Talk:Year Zero Remixed

Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D stylized title
As per Wikipedia's naming conventions for Album titles and band names, should this article be named "Year Zero Remixed", or "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D"? 22:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pre-emptively opening this discussion on the title. Wikipedia has a Naming convention policy. Because it's a policy (and not a guideline), that means it MUST be followed, not should be followed. The policy states: "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art." Therefore, I think it's clear that the article title and album should be referred to on Wikipedia as Year Zero Remixed rather than the stylized Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D. --  Tabanger   00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the album is referred to as Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D in places other than the album art and logos.   It's referred to exclusively by that moniker at the official Nine Inch Nails website, for one.  That may simply be the legitimate title of the album, rather than a stylistic affect. unless 02:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * True. Even Trent Reznor calls it like that on nin.com.Litis 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazon is listing it with the stylized title, which is enough for me. I would move it myself, but I just don't know how.  Anybody? unless 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Figured it out. unless 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the move, because Naming conventions state "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." -- Reaper  X  07:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please at least read the above discussion before moving this page again. This is not a case of "stylized typography in logos and album art".  This is the album's actual title.  See: nin.com, amazon.com, billboard.com.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unless you (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, but I'll ask for more input before this erupts into an edit war. -- Reaper  X  21:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reaper X asked for my opinion. At first glance this seems like the kind of stylized typography that WP:NC is targeting. Ask yourself how the album name is referred to in speech. At the very least the capitalization should be changed. --PEJL 22:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While "stylized typography" is not technically involved here, I think it's clear that this is the sort of conceptual title that no sane human being would ever to try to articulate in normal speech and should thus receive the same treatment as typographically stylized titles given the spirit of that rule. Support the move to Year Zero Remixed.—DCGeist 01:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Reaper X) → All Music Guide was inconclusive, but the Billboard.com article cited in the article says the title is in fact Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D. Technically there's nothing stylized about it (like the backward "R" in Korn), so for now that does seem like the official title. WesleyDodds 22:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was also asked by Reaper X to comment. My thoughts on this hinge on two factors: one, I have to agree with the argument as to how it's supposed to be said in speech - it would seem to be identical to the "normal" title. While that's not technically typography (it is an orthography issue), it is the reason why the article is Korn. I would note that our article on this form of writing is called Leet, not 1337 or such variants. On the other hand, there is an artistic argument for maintaining the original form, and this can be seen reflected in Numb3rs and Se7en, which are leet use with artistic relevance to the theme and plot. The question then becomes whether or not these orthographies were created for marketing purposes or with specific invariable intent by the creators. For example, if this album had come up with a way to render into leet in a manner that made the numbers add up to 25 (the Halo number), I'd be more disposed towards the leet speak. As it is, it seems to me that, for the films at least, there seems to be an imported line of thought from the IMDb that the poster title is the the title, and all orthography must be preserved no matter what, which leads to films titled with periods, such as Snatch., Clerks., and Adaptation., even when it's dubious if anyone outside the poster artist had such intentions. I personally believe that even in these cases, the "normal" title should be used - and the poster we use in Se7en is actually this usage, yet the article is not.
 * Now having read through all of my comments, I'm going to have to disappoint everyone and say that it seems to me that the weakness in argument here should be laid wholly against the vagaries of Wikipedia guidelines and policies on the matter. While the MOS on trademarks points towards what may be an intent towards extension to all articles, it is explicitly for tradenames, not artistic works. Although these are often trademarked too... So in conclusion, I think the matter really needs to be referred to the MOS for a project-wide conclusion - which will also avoid us having to recapitulate these arguments again and again in individual article talk pages for each instance. Sorry if that's not an easy answer for anyone, but I do think that this is an area that needs more clarity beyond this article. Girolamo Savonarola 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, titles like Se7en are not simply written as such on the movie poster. It's the title as listed at the opening of the film, which is generally the standard by which IMDb operates (specifically, on-screen title at time of original release). Acknowledging the naming conventions, it seems that Wikipedia loses credibility and fails to convey fully the spirit of a creative work if titles like "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" are homogenized. This subverts the author's intent (and in this case, it's quite clear that Reznor intends that to be the actual title). While we're on naming conventions, I still find it bothersome that we don't have "nine inch nails" here. This despite the great consistency with which Reznor has personally referred to the group and its output without capital letters in his otherwise standard English writings over the years. (This new release being an important exception that just serves to underscore the fact that the name of the album is "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" rather than "Year Zero Remixed.") 74.74.65.213 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the band name, WP:MOS-TM does apply to that, per WP:MUSTARD. To follow up on my previous comment, if the numeric title stays, it should be capitalized as Y34rz3r0r3mix3d per the same guideline. Given the comments above about this not being stylized typography, my interpretation was that it is, because of the Korn example. My assumption was that since "Я" is a actually different character than "R", the "stylized typography" rule applied to all character replacements for stylistic purposes, such as "th1s". If that is not the case, this really needs to be clarified in the guideline. --PEJL 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that WP:MOS-TM does apply to the band name, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm simply concerned that authorial intent can be lost or at least impaired when these standards are imposed (and conveying authorial intent is no small matter for an article discussing a creative work). Taken on a more human level, suppose an author of any sort that employs unique naming conventions looks up the article about a piece of his or her own work only to find that the name of that piece has been standardized to meet a set of guidelines of which he or she may not even be aware. Does that not seem like a problem at any level? I do understand the general rationale for the guidelines as they exist currently. Yet it seems that if those standards undermine the intent of the author of the article's topic, then those guidelines prove inadequate and ought to be at least clarified if not revised substantially. 74.74.65.213 10:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The capitalization of band names in general is off-topic here. See WT:MUSTARD for a recent discussion about this topic. --PEJL 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for directing me to that. And I apologize for continuing the band name discussion. I wasn't trying to get too off-topic; it started out as a bit of an aside that was actually meant to bolster the case for the uniqueness of "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" as a NIN title. 74.74.65.213 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason the Wikipedia article is called "leet" not "1337" is that this is an English-language encyclopedia (en.wikipedia.org, not 1337.wikipedia.org). Same reason it's "Spanish language" and not "español." Possibly a more pertinent comparison would be "Oye Como Va." Wikipedia's article on that song is listed under the original Spanish title rather that "Hey How's it Going." (Or whatever the English translation would be. I don't actually speak Spanish. You get the idea. Just checked that article, evidently it actually means "Listen to How it Goes.") I think the best general rule for names of works of art and literature is to have the primary name for the article match the official name as presented to English-speaking audiences, as long as that name is spelled using the (more or less) standard English-language character set. (i.e. "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" not "Year Zero Remixed," "Oye Como Va" not "Listen to How it Goes," "Numb3rs" not "Numbers", but "Korn" rather than "KoЯn," "I Heart Huckabees" not "I ♥ Huckabees," "Hikaru no Go" rather than that title rendered in Japanese characters, etc.) Augustus Chip (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

