Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 7

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

Nirvana (band) First Paragraph

Nirvana was an American rock band that was formed by singer and guitarist Kurt Cobain and bassist Krist Novoselic in Aberdeen, Washington, in 1987.

Info that should be added to first sentence

Nirvana was an American rock band that was formed by singer and guitarist Kurt Donald Cobain and bassist Krist Anthony Novoselic in Aberdeen, Washington, in 1987.

Camillearunge (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) CR 10/1/15 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Kahn, Seth. "Kurt Cobain, Martyrdom, and the Problem of Agency." Studies in Popular Culture 22.3 (2000): 85-100. JSTOR. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

 Not done We use common names – that is, the names most readers are likely to recognize – in articles here, except when relating birth names in biographical articles. Kurt Cobain was best known as Kurt Cobain, not Kurt Donald Cobain, so we will refer to him that way in this article. The same is true of Krist Novoselic. Their birth names appear in their respective biographical articles. General Ization Talk 01:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Recently added images

Hi, I would like to question and hear other people's thoughts on whether several of the recently added images to this article are actually necessary. Firstly, three of them are already used in other Nirvana articles: the picture of them performing at Pier 48/Live and Loud is already being used in the Live and Loud (video) article, the picture of Kurt Cobain's house is already being used in the Death of Kurt Cobain article and the the picture of the "Welcome to Aberdeen, Come as You Are" sign is already being used in the Come as You Are (Nirvana song) article. Secondly, most of the captions have been written in poor English and/or do not contain the right information. For example the caption for the Come as You Are sign reads: "A tribute to the band. "Come As You are" was a popular Nirvana song". Firstly the sign was a tribute to Kurt Cobain and not to the band and secondly "Come As You are" should be "Come as You Are". I just want to get this ironed out on the discussion page before it turns into an edit war. Comments please. QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: Hi. It doesn't matter whether the images are in other articles - what matters is that this one is poorly illustrated. We have to edit trying to put ourselves in the place of the lurkers who will come read the encyclopedia. Chances are they will search for "Nirvana" [1] rather than "Come as You are" [2] or "Live and loud (video) [3]". This article is by far the most important one.
Also, feel free to copy edit the captions if that's a problem. By the way, it really is "Come As You Are" because that's what is in the image. Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I will await further comments from other users before making any changes. Further to my comments above the article has to many images and has become cluttered. I should also stress that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is not supposed to be used as advertising space, and by the way it should be "Come As You Are", not "Come As You are" as you have put in the article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That was a simple mistake. You could have fixed it if you wanted to.
I honestly see nothing wrong with the images. I would have added different ones, but the problem is that nirvana pictures are quite rare on wikipedia and commons, so we don't have many alternatives. Tetra quark (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am going to start by making changes to the image captions so that they read better. For example the "Come as You Are" sign was a tribute to Kurt Cobain, not the band.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Regarding the images, I think you're making a big deal out of something not so problematic. Anyway, let's wait for more people to chime in Tetra quark (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that most of the images have now been removed due to copyright issues. We're now stuck with the band logo. Perhaps the 1992 image can be moved to the infobox instead? Karst (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely support this action. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 11:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Image

The heck happened to the picture of Kurt performing at the top? Was this discussed? I think the best option would be to have them at the top, rather than the logo, and have the logo appear later in the article. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wait, now that I recall, it was a different image of them performing, wasn't it? In that case, why don't we restore the previous one? dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 23:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
There was - the NirvanaPier481993.jpg was removed due to copyright violation. As I noted above, the 1992 image should perhaps be moved to the infobox. Karst (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't notice. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 11:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we also use a new press kit image, which I believe should be in fair use? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Pat Smear as a full member.

