This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndustrialWikipedia:WikiProject IndustrialTemplate:WikiProject IndustrialIndustrial music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nine Inch Nails, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Nine Inch NailsWikipedia:WikiProject Nine Inch NailsTemplate:WikiProject Nine Inch NailsNine Inch Nails articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Why is this release considered to be a full-length album, given that it's not even 3 minutes longer than the previous "Add Violence" EP (and has just one more track)?
(Interestingly enough, if one took all of "Not the Actual Events", "Add Violence" and "Bad Witch" together as a whole, it would result in 16 tracks of 78:35 total length, which could more plausibly pass off as an actual full-length album, albeit one produced and released piece-by-piece rather than in one go.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.143.142 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite short, but Reznor and NIN management have gone out of their way to describe it as a full length, rather than an extended play. Note albums like Weezer's Green Album, which is a full-length but clocks at about 28 minutes. Rhe dm i(talk) 10:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the content with speculations on the reasons why the band considers Bad Witch an official album instead of an EP. Album length is only one of the factors and ultimately it's the band prerogative on what it is, what they want it to be, or what they want to call it. Given that it seems to be a shift in musical direction, it's understandable they may want to distinguish it from the EPs. Regardless, per WP:OR, these discussions belong to forums/social networks/etc, not an encyclopedia. –w2bhtalk•contribs 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, per my edit summary - seems the "fan" was actually Reznor. –w2bhtalk•contribs 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were right the first time, w2bh. Echoing the Sound is hardly WP:RS. I left it there because it's a user who seems to be Trent. Although, the more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to believe his personal opinion should really be included. As you say, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter what the venue is as long as it's Trent talking? You can cite Facebook and Twitter on Wikipedia if it's from a relevant source. Besides, Trent's personal opinion is very relevant, especially to this controversial album length topic. And is it really opinion? Those are the factual reasons why he decided on calling it an album. Here's a link: WP:SOCIALMEDIACelestialWeevil (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because NIN forums have a dodgy history of people pretending to be band members, or band members having their genuine accounts hacked—like how Meathead hacked Jerome Dillon's account after he was fired from the band. Most of WP:SOCIALMEDIA was clearly designed to relate to an artist's confirmed Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account (or official accounts run by their labels). I think the new Consequence of Sound source you added to the article is sufficient; I'd remove the Echoing the Sound fansite altogether. You're just asking for problems later on, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I didn't know that track record; thanks for the info. You can remove the EtS reference if you want. I'm not invested in the article enough to change much more. CelestialWeevil (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone. A lot of stuff has been cut from this article that was cited. This material was cut seemingly on it being not encyclopedic. I don't care enough about Bad Witch to readd everything with rule citations to show why it's fine, but I think something should be said. It's not unencyclopedic to call a song something if multiple critics called it that thing. It may be opinion, but it's the opinion of credible, reliable people, and that makes it noteworthy. It seems like there's some bizarre fear of outright statements here, even when they're thoroughly cited, and even when in one of the cited interviews Trent himself said he was influenced by Bowie on the album. CelestialWeevil(talk) 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has a template suggesting that the style of the article be improved to better fit an encyclopedic tone. I've just done a couple of edits to the article to help improve the tone. Do you think it's sufficient to remove the tags now? Conspiracy risk (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