the prime objective of wikipedia should be to provide correct and objective information, and that overrules any other guideline or policy. therefore, if the title of this album is Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D (i.e. if it's not just a stylised logo on the album art) than that is how it should be written, not Y34rz3r0r3m1x3d or year zero remixed. the question of whether such a non standard title is used for marketing reasons or not should be left to the reader to answer, if you change the name to year zero remixed on the assumption that Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D is just a marketing gimmick you loose the neutral point. the issue on how it is pronounced is irrelevant seeing that english spelling conventions are anything but phonetical. --L!nus 17:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we normalize the capitalization of album titles, per WP:NC. The policy and guidelines on Wikipedia are in fact not overruled by what L!nus thinks the objectives should be. --PEJL 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * they should be, otherwise the whole concept behind wikipedia is rendered pointless. unless off course you think form is more important than content. --L!nus 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've told you countless times, you are free to argue that the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia should be changed. Until they are, they apply. --PEJL 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * well, i suggest we reformat it into Y'hear sea row ream mixed. --L!nus 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a fringe case, but I would also argue in favor of Year Zero Remixed, per the spirit of the previously mentioned formatting guidelines, which obviously were not written with something like this in mind, but clearly favor standard English text formatting over stylized typography. I'd also like to bring Accessibility into consideration. What exactly is the current article title going to produce through a screen reader? Also, why is the current article inconsistent in the naming of the record and how come any explanation of the official title being in fact leetspeak got removed? Forgive my finger-wagging, but we really need to think of our readership beyond NIN fans, such as handicapped or not too online-culture-savvy people. - Cyrus XIII 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a NIN (not NIИ) fan, and I agree with Cyrus. Move it back to Year Zero Remixed. BotleySmith 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Cyrus brings up some excellent points. Readability for the people who are not NIN fans or "online-culture-savvy people" what the whole reason I wanted to open this up and debate it. The current title only looks like a mess of numbers and letters to them, and the first time to me the first time I saw it. Year Zero Remixed is simply sensible, and the leet version can be mentioned in the first line. That helps uphold WP:ACCESS, and it doesn't cut away from Reznor's artistic intent. -- Reaper  X  01:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * just include a reference to leet and explain what the title stands for and the problem of accessibility is solved. --L!nus 09:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's what I meant to imply. Cheers. -- Reaper  X  13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support under the spirit of NC, but say in the lead "Year Zero Remixed (also typeset as Y34RZER0R3MIX3D)" Will (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been four days without rebuttal, I will include the stylized title in the lead. -- Reaper  X  20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should point something out. Regardless of what Wikipedia's guidelines say, Wikipedia doesn't have the right to just change the names of things. If the name of the album is "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D", then that's the name of the album, and it is the name. Trent has written it out as "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D". AFAIK, he has never written it out as "Year Zero Remixed". It would be more appropriate to have the article introduction appear as "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D (pronounced as "Year Zero Remixed) is..." or something to that effect. Regarding capitalization issues elsewhere in Wikipedia, remember the big fuss over the iPod article? The same applies here. -- Christopher C. Parker t c 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't we have the right to normalize names? And if we don't, we should change the guideline, not ignore it. Note that "iPod" is in line with the guidelines (see WP:MOS-TM). --PEJL 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * you don't have the right to change something when it violates/misrepresents the intention of an artist. unless off course you claim to know it better then the creator.
 * i would also like to point out that there is clearly no consensus reached in this talk (my argument has been turned topsyturvy (deliberate or not i cannot say)). referring to it in favour of one form or the other (as you did in your latest revert) is just plain wrong. --L!nus 12:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your source for the claim that we don't have the right to normalize a title? WP:MOS-TM suggests we do have such a right. --PEJL 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Within the parameters of Wikipedia, this right may exist. But there are, in fact, ethical implications to such a decision. At the end of the day, it's declaring that any of us know a work of creative expression better than the artist responsible. It's an incredibly paternalistic point of view to be espousing. Art isn't created by consensus. The title of a work (or in some cases, the lack of a title) is an extremely significant component of a creative piece. What's in a name? A great deal. 72.201.233.78 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * well said. --L!nus (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Any discussions about debating or changing policy should be forwarded to Village pump (policy). -- Reaper  X  22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to change the name of the band to И1И31ИCHИ41L5 on this encyclopedia to reflect how it appears on the Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D cover (only joking). BotleySmith (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In media reviews and such, the album is being pretty much universally referred to as Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D. Just something else to keep in mind. 66.214.53.10 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be pretty much a dead issue at this point, but for what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned this article belongs in the Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D namespace, with Year Zero Remixed redirecting thereto. Ridiculously impractical to pronounce though it may be, Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D is clearly the official title of this record. Any Wikipedia naming convention that lacks the flexibility to treat Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D as the official title should be reconsidered. The article as it currently exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Year_Zero_Remixed&oldid=197100136) distorts the truth by creating the false impression that Year Zero Remixed is the official title. The argument for keeping the article in the Year Zero Remixed namespace strikes me as a case of obeying the letter of the law while violating its spirit; I seriously doubt that the authors of our naming conventions intended them to be applied at the expense of fidelity to the truth.

