Talk:Echoplex (song)

Single?

I've yet to see Trent Reznor or the so-called NIN PR make any mention of "Echoplex" being a single. Maybe we shouldn't identify it as one? Spira12 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• No we shouldn't Jgrizzy89 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe it's not a single, but it deserves its own article based on it being released before the actual album and it being released through iLike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.137.70 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Unless the song turns out to be a bonafide single, I think it should be merged with the slip. Just because it was released slightly differently doesn't mean it needs a separate article. "Me I'm Not" and "My Violent Heart" were released in a unique fashion (USB drives), but they don't have their own pages. Nor should this one,at least until any further developments. Drewcifer (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The criteria for warranting an article on Wikipedia also includes whether or not the subject has been considered significant by journalistic sources. There have been a number of articles in the media written about the release of "Echoplex," primarily because of the method of its release. That makes a reasonably sound case for not merging this article, especially since it wasn't even known with any certainty at the time of the song's release that it was going to be part of any album. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that it's not a single (and in no way does the article identify it as a single), but it was released with its own album art, so to me it has more importance than other songs such as "Me I'm Not" and "My Violent Heart" etc. Note that there are also other NIN songs released as promos witht heir own pages (e.g. "Hurt", "Starfuckers Inc" etc), although these have been released to radio and a few of them have their own videos, which "Echoplex" doesn't. I'm indifferent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.253.91 (talk • contribs)
• I think this is a song-only. The 'cover-art' is specific, yes, but all other tracks on "The Slip" have custom cover art. I don't think it's a single, but I don't support merging it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• merge, I think people saw the artwork and, perhaps justifiably, thought it was going to be a single. Now that we see it was only a teaser leak it ought to be placed in either the slip album article or in the discipline article. Naufana^² : talk 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I remade it into a song, removed it from the singles discography and the NIN infobox.I did it under these following justifications:

It was never promoted as a single.

It never charted.

Every track from "The Slip" has its own cover art.

Many people support this decision.

--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I cast my vote in for merging this with The Slip (album). There simply isn't enough to warrant a seperate article. On the subject of press coverage: every news article that mentions Echoplex and the nature of its release ALSO mentions Discipline and its release and mentions the impending "May 5th" mystery. I haven't seen a single major press article anywhere that was limited solely to covering Echoplex itself. -Jmcbns (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do either of these qualify?

http://strangeglue.com/news/nine-inch-nails-release-free-single/1828 http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/NIN-Moves-Forward-with-Free-Music-Model-94135 http://torrentfreak.com/nine-inch-nails-give-away-new-single-on-facebook-080504/ http://mashable.com/2008/05/04/nine-inch-nails-keeps-on-giving-offers-new-single-for-free/ Those last two do mention May 5, but not "Discipline." But in what way should that disqualify the song from deserving an article? Honestly, it seems to me the fact that the song is also mentioned specifically in a plethora of articles about the new album strengthens rather than undermines its significance. But that's just me. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I think both articles could be merged into the slip article. Bmc152006 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think what threw a lot of people off was the fact that this song has custom "Cover Art." General, people associate cover art with singles. This is, however, not the case. ALL of the songs on the album have 'cover art' specific to their design. Besides, "Echoplex" has been released as a promo nor has it charted. If a promo was released, it did chart, or nin.com mentioned it as a new single, then it should count, but not until then.--Gen. Quon (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• support merge A few people in this discussion seem to be gripping tightly to the notability criteria. However, I fail to see what potential this has to expand. Yes, lots of sources have mentioned its release. But without something like official production notes, or a critique of the track from a notable source, this article will never be anything beyond a couple sentences. So why would it be such a crime for those scant few sentences to be located within the album's article? Anyone searching on this song will be redirected to the same information. What is the importance of having it's own article? Is there some unspoken contest for band article counts that I haven't heard of? The information in lovely, but it doesn't need to be sectioned off so I have to follow a link away from the main album just to read a couple sentences that would fit neatly in the existing space. If the content grows, we can unmerge it later. -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though I tossed out those articles above in support of the idea that the song is notable enough to at least potentially warrant an article, the fact that it would never amount to much more than a stub is a perfectly valid counterargument. If you wanna go ahead and merge, you won't see any complaints from me. 74.74.65.213 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• support merge This is akin to the pre-release of album tracks to build up hype, just like on Year Zero... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge it with the album article! There is no proof as of yet it is a single, so unless it begins to chart, remove the page. It was a promotional download in my opinion. Nineinchsin (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• support merge Its probably been said before, but if we want to put anything about the publicity, it should go with the album. The whole thing generated quite a bit of publicity, it being free and all. Fluke (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think of merging it, but not with The Slip. Why not merge it with Discipline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.245.72 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Its a song from the album slip and it's not part of the single Discipline, so why merge to an article about a single? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the two singles were released in the same week... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.245.72 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should wait and see how the article develops over the next couple weeks, and if there is more content added, such as a reference or two we should keep it, if not, then we merge the two —Preceding unsigned comment added by BHynes10 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• I say nay. The song was released before the album and at a time when no album was announced, so it's obviously more important than the other songs, of course not including "Discipline". "Echoplex" deserves an article. Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying "it's obviously more important" than other songs is a bit of original research don't you think?.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Fails WP:MUSIC. Rehevkor (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into The Slip article, per Gen. Quon and others. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)