Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 2

message: Skid row were an early influential grunge band on the sub pop label, and never consisted of anyone even associated with Nirvana. I'm going to remove it from their list of early names and if anyone disagrees well...
:Please provide a source.  WesleyDodds 05:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nirvana performed under the name Skid Row in 1987.  Just because there were other bands named Skid Row (which there were) doesn't mean that Nirvana didn't play under the name.  They did.  For example, the performances of "Anorexorcist", "White Lace and Strange", and "Vendetagainst" that appear on With the Lights Out were recorded while Nirvana was still called Skid Row.  They didn't adopt the name Nirvana until March of 1988. -- ChrisB 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See  in "Live Nirvana". See also in the songs the section "Recording Session(s)", in which that session is referred as "April 17, 1987 - Evergreen College, The Skid Row demo, KAOS Radio show" --69.79.206.21 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skid Row is not grunge, more heavy metal or thrash metal. --Boneka 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skid row?

message: Is there any way we can add more fair use pictures of the band?  I mean, album covers are good and all, but perhaps some performance photos (particularly from something like their Reading performances) or a screenshot of one of their videos would be a nice addition.  WesleyDodds 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Shouldn't some of the information in the notes section , be included in the references section. There is only one thing in the reference section and I think more should be included. Bill102 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Come As You Are definitely belongs there, since it's a semi-official biography that is cited several times in the article.  WesleyDodds 09:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes/References 

message: In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that :category:Nirvana singles shouldn't be merged into :category:Nirvana songs, as all the others except the ones listed have?--Mike Selinker 08:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist

message: Nirvana doesnt have a offical website, the Interscope Site is for the best of package, it just describes it. The sub pop page have biography, photos of band and discography. I say we use that page insted, not the interschope one. -tourettes1992
Can I ask that we don't start a revert war here? an we set up something such as a straw poll to come to a concensus between whether [www.interscope.com/nirvana/ The Interscope site or The SubPop Homepage is appropriate? -- Reaper  X 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Website

message: Please note that it should be was as the band is non-existant anymore. ie. The Doors article reads "The Doors were...". -- Reaper  X 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nirvana is" vs. "Nirvana was"

message: I can't find any info on this, but it should be noted that the live portion of Verse Chorus Verse (the two-disc set that was to contain Unplugged along with electric live material) was not made up of the same recordings as what was finally released as Wishkah.  68.124.66.255 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wishkah

message: "the band's popularity expanded in the years that followed [Cobain's death]." Is that true.  Are they more popular now than they were in 1992 ?  Can we demonstrate that ?
"Instead, the performance ended up being one of the most memorable of their career.
"Less than two weeks later, Nirvana put on a memorable performance at the MTV Video Music Awards."
Too many memorables ?  Or at least say another memorable performance ? -- Beardo 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of things 

message: This article says that love buzz was released on white vinyl whereas the love buzz article says it was black.  anyone know the correct colour? Jammus 10:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jammus, read that section again.  The article doesn't say that Love Buzz was released on white vinyl - it says that Bleach was released on white vinyl, which is correct. -- ChrisB 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops eggs, chips and beans on my face. Jammus 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Love Buzz

message: Since Nirvana became the FA of the day there has been a good deal of vandalism by a single unregistered user.  Should we protect it? rorsach 16:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its just one user, give him warnings until he reaches test4 (if he gets that far) and report him to Admin Intervention. Protecting the article would be unnecessary. -- Reaper  X 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, ask Rorsach what IP he's referring to. -- Reaper  X 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Click refresh and everything will be back. You're just looking at a older vandalized version. Its been fixed. Gdo01 18:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Vandalism 

message: I realize after trying to include a small paragraph about Cobain's last days, that it's not going to get in. A fair compromise is to attach a heading of "Cobain's Last Days," which does not alter any of the original text, but rather highlights a link to the subject, where conspiracy theories are discussed.
User ChrisB has a fair point that the last days should be on another page, which they are. However, I also have a fair point, in that the link to the last days page is obscure, and buried within a paragraph. It deserves a heading of its own, so that readers can easily access it without going over things with a fine-tooth comb.
It in no way modifies anything besides putting in a heading of "cobain's last days," to help reader navigation. Perceived "uselessness" should always yield to perceived usefulness. 
Illharmonics00
:That's in no way a "fair compromise".  Nirvana had nothing to do with Cobain's death.  His death ended the band.  Getting into any discussion about the circumstances of his death has no usefulness here.  This article is intentionally devoid of anything having to do with the conspiracy - it has no bearing on Nirvana as a band, and allows this article to be absent of anything that could be construed as POV with regards to his death.  That's why this article doesn't in any way declare how Kurt died - it simply says that he died, because that's all that's relevant to Nirvana as a band.
:I think most reasonable people can see the link:
:Main article: Kurt Cobain#Cobain's final weeks
:and figure it out for themselves. -- ChrisB 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cobain's Last Days

message: Why was the page moved without any discussion? Please someone revert it! --200.118.166.103 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved back.  I agree that it should not have been done. -- Beardo 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: When I added to associated acts I only included those of the three main members. Should I include ones related to some of the lesser known members like The Germs, The Melvins, and Mudhoney?
:There's no reason to include every band that Grohl or Novoselic have participated in.  They have their own articles, and all of them can be mentioned there.  -- ChrisB 05:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Associated Acts

message: I don't think the trivia section added is appropriate, it is a guideline to avoid trivia may I remind you. -- Reaper  X 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Someone just inserted several dozen links to http://sliver.it through Nirvana-related articles, in a spam-like fashion that drew attention from the WP:WPSPAM project.  I removed them since it was one person adding so many in a rather obnoxious manner.  However, sliver.it is a Nirvana discography site with some fairly detailed info about editions (aimed at record collectors) so maybe they're of interest.  I suggested that he put them on the article talk pages so the regular editors could use their own judgement.  I see there's also a lot of links to the livenirvana.com index page, that looks spammy too--I'm going to remove those but there are also a bunch of links to internal livenirvana.com discography pages that have some nontrivial content and have been there for a while.  Do you folks want them there?  67.117.130.181 18:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sliver.it links

message: Please answer at Talk:Capitol Hill massacre#Nirvana song (not), not here: Does anyone know definitively that there either was or (more difficult to demonstrate) was not an obscure, unreleased Nirvana song called "I Want to Know Now"? This Google search turns up unreliable sources for such a song, but nothing reliable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert help needed at [[Capitol Hill massacre]]