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To bring this issue from the dead, according to http://yearzero.nin.com/remix/, the headline reads, "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D, the Year Zero remix album." Nowhere has the album ever been referred to as flat out Year Zero Remixed, so, despite any Wikipedia rules, the title of the album is Y34Z3R0R3M1X3D and NOT Year Zero Remixed. I will be changing this, once again, officially from Trent Reznor, the album is Y34Z3R0R3M1X3D. It's even written like this on iTunes. Tribestros (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change. Please check the manual of style (WP:MOS, specifically Manual_of_Style_%28capital_letters%29) It states"follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" See also Nights into Dreams... and Toys R US. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note - I'm up to my three reverts here. Please don't put the stylized Y34Z3R0R3M1X3D back into the article, until this is further discussed. Consensus was reached prior. Though, I understand your concern, which is why the line "stylized in leetspeak as Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" appears in the lead. quick edit also see NC AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, I favour moving the article to the Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D namespace. I think what we have here is a disagreement regarding whether or not "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D" is a stylised typographical rendering of "Year Zero Remixed." As I've stated earlier, I don't consider it stylised typography; since it's rendered entirely from standard capital letters and numerals, I think preserving it as presented is the best option. Perhaps we can at least agree to change the beginning of the lead sentence of the article from "Year Zero Remixed (stylized in leetspeak as Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D..." to "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D (a leetspeak stylization of Year Zero Remixed..." in order to have the official title be the subject of the article's first sentence.


