on the article, so no need to link here) to the 3 EPs, ala:
I feel like this is a distinction worth mentioning for the casual reader. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. It would look a bit odd, unless (LP) was added after the other ones. At that point, it raises the question if the parenthesis is needed at all, then. Since they're supposed to be treated equally. Also, the 3 EPs can be considered studio albums actually (depending on which source you use), but just not full-lengths, technically.
Personally, I don't have a preference. From my experience, I didn't get into NIN until Broken came out. Maybe a newcomer would rather start there. Then again, that was 2+ decades ago, so. lol Xanarki (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've edited the section in such a way that I think could be a usable compromise. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: it looks too weird, personally I think it'd look better to just have them lumped with the other albums, and EP added afterwards, if you really wanted to distinguish them. Having them under the "studio albums" title isn't such a bad thing, as the 3 EPs can be considered studio albums; but, if it said "full-length albums" or "LPs" then yeah, we'd have a problem there. Xanarki (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
As a suggestion, what about Studio albums and notable EP's with the existing hidden note? Robvanvee 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean...a studio album can be an EP, depending on the source you use. U.S. Recording Academy and UK Chart Committee both lump EPs in the same category as full-lengths, thus "studio albums" (anything less than/shorter than 5 songs/20 mins, they classify it as a single or maxi-single, they don't acknowledge the term "EP"). The RIAA does though. So, it's all a matter of what association you point to. That's why I don't have a problem leaving it as "Studio Albums" and then having everything listed, with possibly, "(EP)" added after the 3. Or, better yet, don't have a heading at all. Look at The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. They just have "Discography", a link to the Discography article, and then the releases. (edit: I just realized that Coda is added to Zep's major releases, and that's a compilation of live tracks and b-sides...oh man...)
I actually kind of like that last idea. If compelled, "(EP)" could then be added after the 3. And maybe, possibly, "(LP)" added after the others (idk if that's overkill tho, to add the LP) Xanarki (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is what you see when you open each article. Each EP opens with "...is the (number) extended play (EP) by..." and the studio album articles open with "...is the (number) studio album by...". So When you say it's all a matter of what association you point to, in this case it is Wikipedia and the manual of style employed on other NIN articles that do acknowledge the term "EP". There seems to be a contradiction in a sense then between what is considered a studio album/EP here and what we are projecting on album articles if that makes any sense. Robvanvee 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeh you're right. But that's why I personally added to the 3 EP articles "...and is the (number) major release by..." to avoid that very same confusion, at the same time I edited the main NIN page. Xanarki (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Just thought I'd mention that. As I said previously I don't really mind if that is what the majority agree on but decided to comment again as I didn't really like the way it looks now. Better all under one header with (LP/EP) at the end then I guess. Robvanvee 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't either. I revised it again btw @Homeostasis07: , I think this is the best route to go. If someone else thinks (LP) should be added after the others, then that's fine too. But maybe this will suffice. Xanarki (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the 'Studio albums' sub-section, and am happy with how 'Discography' looks now. My main concern was that the EPs were being conflated with the albums, which I didn't think was a good idea. I'm not too concerned about what the U.S. Recording Academy and UK Chart Committee consider LPs or singles, I'm more concerned about how the band decided to promote each release (Bad Witch being promoted as an LP when it's clearly just the third EP in a series). I understand the constant complaints of Broken not being included, but this then leads to the inevitable questions of whether the likes of Not the Actual Events or Add Violence are on the same wave-length as Downward Spiral or The Fragile. It's all just a big quagmire. But I guess I'm happy with how it is now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The way the discography section looks right now is perfect. Great job, everyone. StuOnThis (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I was told to take this to the talk page a long time ago and kind of forgot, but I think Guns N' Roses should be added to associated acts. Josh Freese, Robin Finck & Chris Vrenna were all in Guns N' Roses and Nine Inch nails, and "a band that shares two or more members" is usually a reason to include an artist, and most of the groups listed besides the Trent/Atticus groups only share common members with NIN and don't have many other connections. If not, then that entire list needs to be cleaned up.RF23 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I glanced at the current list. Every band on there has more to it than just "sharing members." Exotic Birds is where Trent got his first (minor) exposure, and also included early NIN members Vrenna and Rushe. HTDA is obvious, as that's a sideproject involving Trent, Atticus, and 2 other important NIN camp members that served as a hiatus project of sorts. Manson, along with sharing members, was close to NIN in regards to touring, sharing space on the same labels, appearing in each other's albums and videos, etc. Pop culture wise, NIN and Manson go hand-in-hand. Tapeworm is another hiatus project, and also shared many members. A lot of personal connections and music ideas impacted NIN as a whole. Pigface, along with sharing members of course, is interesting because that's the last major band Trent was an official member of, and also the story around "Suck" of course. APC, along with sharing members, also has 2 songs (I think) credited to Tapeworm, and so that comes full circle. Gary Numan is an interesting inclusion, not sure why he is there but David Bowie is not? Maybe someone can elaborate more.
My point is, though, all of these bands (along with sharing members), also has a 2nd significant factor to Nine Inch Nails. Guns N' Roses, with the exception of a very short/negatively received 1991 tour with NIN, does not have that 2nd factor.
David Bowie should be on there (toured with NIN in a historically important tour/Trent appeared on a hit Bowie single/NIN covered Bowie after his death). Prick should be on there (former 3-date NIN member Kevin McMahon's solo project/McMahon was also a founder of an '80s band Trent was in/Prick was on Nothing/Prick toured with NIN). Filter should be on there (former NIN member Richard Patrick's solo project/also founded by former NIN engineer Brian Liesegang/both bands wrote songs about each other). Xanarki (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think simply guest touring or collaborating should make anyone a "band member." It would need to be someone who actually contributed to studio albums, or were a dedicated tour performer. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Xanarki, especially regarding Filter. StuOnThis (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails live performances