I recently had an edit for Pat Smear removed from full time member with the undo being cited for the fact that he was "only a touring member". Pat was absolutely a full time member, joining in 1993 in time for the In Utero support tour, and was featured in interviews and photoshoots, and was invited to perform during the 1994 recording of "You Know You're Right", but was on tour break for the holiday at the time. He was invited to write alongside Kurt several times as well and performed at the last unreleased March 1994 records too, and also suggested "Man Who Sold The World" for the unplugged performance. Not to mention he has also performed in the reunions shows. Pat was a full time member as much as Jason Everman was, and absolutely more than Dave Foster. I have added him in a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.25.240 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(moved from my talk.) Mlpearc (open channel) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss why you keep removing Pat Smear as a full time member. I have given many instances that point to him being a full time member and an important person regarding the bands final (and one of their most important) years as a group. I have not seen any information or cases being made towards Smear being only a touring member. Having Smear listed as a full time member of the group shows that the group dynamic was changing towards the end, and Kurt Cobain added a second guitarist to take the load off himself and add more to the group's future releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.25.240 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus among editors on this page has always been that Pat Smear was a touring member. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this edit war inspired by Reddit? Suggesting that Kurt wanted Pat to be a full-time member doesn't mean Pat was a full-time member. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@98.224.25.240: Did you look at the name of the website you're referencing ? www.livenirvana.com, even that explains why you're wrong. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not about whether he "deserved" to be a member or "was going to be made" a member. No official band source ever named PAt as a member, either in the run of the band or since. Bands have touring members that are very ingrained in the structure of the band for years without being made full members - see Jason White for Green Day: He was a touring member for nearly 15 years before becoming a full member (and is apparently now back to being just a touring member). Or Darryl Jones, who has been playing bass for the Stones since 1993, both live and in the studio. Bands define their own membership with official announcements, press materials, ect, ect. We don't go looking for hints or clues or feelings or anything like that. If you can find an official announcement or interview, or ANYTHING actually stating that Pat was a member of Nirvana (not just played with Nirvana), then I for one would gladly accept it (because I subscribe to the idea that he would have joined if Kurt had lived - but we can't go off that idea, we need evidence.) Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What to do about Smear

Looking for a solution to the continued addition of Smear as a full member, against established consensus (other discussions about Smear are in the article archives), it is obvious that it's widely mis-understood that Smear was a full member. Pending changes protection (about a year, IMO) would allow page watchers to catch these un-informmed edits before they go live. The "touring members" list in the member's section here, is the only list in the article where Smear should be listed. Maybe an edit filter could help, otherwise I am at a loss as to any other way to combat this, suggestions welcome ! Mlpearc (open channel) 23:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes would have my support. Karst (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Members/Past members

I know this has been discussed a few times in the past, but it is truly inaccurate to list Kurt, Dave, and Krist as current members of a band that has been inactive since 1994. It's ridiculous to list Kurt as a current member of anything, really, considering he's been dead for over 20 years. One justification is that the displayed field doesn't actually say "current" members. While that is true, It's pretty that this is what is meant, considering that the field below it says "past members".

I do get the philosophy behind the current representation: The most relevant members are listed separately from the rest. It's true, it's also inaccurate to list Dale Crover or Dan Peters as equal to Kurt Cobain in Nirvana history. However, the current presentation is a terrible way to achieve this; it's just obviously factually wrong. So I propose that this page implements the system that The Beatles did a little while back. The main, known lineup is listed under past members in the infobox, with a link down to the members section for further information. I believe this is a much better system: It gives due weight to the most relevant lineup of the band, while also not presenting factually wrong information. We should follow a similar system here: List Kurt, Krist, and Dave in the infobox under past members, with a link down to the members section for the others. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it should say 'Past members' as per Led Zeppelin. Karst (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As no one has raised any objection, I'll go ahead with the edit.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop saying Nirvana isn't punk

Stop saying Nirvana isn't punk. I don't get why some ringleader gets to control a wikipedia page. Nirvana is obviously punk, with all do respect: get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.211.169 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Fecal Matter

Is there a reason why Fecal Matter isn't in associated acts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.110.90 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree it should be included in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBLIVIUS (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a real band, so no, they shouldn't be listed. FM was just a name they whipped up for a single recording session. Hell I'm surprised that it even has a separate article, it should just be a paragraph or so on Cobain's own article. TheValeyard (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nirvana (band). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nirvana (band). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nirvana (band). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Nirvana picture

Please may this picture be changed, it's blurry and not all members are in the pic.

