Talk:Nevermind/Archive 1

message: I think the next album in the chronology should be Incesticide, as Hormoaning was only an EP, and a Japanese-only one at that --Surachit 22:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: I find it rather odd that the kid's penis is sticking out, and nobody mentioned it or wrote something about criticism received from people.  Maybe nobody criticized.  Just wondering.  
:It is mentioned in the article - the sticker part. Also, the Classic Album-Nevermind DVD said music stores were asked to completely remove the big windows adverts or cover the babys genitals. Befuddled Steve 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe cross reference with the Rape Me/Waif Me cencorship of Wallmart? Befuddled Steve 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposed Genitals 

message: Yes, it was 15 years ago today that Nevermind was released. The face of rock music hasn't been the same since. Thank God. NIRVANA2764 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy 15th Birthday 

message: I think there should be more about the afterwards impact on music scene of this album and also some of the names of musicians or albums influenced by NEVERMIND. Although his is considered to be the one of the best in 90's, it'd be much better to include more evidence or support to back it.211.37.49.159 07:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nevermind's musical influence 

message: Much stuff here sounds very POV.. --84.249.253.201 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: If the length of the hidden track is 06:45 and the length of track 12 is 03:50, then why does it say that the hidden track brings the length of track 12 up to 20:34? That doesn't add up, last I checked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.86.149 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hidden track begins around ten minutes after Something in the Way, i.e. 3:50 + 10 + 6:45 = 20. --Lorenzarius 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Track 

message: I heard it once said that the name of this album comes from Nevermind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Worth a mention, if anybody else has heard this too.23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of album

message: Should we include an excerpt of the lenghty "piece of poetry" (a collage of various texts and lyrics) that are found in original vynil releases?Doktor Who 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sentence would be fine. WesleyDodds 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inner sleeve

message: Can somebody explain in the article why the Nevermind release has the SubPop logo on it as well as geffen?  that would be groovy.
:Dunno. It's also on all of their other albums too.: --User:Lgndkllr777 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Nirvana was still under contract by Sub Pop when they signed with Geffen, "Then there was the matter of that darned Sub Pop contract. The then-struggling indie label receieved an initial $75,000 buyout fee, a reported two points (2 percent of sales) on the next two records, and even got the Sub Pop logo on the back cover of Nevermind." (Azerrad, 1993) --Surachit 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub Pop

message: You click on the Wikiquote Nevermind link and there's nothing there Speedboy Salesman 16:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote

message: I think I have a source that could go with that section. It's Thurston Moore's review in the back of the "With the Lights Out" album booklet. He seems to describe the same thing as in the "Music" section of this article during the 6th paragraph of his review. Would this be considered a legitimate source? If we can't find a source then that section might need to be removed, but it makes a valid point so I would hate to take it out of the article. Connör (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that no one is against using that as a source, so I am citing the booklet and removing the tag. Connör (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm just wondering why this isnt at GA status... I dont see anything wrong with the article Connör (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of use were working on the article but have become involved in other projects. Not quite GA status yet, but could be there with some effort. WesleyDodds 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the un-cited Music section 

message: As suggested by WesleyDodds, we should collate potential Nevermind sources:
*allmusic.com: Nevermind. Good for release formats.
*Our Band Could Be Your Life. Sub-Pop and release: p. 451, 452 Release and legacy: p. 493-501.
*RollingStone.com: Nevermind. Mostly talks about musical style and recording. CloudNine 09:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I went through and repaired all the references. I couldn't figure out what the 15th ref, "Di Perna, Alan. Fall 1996", is referring to. it needs to be clarified or removed. It doesn't state what it's referencing, and uses a seasonal term to describe its date. Could somebody who knows what this is referring to please clarify it? Grim 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know what it is. I believe it's a reprint of a 1996 Guitar World article. I have a reprint of it, but not on me at the moment. WesleyDodds 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I'll keep it short, someone deleted all the songs on the track. No explanation given, they just did. TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per dicussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, we redirected several of the song pages since they are not notable enough to deserve separate articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Songs all gone

message: This article says they were all written by Kurt Cobain alone (apart from Smells...) but on the record sleeve it says "All song lyrics by Kurt Cobain/Music by Nirvana". Who's right?  MFlet1 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who wrote the songs?