Hi. This article was breifly on the main page as today's Featured Article, but was quickly pulled due to sourcing issues. As well as lots of unsourced content, there is concern about some of the sources, detailed here. Any help in turning this from Broken to Fixed (ho ho) will be very welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I highly disagree with the article getting pulled. It was actually posted for roughly 10 hours before it got pulled in an "emergency". I'm not too familiar with the processes or the assigned editors in charge, but, I think it was the wrong thing to do. Although the article does need to get revised a bit, I think the coordinators should have flagged and removed it prior to the posting...especially because articles are scheduled weeks in advance. But yet, they waited until the last minute (after, actually...) to pull it. Although they shouldn't have to look at each article with a magnifying glass, they could at the very least skim the articles, or pay attention to see if there's a template at the top. Isn't that what a coordinator is supposed to do?
Plus, apparently, another "emergency pull" happened earlier this week. And the archive hasn't been altered yet, as NIN is still listed. Judging by their recent discussions and these disoriented examples, I can't be bothered taking it to their talk page as it'll probably fall on deaf ears. And it's already too late.
tl;dr = the article shouldn't have been taken down just because it was imperfect. Wikipedia itself is not perfect and there are many flaws. If the article was left up, it would've been a great example of how others can improve the website and would show the humility of Wikipedia, actually. (@Lugnuts: sorry for my rant, I know you had no hand in it, I just wanted to let off some steam) Xanarki (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
No worries! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thumb Accident

sry guys i accidentally replaced the words nails with thumbs in a few of the first paragraphs. i am gravely sorry. --thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butts nifer11 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Already reverted by another user. I really shouldn't admit this, but I lol'd... at the edits in conjunction with the bold-faced admission. It really was quite spectacular. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


What is HALO?

Early NIN albums were numbered with the prefix "HALO." What is that? Can somebody write something up to explain what it stands for if it's an acronym, or if it's not an acronym what it means? Also, why this system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.204.8 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all NIN releases have a HALO number; it's merely a cataloguing number (Trent Reznor similarly assigns a "Sigil number" to HTDA releases and "NULL" number to his soundtrack releases). He has stated that he was influenced by Depeche Mode's numbering system for their releases to do so. I'm not sure whether we can directly use Reddit AMAs or not but I'll try to integrate this to the prose for clarity; thanks for pointing it out. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

EPs in Discography

Based on the widespread agreement here, it was decided to add the 3 EPs to the Discography list, alongside the full-length albums. If you require more information and really want to read all of our paragraphs, please do so on page 5 of the archives. Thank you to everyone for chiming in and making sure that history is accurately portrayed. (note: this tidbit is being placed here based on the archiving guidelines of "there may be circumstances where it would be useful to keep older discussions present on a talk page, to avoid the same issues being repeatedly raised" since there is no FAQ for the NIN page) Xanarki (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Key former members

Just wondering what everyone's opinion is on adding a 'key former members' subsection to the 'Members' portion? If you look at articles of bands that have had a large number of members such as KMFDM, Motorhead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Deep Purple, etc. you'll notice that former members are listed in the main article; however, only members that were significant to the history of the band are listed.