 * Incidentally, it occurs to me that, assuming Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D is stylised typography, it would actually be a rendering of "Yearzeroremixed" rather than "Year Zero Remixed," as there are no spaces within the text. If dubnobasswithmyheadman is any indication, it appears there is precedent for presenting album titles in which all the words run together as-is in the article title; if we aren't going to move this article to Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D, (I'm not conceding that point, by the way, just speaking hypothetically) it should be moved to Yearzeroremixed instead.


 * What's everybody else think?
 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents: it seems like there's ample examples in either direction as to whether non-standard titles are used as the article's name. One could point to Toys "R" Us, Seven (film), When the Pawn, Leet, etc to prove their point one way, then Numb3rs, Sunn O))), or Adaptation. to go the other way.  We can trade examples all day long and get basically nowhere: so this line of reasoning seems unhelpful to the discussion at hand.  Furthermore, I'm sure all of those articles have had similar discussions on their talk page.  After all, not every article conforms to Wikipedia policy: that's the risk we run making a user-generated encyclopedia, sometimes stuff isn't done the right way, even when policy is created to guide contributions.  So, instead of citing a million examples ad naseum, the only thing we can really look at and try to adhere to is Wikipedia policy.  Specifically, WP:MOS, Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), NC, or Naming conventions, all of which have already been cited.  If you disagree with this policy, that's one thing, but that's an issue beyond the scope of this one article.  Like anything else on Wikipedia, policy isn't set in stone, so you're free to bring up concerns with policy on it's talk page, but doing it here isolates the discussion from any community-based consensus.  It seems clear to me that those policies mentioned above have been created specifically for cases such as this one, so it seems silly to try and find a reason why this one article should be an exception to it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just added redirects from Year zero remixed to Year Zero Remixed and from Y34rz3r0r3m1x3d to Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D, for practical reasons. I am not big on policy stuff and I see there are good reasons for many different ways to spell the page name (as in what URL it has), but since we do have the nifty redirect function here at Wikipedia it doesn't matter that much. (But my first article on Wikipedia was Filmjölk, with a redirect from Filmjolk.) But User:Cyrus XIII very well pointed out the technical reasons such as screen readers for the blind etc, so it is a tricky choice.