message: Should it be mentioned that Smells Like Teen Spirit reached #9 on the RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time? Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more appropriate for the song page, where it is currently mentioned. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Smells Like Teen Spirit

message: Spencer Elden is the toddler that is pictured on the front cover of this album. He's a teenager now, still in high school. Other than his father showing up and getting paid $200 for them to take a few pics of his son underwater, the kid hasn't done anything notable. He doesn't warrant having a separate article about him at this point, and it does not meet the guidelines of WP:BLP. I therefore recommend that whatever content of his article that's not already over here (if any), be merged here, and the article be redirected to this one. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think he should have an article, but he has been interviewed and been the subject of a number of articles in the mainstream press. I don't see what would be worth merging here. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Spencer Elden is non-notable, however many times he is interviewed. Mention of him in the Nevermind article is already sufficient, and his article should be deleted. CAVincent (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge content of [[Spencer Elden]] into this article

message: SINCE IT SOLD 10 MILLION+ ALBUMS, SHOULD IT BE DIAMOND, NOT 10X PLATINUM???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.114.183 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. sales are 10 million+, worldwide sales are 26 million+. Both sources are at Nirvana discography. --Brandt Luke Zorn 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Total sales?

message: I've found a few grammatical errors, most notably in the first paragraph with words such as "aand" and "oen" which were corrected accordingly. Just a reminder for anybody to catch little mishaps such as those already mentioned! User:Chaide 18:11, 30 September 2007
The writing is horrible. So many simple mistakes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.162.210 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gramatical Errors

message: Please explain If there are some exigent circumstances that make this album different from the guidelines at WP:ALBUM (e.g. the use of ), please explain them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the "Start date" template is not mandatory; I don't even see mention of it on that page. Same thing with the Personnel reformatting. Also, the Melody Maker review is cited in the article body; there's just no weblink. There's no need to include the revised Rolling Stone rating from a book. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies Clearly, I need to review it myself, as  hasn't been recommended since November. That having been said, the language field, and the length have been amended per WP:ALBUM. It also reads "for older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews," so I have reinserted Rolling Stone's 2004 review - I don't see why you would want to censor it from here. It's irrelevant if there is a link for Melody Maker's review; either cite it or delete it - what makes you think there has to be a link? I have also reinserted  for the chart positions section, since it is still unreferenced. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications has a list of certifications sites for just this purpose. Regarding the personnel section, I'm honestly not that concerned with how it's formatted, although a single-column list will display better on a variety of devices (e.g. a mobile phone) and it's more usable. I also don't see why you wouldn't want to use alphabetical order. I also don't see why you would want to delink "mastering;" how is this a bad thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit redundant to list Rolling Stone's revised rating, as apparently they've done that several times; we really don't need to give Rolling Stone more weight that way. We have plenty of modern reviews, which is why it's best to include the older, contemporary review (which incidently is the one Rolling Stone goes by on its website). As for the chart position section, that's a long wrok in progess; a friend of mine who's an expert in chart positions had trouble with it since it's hard to ascertain when the album peaked in certain countries. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd forgotten I was even looking into this! I'll have to revisit this after I've caught up with my watchlist backlog. --JD554 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting per [[WP:ALBUM]]

message: Please stop If you review the talk archive for Template:Infobox Album, I was in favor of having multiple times; consensus saw fit to do otherwise. If you want to propose a change on the talk page there or at WP:ALBUM, that's fine with me, but until such time as there is consensus to do otherwise, please don't add multiple lengths into the infobox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Under "Music," the article states "Cobain, Nirvana's main songwriter, fashioned chord sequences that were harmonically indeterminate (neither major nor minor)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Music . I'm no music expert, but just about every Nirvana song is in minor. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "In Bloom" are in F-minor, "Come As You Are" is in D-minor, "Breed," "Polly" (chorus is G-minor) and "Lounge Act" are in E-minor, "Territorial Pissings" is in A-minor, and "Drain You" is in F#-minor. "Lithium" and "On A Plain" are more complicated, but the former's bridge ("I'm not gonna crack") and latter's chorus both sound in G-minor. This statement about the album being harmonically indeterminate should be further explained or omitted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starscreech (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a timely reminder that Wikipedia does not accept original research and only verifiable information from reliable sources should be added, anything else is likely to be deleted. --JD554 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Harmonically Indeterminate?

