Talk:Year Zero (album)

Halo 23 will be the single, so the album is Halo 24 Year 0 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

not counting broken...

"Year Zero will also be the first Nine Inch Nails album to be released less than five or six years after its predecessor."

i know that broken was technically an EP, but it came out 3 years after PHM. the line should be changed from "first NIN album" to "first NIN full length/LP". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.43.221.247 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

"Traditionally, an album ranged in duration from half an hour to an hour, with the average under 45 minutes." (taken from the wikipedia article on albums) broken clocks in @ just a little over 31 minutes, so it qualifies as an album, meaning that "Year Zero" would be the second NIN album to be released less than five years after its predecessor, making it not really noteworthy at all.65.43.221.247 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should leave it as "Year Zero will also be the first Nine Inch Nails studio album to be released less than five or six years after its predecessor." since Broken is just an EP. Minor Threat's first release is also an EP that had more than five songs, but does that mean it's a full-length album as well? Alex 02:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Less than 5 or 6 means less than 5. Furthermore, The Downward Spiral was released 4 years, 4 months and some days after Pretty Hate Machine. The Fragile was released 5.5 years after TDS. With Teeth was released 5 years 7 months after The Fragile, not 6 years. Pomte 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken is an EP. It is classified as much by the record label releasing it, and all press surrounding it. If you don't think it's an album, that's great. I don't believe in the existence of toenails, but since the rest of the world does, I'm not going to go edit the wiki entry on toenails. Leviathant 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

An EP is simply an EP. Just because they have more than four or five tracks sometimes, like Broken, doesn't mean it's an actual full-length album. Like... Bad Religion's 1981 first EP also had over five tracks just like Broken, but does that mean it should have been an official full-length studio release as well? I don't think so. Alex 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the ambiguous nature of the bonus tracks, the RIAA technically classifies Broken as a mini-album. It's definitely not a full-length. BotleySmith 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

why does everyone keep wanting to change the personnel of this album? Fraggle (Shane Fenton) is a collaborator for this album

We're going to need a reference for that. Who exactly are your "sources". I'm removing the note about Fraggle until a reference is provided. --Insomniak 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survivalism in the track listing

Just a note that we probably shouldn't keep adding "(possibly "Survivalism")" behing tracks 1 & 2, due to the unconfirmable and speculative nature of doing so. Besides, we'll know the correct track listing sooner or later anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Blabbermouth says it's "expected" to be track 3, but they don't know any more than we do. BotleySmith 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We'll know soon enough anyway, and I'd rather know for sure than have unneeded speculation. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

it was added to the tracklisting (on the mini-site) today. it's traqck 3. i was going to add it, but someone beat me to it.69.215.98.132 14:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the references

Considering that this reference came out of a forum transcription, is it a reliable one that we should use? I'm thinking not. We should probably directly cite whichever issue of Kerrang! it is, if anyone is able to find out. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it was posted Jan 3 and it seems Kerrang! comes out Saturdays, it was probably the Jan 6 issue or the week before. It should be safe to assume Jan 6 since the cover has Trent on it. Pomte 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help :). However, I don't think that we have enough information about the exact issue of Kerrang that we're citing to use a magazine reference. By Monday, I'll probably be able to go to my library and see if they have some older Kerrang magazines, but no guarantees. If you or anyone else can find the exact issue, I'd be very happy :). Until then, I did find this, which is more reliable than a forum any day. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing

so does it have 16 tracks or 17? on the mini-site it looks like 16, though theres a bunch of boxes jumbled up around it and i can't see a 17 number. Nineinchsin 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it'll be 16 tracks, but if any others are absolutely confirmed we'll add them. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My bet is on 16. Pomte 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just that on the article wikipedia lists 17 tracks and on the site i only see 16. 71.30.136.223 23:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. User:Pearljames had perceived the blocks at the bottom to be the last item, and added it in. I have removed it since it is too speculative. Pomte 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Halo Number

There's absolutely no information on the halo category numbers of Survivalism or Year Zero. I move that this information be removed until the halo numbers can be confirmed. It is true that the single usually precedes the album and that each release to have a halo number, but the positioning of the album and the single are speculative, as is the positioning of the single in the tracklist.75.120.102.134 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, because Survivalism is released on April 9 and Year Zero is released April 17, Survivalism will (obviously) be released sooner and will be Halo 23. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Album Art

I liked that bit of information about the album art probably being released on this page. I think it should stay. Nickoladze 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. When it happens, go ahead and post it. Until then, leave it off. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with King Bee. It was weak speculation at best.-Mfaith1 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Version of the Truth

Should there be a small part mentioning this website? I'm not sure if it's official or not. (Hint: Hold down your left mouse button and drag your cursor over the image, like you're painting.) Nickoladze 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also http://www.iamtryingtobelieve.com/ for a viral marketing section. Pomte 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the following are also part of the above: http://bethehammer.net/ http://105thairbornecrusaders.com/ http://churchofplano.com/ http://www.consolidatedmailsystems.com/nooneimportant/ --Eccentriccx 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone see anything that ties all these websites together? And where are you finding these links? Nickoladze 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the one I linked to, go to The NIN Hotline and look at the highlighted text in the latest t-shirt picture. Pomte 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah I saw that picture, but didn't catch that hidden message. I heard there was one, but didn't find it right away. Anyways, I added a small section to the main page but I'm pretty much a wiki n00b, so someone might need to expand/edit it. Nickoladze 04:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a forum thread with a lot of information, added it and whatnot. Nickoladze 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Should hyperpower.org be included in the list of sites? It doesn't share the common distortion as the other pages, and the e-mail address listed cannot be contacted. I doubt this is a relevant website. Anonymous