Anyway, no matter what URL this page has I think the article text itself should state the truth, after all this an encyclopaedia, right? So I think the first paragraph should say: "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D (a leetspeak stylization of Year Zero Remixed...". And then as is currently the case mostly use the name "the album" in the text to make it easy to read. If the album title is spelled out further down in the text it might be a good idea to write it as "Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D (Year Zero Remixed)" since many or perhaps most readers are not used to leetspeak. And the name at the top of the infobox should be Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D, perhaps with (Year Zero Remixed) directly under it for readability. (Use a  tag between the two spellings when feeding it to the "Name" parameter in the infobox, then they align neatly under each other.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, that's a good idea. Please change it, I'm already at my three reverts.  It'll silence everyone who wants this article changed, because we've all compromised. Tribestros (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can live with that. Thanks, everybody, I belive the article is better with the lead sentence and infobox changed this way. And with all the appropriate redirects in place, it would be churlish of me to keep splitting hairs about primary namespace placement. This'll do.


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it odd how you first concede with the notion that writing the title in plain text is invaluable for people relying on a screen reader, yet still give preference to the stylized rendering in a way that will invariably produce an incomprehensible, garbled mess with those machines before sufficient context has been provided (i.e. that leetspeak is involved). This results in having a 2nd-class audience after all, not to mention the inconsistency with the article name. Furthermore, mentioning a stylized, yet official typeset in parenthesis is not only common procedure in many articles that deal with subjects were idiosyncratic typography is used, it is still easy enough to understand as well, hence in no way detrimental to the amount of "truth" presented in the article. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a pretty good compromise. If only because (I don't think) there's no particular WP policy on album names in the first sentence.  I'm still a little wary of what Cyrus brought up above, the fact that it makes it less accessible, but as long as the full normal-typeset is nearby the beginning of the article, it doesn't really matter if it comes first or a few words in. Drewcifer (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me begin by apologising for rushing to edit the article without having read the new additions to the talk page; that was bad form and it turns out that I wouldn't have made the same edits had I read the discussion first. I'm not looking to make anybody a second-class audience; thank you Cyrus XIII for clarifying that perspective for me. I have rewritten the lead (again) in a way that I feel makes it clear that Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D is the official title while not making the first thing a screen reader sees in this article a bunch of apparent gibberish. I also changed the title field of the infobox to read "Year Zero Remixed"; the quotation marks are a deliberate choice to reflect the fact that this is more of a nickname than a title. I hope these changes will be acceptable for all concerned.


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good edit, Augustus. It works out and is easy to tell a different.  However, Cyrus, if you have an issue with it providing an "incomprehensible, garbled mess" take it up with Trent Reznor.  Just because it's presented in leetspeak doesn't make it second-class, you snob. Tribestros (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Cyrus meant that putting the leet title first in the article, since to do so makes the first thing a screen reader program sees read as an apparently random sequence of letters and numbers (particularly to people who may not be as able to visualize the similarity between, for example, the numeral 3 and the capital letter E), makes the audience that uses screen readers into a second-class audience for the article; I don't believe any insult to leet in itself was intended. Thanks for the kind words about my edit, by the way.


 * Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Augustus Chip is correct, as a matter of fact, I have enjoyed both Reznor's work, as well as the ins and outs of web culture for many years. Anyway, I have made a few more adjustments to the lead paragraph to further optimize descriptiveness. The term "leetspeak" is now dropped before the leetspeak rendering of the title occurs and I have replaced "English language transliteration" to "anglicized title", which should convey the same meaning while being a tad shorter. Combining quotes with italics for a title clashes with Manual of Style (titles), I'm afraid, but I'm sure the nature of both Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D and Year Zero Remixed are still sufficiently clear to the reader without the extra quotes. Beyond that, it's been mostly citation and track list formatting. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Release Date
I'm removing the release date, as there is no known release date at this time, and any release date is speculation. And there is no proof given with a link to show a release date.--Khristopher 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed remixes
I will delete all of them - if they really will be announced, they will be added again in any case. Litis 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I searched the DJ Magazine website for any news on Switch, and I didn't find anything - perhaps it's exclusive to the magazine, I wouldn't know.
 * I visited Paul Epworth's website and it appears that there are names of various bands on the side - Nine Inch Nails don't appear there.
 * If the title of Saul Williams's remix was announced, it would most probably appear immediately on "The NIN Hotline".

No mention that each remix was selected by online vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.94.154 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)