message: I think that "Stay Away" should be given its own article. Does anyone else agree?
--Classicrockfan42 (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it had enough detail in its last revision to at least be stub-worthy. Its Live Nirvana Song Guide entry has a few more bits of info that could be added. --jh51681 (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stay Away

message: I realize the album was an Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week, but to me, the article seems like it could be improved with a little better organization. In my opinion, the article should describe the album from its conception all the way through its lasting impact on the music world. It should tell the story of the album from start to finish. Right now, the article doesn't do that. It starts out by giving background on Nirvana and describing the album's recording (which is fine). Then it jumps all over the place - it tells of the album's release and its reception, then it describes the music that composes the album, then the album's cover, and then the legacy the album leaves.
It seems like a random order, when a much more structured one could be used. After the article talks about the album's writing and recording, it should discuss the results of those recording sessions by describing the music. The article should then discuss the album art that was chosen to represent the album (a decision made prior to its release) and then the album's subsequent release to the public. Then it should discuss how well it was received and how the album has left a long-lasting legacy. This seems like a much more "intuitive" order of topics.
I also think that the album's sales don't belong in a "Release" section, but rather a "Reception" section, where you put both the reviews and the album's commercial performance. But I think first and foremost, the article needs to be ordered in a much more readable manner. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not evvery album article will have the same layout and currently this layout benefits this article. Also, sales are not part of an album's "reception"; that is meant to cover critical reception. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: For one thing, the prose of the article is written specifically with this organization in mind. Thus just moving sections without rewriting the prose as well makes things even more awkward. It's not a simple cut and paste job. Also, the legacy section being separate from critical reception is irrelevant, because one is critical commentary and the other is historical importance. Like I said, not every article will have the same layout; it varies from article to article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article organization

message: I decided to add in a section showing the different review this album has gotten. They are not all the reviews for this album, but if anyone can find other reviews, you welcome to add onto the list. 222.154.243.247 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary, and not very useful when some reviews don't use rating systems at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Ratings

message: I agree with the user who labeled the album "hardcore punk" and "grunge" but the revert was right, it was consensus. However, I move that "hardcore punk" be included in the genre of this album for "Territorial Pissings" and "Breed." Tezkag72 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While a lot of sources discuss the influence that some hardcore punk bands had on Nirvana, I don't know of any who have labeled the band itself "hardcore punk", and this particular album is the least influenced by that kind of music of all of Nirvana's albums. Also, two songs probably isn't significant enough in to scope of the whole album to label the entire thing "hardcore punk"; otherwise, it could be considered "acoustic rock" for "Polly" and "Something in the Way", something Nevermind on a whole certainly is not part of. Besides, this album is best known and popularly identified simply as "grunge". There's no need to crowd the infobox with genres when these things can be discussed in the Music section of the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: "Breed" has nothing to do with hardcore punk. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Breed" does have a lot to do with hardcore punk. It is hardcore punk. Of course, it's very similar to grunge because it's a Nirvana song. But it is hardcore punk.--188.26.48.241 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: I think Spencer Elden should be merged into this article. There's simply not that much to say about him - yes, he has made some appearances and given some interviews in the 20 years since the album was released, but I don't think he's really notable enough to have his own article at this time. The content there could be merged into the 'packaging' section of this article, where Elden is already mentioned. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree. He seems pretty WP:BLP1E to me. If he makes it as an artist, that's a different story. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

text: * Sounds good. 75.39.112.19 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: * Support merge. --Muhandes (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: * Against. There's enough independent information in that article that meets notability guidelines, but doesn't directly bear on the Nevermind album. RandyKaelber (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: * Support.  There is nothing this person has done that is notable apart from his association with the album cover.  being on the cover of another album and the fact that he works in an art studio do not support independent notability. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: * I support. I'm sorry, but he just isn't a notable person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimloth250 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: * Support, his whole article could be trimmed to a couple of paragraphs anyway. BillyBatty (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: *Support, there really isn't a reason for him to have his own article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.15.209 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: * Against. I've spent my whole life wondering who that baby was, and the information contained on that article doesn't seem entirely relevant to the album and will most likely be trimmed by delete-happy editors. 24.136.136.65 (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spencer Elden 

