Talk:Incesticide

message: I should like to know what the word "Incesticide" actually means
:Nothing.  It's a portmanteax of incest and insecticide, so is a rather nasty thing if it did exist. ;).  Morwen - Talk 17:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you could really call it nasty if the intent is to destroy incest in the same manner that insecticide destroys insects. Still, not pleasant subject matter. — TheJames 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be getting nit-picky, but is it really a portmanteau?  It doesn't carry the meaning of the original words, since it's never ued in context.  I think it's just a play on words, since the new word really has no meaning at all. --In Defense of the Artist 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: meaning

message: The CD itself apparently claims that the 3 Goodier BBC tracks are from November 1991.  I'm willing to bet that that's a typo.  I'm guessing those recordings are really from late 1990, since all 3 of the songs date from that period.  Is anyone able to verify the true date of the session?  Thanks.  Alcuin 02:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the recording dates for each song on the album here: , and details about the Goodier session (November 9, 1991) here: . --jh51681 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Those Miti Adhikari quotes convince me that the date is correct.Alcuin 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the Mark Goodier BBC Session 

message: :Image:IncesticideInUtero.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us † 09:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:IncesticideInUtero.jpg

message: Again, I have spotted red links. These are links to the articles "Turnaround" and "Teriyaki...". Please, would somebody create a good article?. And help in erasing red links, or at least creating the article for the "red links"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MXER (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Links

message: Since when has Krist been credited as a writer for all of these songs?  On the CD Liner notes, he is credited (with Cobain) on "Dive" and "Hairspray Queen" only, and with Cobain and Grohl on "Polly" and "Aneurysm". Why is he credited as a writer (with Cobain) on tracks 2,3,4,8,10,13, and 14, and not on "Hairspray Queen"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.219.89 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurt Cobain/Krist Novoselic?

message: In the introductory paragraph, it states, "It was widely reported in the music press that the band wanted to offer fans a higher-quality alternative, but in the book Cobain Unseen, Charles R. Cross reveals that Kurt Cobain agreed to the release of this compilation because he was allowed complete control over the album's artwork." The word "but" is used as the coordinating conjunction in this compound sentence, but is that appropriate? Is there any contradiction or conflict between the two independent clauses? I don't think so, but if anyone can explain to me why the word "but" is appropriate, I'd appreciate it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.184.145 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong coordinating conjunction?  

message: This site references Bull Moose saying done by Analogue Productions. Is there any other source for this? The official Record Store Day site just lists UMe. EDIT - Never mind, I see it's on the detail at the RSD site as well. Same mastering as the amazing ORG release, so $47 just to move to $45rpm for the same mastering is a bit rich for me, but have at 'er!! The clear vinyl 33rpm with the same analogue mastering by Grundman pressed at Pallas is $28 directly from ORG.Dobyblue (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2LP 45rpm edition  

message: The introduction is giving two different motivations to release this album: "the band wanted to offer fans a higher-quality alternative" and "Kurt Cobain agreed to the release of this compilation because he was allowed complete control over the album's artwork". They are separated with a "but" that I don't understand. The original intention may well have been releasing formerly bootlegged tracks in better quality, while Cobain possibly insisted on packaging them in an artwork he wanted to design. Those motivations don't exclude each other. However, the German Wikipedia is telling a different story anyway: There it's just a release to fill the gap between Nevermind and the next album, in order to avoid the Grunge fans losing interest in Nirvana while so many other bands emerged. If it's true (and provable) that the label pushed the release, then the "but" would make more sense combined with this fact rather than the "we wanted to give our fans some quality" one.  --YMS (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Incesticide. 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/20100106193912/http://www.blender.com/guide/back-catalogue/54979/incesticide.html to http://www.blender.com/guide/back-catalogue/54979/incesticide.html
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 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I tried to put Kurt Cobain's liner notes that appear in some printings of this album in the article, but they were removed on the grounds that they were apparently copyrighted (link: https://www.livenirvana.com/digitalnirvana/discography/nirvana/incesticide_note.html). Why does that mean they can't be used on this page? It's not being used for commercial or illegal purposes. Is there a way we could use them without violating copyright? I do think they should be put on this page because they are of some historical use, especially to hardcore fans of the band and/or grunge. Could we just use another link that isn't blatantly copyrighted (such as this one) instead?--Neateditor123 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , The short answer is no. Wikipedia respects copyright, which means we can only use them if they are public domain or appropriately licensed which is not the case. Copyright is automatic — the fact that some site doesn't have a copyright notice does not mean there is no copyright. We must see clear evidence of an acceptable license, or have a release provided by the copyright holder filed with us at OTRS. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I still can't see how putting the liner notes in this article would be violating any copyright, especially since multiple websites (as well as the notes themselves) don't have one. Regardless of that, I still think we should add them to the page because they are of some importance to the album and its legacy. Hopefully, we can work out a way to safely (and legally) do this.--Neateditor123 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  You said "don't have one" Don't have one what? If you mean copyright notice, I already explained. BTW, they are liner notes, not linear notes. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I'm saying is that I'm not exactly sure how liner (I fixed my spelling mistakes BTW) notes could be under any copyright in the first place. The point is, there has to be some way to include the liner notes without violating any copyright, seeing how they are an essential part of the album and its legacy. If you have any ideas about how to do this, let me know.--Neateditor123 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , Please see Copyright. "In 1989 the United States enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic." I know that some people cling to the myth that if there is no copyright notice, then the material is not subject to copyright and free to use but that's not the case. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, fine. I totally understand if copyright restrictions prevent the liner notes from being put on this page. I just wanted to include the liner notes in with this article, seeing as they are an important part of the album in my opinion. Again, if there are ANY ways we could possibly include them in with this article without violating any sort of copyright or legal restrictions, please let me know. I'm all ears.--Neateditor123 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liner Notes...