I think that maybe we can do the same here for Nine Inch Nails. It doesn't take up too much space. As an example, here is who I would personally list (mainly because all of these individuals were in the band for 3+ years):

  • Chris Vrenna – drums, keyboards (1988–1990, 1992–1997)
  • Richard Patrick – guitars, backing vocals (1989–1993)
  • James Woolley – keyboards, synthesizers, programming, backing vocals (1991–1994)
  • Danny Lohner – bass, guitars, synthesizers, backing vocals (1993–2003)
  • Charlie Clouser – keyboards, synthesizers, theremin, percussion, programming (1994–2001)
  • Jerome Dillon – drums, guitars (1999–2005)
  • Josh Freese – drums (2005, 2005–2008)

Of course, there's many articles of bands that don't list their former members, but since I've seen both instances, I figured why not. Thoughts? Xanarki (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of band pages that do this, and considering all those musicians are noteworthy, I wholeheartedly vote yes. StuOnThis (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey @StuOnThis, thanks for the input, I appreciate it. I don't wanna edit the page until someone else says their piece, but a lot of discussions have been going unanswered so I'll wait a few weeks I suppose. Xanarki (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
That's noble of you, Xanarki, since I sincerely doubt anyone will disagree with this addition provided you make it look nice (and you will). Given the plethora of other major band pages that can be referred to, this is something that could/should have been on the page for years already. I'd bet that if you went ahead and made the edit right now, no one would question or mess with it. StuOnThis (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks man, I think it's more paranoia than nobility at this point haha. I've tossed it in, and it looks good. The only other person I would want to add is Jeff Ward due to him being a part of NIN's mainstream breakthrough lineup + his influence on Broken + how his death affected the band...but he was only a member for about 10 months, unlike everyone else listed whom all lasted 3+ years. So I'll keep him off. Don't want it super crowded anyway.Xanarki (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Band Name and Ministry

People get sensitive about bands they hold dear, and NIN has quite the following, so I won’t add this, but I’ve always heard (and read) that the name of the band is Reznor taking it from a quote by Al Jourgenson. It goes “Listening to Ministry is like having a nine inch nail hammered into your head like a hole.”

The story is that Reznor got hold of some video in 1987 with that on it and liked the description. It seems common enough to merit a mention and there are sources, though how authoritative I can’t say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Ministry connection is a widespread rumor. They vary in details too. One says Trent saw a music video. Another says Trent was literally at a Ministry show and described it. Yet another one says that Trent was at a Ministry show, but Al had introduced his next song while using "nails" in his phrase.
There's also rumors that Trent saw an advertisement from Wax Trax that contained "nine nails into" in its wording. And yet another rumor that Ron Musarra (NIN's first drummer) and Trent were referring to their 80s new wave bands that they were members of. And finally, another rumor that Trent was making a biblical reference.
Since none of these have been confirmed by Trent himself, they can't be proven. But, in an interview, he did admit that the name was "easy to abbreviate and it stuck after two weeks". After Gary Talpas (NIN's second keyboardist and also art director) created the logo, it just clicked. Xanarki (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails ARE

This is not an American/British English issue. For those who aren't sure, please read: American and British English grammatical differences#:~:text=Proper nouns that are plural,used with a singular verb.

For bands with a name in the singular form, in British English they take a plural verb (Black Sabbath were) but in American English they take a singular verb (Nirvana was)

However for bands with a name in the plural form - and in this case Nine Inch Nails, a plural verb is used in both American and British English.

"Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Diamondbacks are the champions, with one major exception: in American English, the United States is almost universally used with a singular verb."

With the addition of Atticus Ross as an official member of NIN, there's no suggestion that NIN is merely the stage name of Trent Reznor.

I see no argument for using a singular verb. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"there's no suggestion that NIN is merely the stage name of Trent Reznor."
There's your argument right there. Nine Inch Nails is a singular noun. The plurality in the proper name doesn't change the fact that it's one band. Saying NIN are sounds so weird that you even unconsciously typed is yourself. StuOnThis (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
In the article history, there are two times when groups of veteran editors examined the page to see whether it fit proper style. The Featured Article process is exhaustive, and both times that it passed the examination, the lead sentence said "is".
Common usage shows that a wide swath of the media write the band name as a singular entity:
Let's not reinvent the wheel here. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Although I'm a big proponent for radical-yet-sensible changes (such as the Discography and Members section here on NIN), the "is" and "are" debate isn't something worth changing. StuOnThis and Binksternet summed it up pretty good. Extra points for noticing the instinctive "no suggestion that NIN is merely the stage name" line. Xanarki (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no preference here and see no need to change anything.
But: you guys are wrong to think the sentence "there's no suggestion that NIN is merely the stage name of Trent Reznor" reveals an unconscious preference for singular/plural. The statement "NIN is a name" refers to "Nine Inch Nails" the name, singular. It does not refer to Nine Inch Nails as the entity.
To take a simpler example, in British English, one would write "U2 are a band", not "U2 is a band". But in British English one would still write "U2 is the name of a band", not "U2 are the name of a band". Popcornfud (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A very valid point indeed. But given the situation that OP started, StuOnThis simply noted the slight irony. I can't imagine OP wanting to die on this hill anyway, but I have seen stranger arguments. Like that one guy who wrote an essay on why EPs are important. Ehm. Xanarki (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nine_Inch_Nails/Archive_5&oldid=1143833901"