The current image is fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. Per WP:PDAB and WP:ASTONISH. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nirvana (band) → Nirvana (American band) – Per WP:PDAB, since there has been a British band of the same name since 1965 which sued Cobain's band for copyright infringement. Perhaps "Nirvana (band)" can remain a redirect to this per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support In addition the DAB lists other partial matches. Considering the views [[4]] and the fact that this a level 5 vital article, I'd be happy with keeping the redirect to the American band though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PDAB which explicitly notes that primary topics of partial dabs are acceptable as the guideline against them was rejected. And that is clearly the case here. --В²C ☎ 18:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support we don't have PRIMARYBAND, if Nirvana (British band) requires (British.. ) then obviously Nirvana (American band) requires (American.. ), to make this article an exception to WP titling practice is astonishing. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose now just hang on a minute. I am pretty sure that this article did used to be called "Nirvana (American band)" and it was discussed a few years back and changed to "Nirvana (band)" by consensus. Or at least it was discussed and consensus was that it should be "Nirvana (band)". I will check back through the talk archives when I have time. UPDATE: See previous discussion here: Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 3#Title change straw poll. QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PDAB, and comments above by Born2cycle and QuintusPetillius. Not only does PDAB provide a long list of acceptable examples of partial disambiguation, but "Nirvana (band)" is actually included on that very same list, thanks to a 2013 discussion on this same proposal. Nothing about the rationale for the move is "obvious"—Nirvana is enormously more popular, consequential, and historically significant than the other band that happened to be called Nirvana. The fact that it's clear which "Nirvana" in the preceding sentence is the American band and which is the British band should indicate that there's no risk of confusion between the two, and no useful purpose served by a move.
If anything, the move risks adding unnecessary confusion; if someone is looking up the band Nirvana for the first time, knowing only the name (but not their national origin), we risk confusing them by representing the two bands as equivalently primary or notable. The way the article is titled now, it it's clear that this page refers to the band Nirvana that the overwhelming majority of people would be looking for, and that the other band is a less-significant band that happens to share the name. Thought experiment: if the UK Nirvana had been from North Carolina instead of the UK and their page were called "Nirvana (North Carolina band)," would it be more clarifying to retitle this page to "Nirvana (Washington band)"? What if the 60s Nirvana had been from Centralia, Washington (chosen at random as a Washington city with a similar population to Aberdeen)—would retitling this page "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington band)" and the other "Nirvana (Centralia, Washington band)" be clarifying, or might it risk confusion? —BLZ · talk 22:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes if there were 2 American bands they would require further disambiguation. Anyway I suggested leaving the Nirvana (band) in place so that the few readers using it would still get to the correct place quicker. But using a partly disambiguated title goes against WP:PRECISE and is confusing to readers and editors (and suggests there is only 1 band on WP) and as was said in the previous RM opens the door to lots of PT debates over partly disambiguated titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If using a partly disambiguated title for a topic which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title goes against WP:PRECISE, then so does using any ambiguous title for any WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If a title qualifies as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to an article, then it meets necessary qualifications as the title for that article. If there are more than one such title, then we use CRITERIA to decide which one should be the title. While the proposed title is more precise in the conventional sense, it's "overly precise" in the WP sense given the primary topic status of the current more CONCISE title. --В²C ☎ 22:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRECISE specifically states that when an article is the PT (such as Energy) then it is not disambiguated. However we're talking about partly disambiguated titles, which aren't currently really supported by WP:PRECISE or WP:PTOPIC (which specifically uses the word term), IMO leaving the redirect to the fully disambiguated title is a reasonable compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
What policy says it would "require" further disambiguation? No one supporting the move has addressed WP:PDAB so far... In any case the key issue isn't geography, it's the relative notability of the two bands and whether specificity on this page helps or hinders clarity, and thus the usability of the encyclopedia as a resource. Nothing about the current title suggests it is the only such band in terms of how Wikipedia has been used, just that it is the primary band of that name. Precision is not an absolute value in and of itself when it risks confusing general readers.
Better thought experiment: imagine "Nirvana" were not a spiritual concept, but just a made-up word that happened to have been used by two bands as their names. In that world, this page would currently be called "Nirvana", and the other band would still be called "Nirvana (UK band)". This proposal would be fundamentally the same in that situation, and the argument in favor would follow the same logic: there are two bands, so the titles must (for some reason) distinguish them, so this article would have to be renamed from "Nirvana" to "Nirvana (American band)". But "[[Nirvana]]", plain and simple, would still redirect to "Nirvana (American band)", because it's still obvious to everyone that the American Nirvana is several orders of magnitude more famous than the British Nirvana (indeed, I doubt anyone still living has heard of the latter without having heard of the former). In that instance, there would be no primary page at all—only pages with "clarifying" parentheticals. Would that really be useful? Would it serve readers? Along the same lines: should we retitle the article currently at "Nirvana" to "Nirvana (spiritual concept)", then make "[[Nirvana]]" a redirect to "Nirvana (spiritual concept)"?
One last note: Nirvana (US band) currently redirects to this page. That redirect is in the category Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. How do you square Wikipedia's acknowledgment that there is such a thing as unnecessary disambiguation with the assertion that any opportunity to disambiguate means that we are required to disambiguate? —BLZ · talk 22:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:PTOPIC specifically states "A topic is primary for a term...", as "Nirvana (band)" isn't a term it isn't covered by that guideline. Yes if we just had the bands, this one would be primary for "Nirvana" but "Nirvana (band)" isn't a term. WP:PRECISION specifies that if an article is primary then it shouldn't be disambiguated but that doesn't appear to be the case with PDABs, which it specifies that the title should "unambiguously define the topical scope" which this title doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why "rock" instead of "alternative rock" in the lead?