message: I know most Anniversary albums usually get included within the original album page. However in the case of Nevermind the anniversary edition will be a 4 x CD + 1 x DVD boxset. So maybe it will need its own page ? mjgm84 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree unless other similar re-releases have their own pages also. 24.32.85.34 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th Anniversary edition

message: Just a suggestion, but how about we have collapsible track listings for the DEluxe and Super Deluxe versions. An example where this has already been done is the track listing for The Colour and the Shape by Foo Fighters. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing

message: I am proposing that the references in the article use citation templates. I had already done this inadvertently when I was improving some references without taking into account WP:CITEVAR, but I feel that citation templates are more useful then text formatted citations.
-- J. Wong (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the primary editor of this article, conversion to citation templates is a big hassle. Per the guidelines, I am resorting to the previously established citation style for now, but this topic can be discussed further by additonal parties. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert references to use [[WP:Citation templates|citation templates]] 

message: I think that the song Something in the Way should get its own page instead of being redirected to the album. Heymister14 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something in the Way 

message: Perhaps we should make a note about how the new 20th anniversary edition is victim to the loudness war, and has been criticised for this. (Infact almost every review i've seen of it points this out and there is comparisons using the original 1991 and 2011 versions of a song from the album on Amazon.co.uk). There are various sources out there which cite this but i can't seem to choose which one is the most reiable. Could anyone else help out with this - maybe?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loudness war 

message: Although I am not a member of this project, I love Nirvana's music, especially the Nevermind album. Anyway, I noticed this article is of very good quality, IMO. So I was wondering, other than minor adjustments to the references and maybe some citations for the Track listing and Personnel, what would else would be needed for it to be considered a candidate for FA? Again, I am a fan of Nirvana, so I might come back and get this article to FA.--12george1 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always wanted to beef up the Music and Legacy sections. I think the former will be pretty easy to fill out once I sort out all the available sources. Originally the goal was to have this ready to run as a Featured Article on Wikipedia's main page to coincide with the album's 20th anniversary. Obviously that didn't happen :/ WesleyDodds (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I  was also thinking of having it reference its affect on other musicians, such as the creation of Newermind as a tribute for the album. Tradereddy (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: I preferred the revised version of the Tracklist with the table it looked more professional, but longtime Wikipedia users are always right even if I think the style is sloppy but whatever
:Oooo. So I shouldn't have made it into a table then? Tradereddy (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tack List Style

message: Why are the deluxe edition tracklistings not included here? Sure, the reissues themselves are briefly touched upon, but why were the actual tracklistings removed (they can be seen in previous versions of the article)? LazyBastardGuy 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for having the re-issue track listings in drop down lists but there are some here who don't seem to want to include them. Nor sure why.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of other articles include reissue tracklistings. Rumours is an FA that has a drop-down reissue tracklisting, even though there aren't nearly as many bonus tracks on it as there were on Nevermind. Hell, it even has a reception section for the reissue. Why not use that article as an example for this one? LazyBastardGuy 01:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reissue tracklistings? 

message: The release date given (Sep 24, 1991) was a Tuesday. Any reason for it not being released on the normal release day of Monday? --Jameboy (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I also think it's significant because Nevermind and Blood Sugar Sex Magik by Red Hot Chili Peppers were both released on the same day. I thought it was worth mentioning that in both this article and BSSM, so I did so a while back, I can't remember when exactly, probably late 2009 or early 2010. However, I put that coincidence/information in the articles without discussing it first in either article (in both articles I put it in the Release section). I guess the other editors thought it was trivial or didn't understand my motives for putting it in both articles. I think it should be mentioned because they're both pretty popular albums in the alternative rock scene. However, if a large number of members feel it isn't significant than feel free to not mention it, I won't have any hard feelings about it. I just feel like this is a huge coincidence worth mentioning. - Wrestlingcrazy93 (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: * Release dates for albums have almost always been on Tuesdays. Such was the case in 1991. http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2010/09/08/129725205/why-albums-are-released-on-tuesdays  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.14.83 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140817102419/http://bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/Search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone clarify why On a Plain continues to be removed from the album singles box? a) it is a single b) it is from the album c) it is a charting single. Whether it is 'promotional' should make no difference, it IS a single. Just because it didn't chart as high as Come as You Are or Smells Like Teen Spirit does not make it any less of a single.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.155.193 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the fact that "On a Plain" was promo only - there was no retail release is enough to say that it is not as important or significant enough as the other four which were all retail singles. Secondly, even though it was a promo only single it only saw limited release to Alternative radio, where as the others were released to mainstream radio. I can see in some cases where you would include promo singles in the album box if significant enough but this is not one of them. It would appear that we have Wikipedia:Consensus on this.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm open to it being mentioned, just that it should not be listed with official singles in the navbox. Also, another reason for my earlier removal was the fact that it was unsourced. A good idea would be to address that too in the future. As a suggestion, register an account and sign your comments with 4 tildes (Robvanvee 05:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: On a Plain