Isn't there general consensus that grunge is part of alternative rock, and therefore the most common accurate denominator would be alternative rock? I have done this with other articles where the community found it acceptable. Please, just hear out my argument completely. Isn't it obvious from sources inside grunge's respective article that grunge is associated with and originally came from alternative rock? Would not a general description want to be as accurate as possible without going overboard? Alternative rock would suit that perfectly. dannymusiceditor oops 01:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this message right, you want to remove "grunge" and leave just "alternative rock" in the article (probably the infobox, possibly elsewhere, although it's not clear where exactly) because "alternative rock" is a broader category that contains the subgenre "grunge" in its entirety. However, that's not entirely the case. Bands labeled "grunge" are in a range of other genres, from alt-rock to hard rock to indie rock to punk to metal, sometimes combining elements of different genres and other times not. Bands can be "grunge" without being alt-rock; for example, Alice in Chains is grunge and alt-metal, but not alt-rock. Nirvana is almost certainly the quintessential "grunge" band, so it's not "overboard" to describe them this way. It's reasonable to include both terms. —BLZ · talk 02:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
No. You misunderstand. This has to do with the lead, not the infobox. That would be silly. What I had in mind was "Nirvana is an alternative rock band..." dannymusiceditor oops 03:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel we should not use blanket terms but specific ones, since the various rock genres are very different from each other (some hard, some soft), but almost all metal genres are alike. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know about that last part. But we're not debating that. dannymusiceditor oops 21:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Why not include both? Dan56 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
That's fine for the infobox, but I was only talking about the opening sentence of the lead. I have never seen even one article where it was practical to list more than one genre there. We start with the genre that shares the most similarity based on the sourced genres, or if we can't find adequate similarity, we leave it at "[x band] is a rock band from [x location, e.g. Los Angeles]." I am proposing that, since there is sourced evidence in its respective article that grunge came from alternative rock, that it would be most practical to list Nirvana as the latter to overview them in the lead instead of "rock". The infobox can remain as is. dannymusiceditor oops 01:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I was reading WP:LEAD#First sentence to try to respond to this, and have changed my mind. "Alternative rock" is vague for the nonspecialist reader, as is "grunge", so I would define them as a rock band in the first sentence, and leave the specifics elsewhere in the lead. So, if "overview" is the spirit we are aiming for, I would stick with "rock band". As for stylistic origins of grunge/alternative rock, all of it is essentially rock n roll, but we are splitting hairs and getting nerdy with the economic and aesthetic nuances of these specialist terms... all of which is irrelevant to writing a lead for the average reader. Dan56 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Alternative rock and grunge are styles of rock music. While there is nothing wrong with calling them an alternative rock band and is associated with the band itself, "rock" is far more comprehensive and specific for Nirvana as they had a major influence on rock and roll music, which flows better for the lead in the article. For example, Blink-182 are generally known as a pop punk group but they are still labeled as a rock band. Also, less controversial and wider appeal. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Same Line Used Twice in Intro

Though the band dissolved in 1994 after the death of Cobain, their music maintains a popular following and continues to influence modern rock and roll culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

timeline graph

Isn't this a bit pointless? If you read the article you get to understand the timeline about the band anyway. Govvy (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is on almost every major band article on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where the documentation is, but it's a nice graphical representation of the band member timelines particularly when they get complicated. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Change the picture on the infobox.

The current picture only shows Kurt and Novoselic, it doesn't show Grohl. It's also blurry looking.