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres91.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019170700/http://www.cria.ca/gold/0301_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/0301_g.php
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?PerDesde_MM=0&PerDesde_AA=0&PerHasta_MM=0&PerHasta_AA=0&interprete=&album=&LanDesde_MM=1&LanDesde_AA=1980&LanHasta_MM=12&LanHasta_AA=2010&Galardon=O&Tipo=1&ACCION2=%20Buscar%20&ACCION=Buscar&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929042808/http://swedishcharts.com/search.asp?search=Nirvana&cat=s to http://swedishcharts.com/search.asp?search=Nirvana&cat=s
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at the earlier discussion here, it seems a consensus was reached back in 2011 that Spencer Elden's article should be redirected to Nevermind as he was not independently notable. However, it appears that a couple of years ago some editor decided to quietly remove that redirection and recreate a standalone biography without this being discussed here. So, we may as well have another "vote" about it now. It seems his present career as an artist has not attracted media attention under WP:CREATIVE, so I would tend to favor a merger. --Muzilon (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, as no objection has been raised after 30 days, I shall now go ahead and action the merger.--Muzilon (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016192710/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2071&volume=55&issue=11&issue_dt=March%2007%201992&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=0jkj7bhtc295aktmebjgml6dd6 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2071&volume=55&issue=11&issue_dt=March%2007%201992&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=0jkj7bhtc295aktmebjgml6dd6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015114403/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=c6btf3r8hs459qqt5ln3o3dcv5&q1=Nirvana&q2=Top+Singles&interval=20 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=c6btf3r8hs459qqt5ln3o3dcv5&q1=Nirvana&q2=Top+Singles&interval=20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: There seems to be some information missing from the Title and Artwork section. In addition to Sheep, the Nirvana members also seriously considered Sacagawea as the title for their album. However their distribution company disagreed as they thought the spelling would be too complicated. Here is a link to the interview in which they revealed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTi1_pv5S3E They begin to talk about the original title at 2:05.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.143.180 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and Artwork missing information 

message: Multiple deluxe edition re-releases are available now and their respective track listings can be added by anyone who is willing. Track lists can be found [here] (Without track durations, sadly).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.5.188 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  30th Anniversary Edition 

message: It looks like there was a previous consensus to list only grunge and alternative rock in the infobox, but judging from the archive its been many years since that discussion. A user recently added punk rock and pop-punk. Another user has since removed pop-punk. My opinion: the claim that this is a pop-punk album is absurd on its face. The citation apparently used to support adding it to the infobox refers to "punk-pop" and gives as examples Iggy Pop and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I think it is safe to conclude that the reviewer was not referring to pop-punk as that term is used today, and simply meant a mixture of punk and pop. (One might also conclude that the reviewer didn't know what he was talking about.)
The question of including punk rock seems trickier to me. I'm going to remove it for now from the infobox on the basis of long-standing consensus, but welcome discussion. My own thought is that while the three band members were unequivocally punk rockers individually, it is not clear to me that Nevermind is a punk rock album. Highly influenced by punk, yes, and that's discussed in the article as it should be, but not clearly punk itself. That said, I have no objection to punk rock's inclusion if that is consensus.
I want to add this to any possible discussion: Nevermind has been widely written about for three decades, so there's likely to be some source referring to the album's genre in all manner of improbable ways. (It's the internet; someone has probably called it a beloved polka album.) The infobox genres really need to be what a preponderance, or at least substantial minority, of music-related sources agree upon, not outlier claims. CAVincent (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Genres