The picture I showed here, is a photo from 1993 Live and Loud, taken by Jeff Kravitz. I think it would be a good picture, however you don't need to use it, if you change the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalTheorist (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The change as been reverted, unless proof can be shown that Jeff Kravitz released his images for public re-use, you are most certainly violating his copyrights. Zaathras (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Zaathras: since the image was uploaded to commons, concerns regarding copyright should be handled there. Regards, DanWarpp (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I looked briefly, but "commons" is a different site than the Wikipedia? I barely have a grip on things working here, really don't want to learn another set of rules. Besides, it looks like this user has been flagged over there for copyright transgrssions already, here, so someone will get to him eventually. For now, I just wanted it out of this article. Zaathras (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, as I said, the image was uploaded to commons, and as long as it's licensed under free use there, an editor claiming it is copyrighted without tagging it for such at commons does not warrant its removal. DanWarpp (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the image is, as of now, under free use and there's no objection to its inclusion, I will go ahead and restore it. Any editor who disagrees should feel free to revert. Regards, DanWarpp (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
"an editor claiming it is copyrighted without tagging it for such at commons does not warrant its removal" is true, but here community consensus overrides that. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@FlightTime: Thank you for joining the discussion. As said above, the image is as of now under free use and there's no objection to insert it in the infobox, so consensus has been achieved through WP:SILENCE, since no one has voiced their disagreement to the choice of image. DanWarpp (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I read that. I don't think the image needs to be changed, that's two editors who object. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Zaathras reasoning was regarding copyright, and that, as said above, is handled in commons. They have yet to voice their disagreement to the image itself. As for you, could you please elaborate? why exactly do you disagree with the 1993 Live and Loud image? As LocalTheorist said, it's less blurry and shows drummer Dave Grohl. DanWarpp (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated all of the images for speedy deletion at Commons. They're in the Getty database. Without much clearer evidence that the genuine author has somehow relicensed them as Creative Commons, they're obvious copyright violations. —BLZ · talk 17:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up! DanWarpp (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course! Just to be clear, if the 1993 Live and Loud photo was actually free-license it would be clearly preferable imo. The blurry pic of Kurt and Krist is not necessarily ideal, but it's the best we've had for a long time given the scarcity of freely licensable Nirvana/Cobain photos. —BLZ · talk 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would have been nice to have that clearer image, but I right away recognized it as something that wasn't going to be usable here. The more I look at this "Commons" setup, they are extremely backwards; uploaders should have to have their licensed verified before usage IMO, not wait for someone with common sense to come by. But that's a discussion for another place and time. Zaathras (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Any proposals for a new article picture?

As stated long before the current one is blurry, unclear, and doesn't even show the entire band. I am not familiar with the criteria so I can't provide a good picture myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.69.43.65 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Licensing and the restrictions that the Wikipedia has one hat images it can use has not changed since the last discussions above, so, no. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Spirit exceeded 1 billion views on youtube

On December 25, 2019, the clip of Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit exceeded 1 billion views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:44FA:A4D4:5769:D081 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Nirvana's origin date

1987, from what I probably heard from Krist Nirvana was made in 1985 or 1986. 1987 is when Nirvana became popular.


But I'm probably dead wrong Dummipediaaaa (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Past Members timeline

On the graph, Pat Smear is omitted. I understand he's listed as a touring musician, but lots of sources state that Kurt wanted the band to be a 4 piece and he was finally happy to have him, going so far as Smear stating "Wow! I'm in Nirvana" (paraphrasing). All post death shows have had Smear as a returning member. Seems like a gross oversight. Many portfolio pictures show Pat Smear in the lineup. The wiki article itself states Smear was added to the band as a fourth guitarist. So the article is not consistent. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Chad Channing

I believe he should be added to the member infobox as he participated on the recording of 1 of their 3 full albums, and was involved in activities unlike the other ones not listed. - K-popguardian (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Chad Channing

Assuming one with appropriate usage rights exists, I feel like a picture of Chad Channing should be included in this article. I'd suggest that it replace the picture of Grohl drumming in 1989. There's no question Dave was the most important drummer of Nirvana, but that picture is from when he was in Scream, not Nirvana, and there's a picture of him and Kurt immediately thereafter. Chad was instrumental to Nirvana's early sound and I feel like a picture of him would add to the article, especially as there are pics of all the other major band members, including Pat. TempDog123 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Incesticide

The Incesticide album needs to be added to Nirvana discography. Losrox (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a compilation album and we are only supposed to include studio albums in the discography list on the band page. It is however included on the Nirvana discography page.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Pat Was An Official Member

Pat was a official member of Nirvana for the time he was with them Dave said he was their new guitar player on Unplugged and he’s credited as such on the Live And Loud Vinyl liner notes Imagine offline (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pat Smear was never an official member. Credits on Live and Loud (Nirvana video album) are not a good source, as it was released in 2013, 19 years after the band ended. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Pat Smear was an official member

This has been indicated a number of times, most notably on the Unplugged special where Dave introduces Pat as “our new guitar player”, whereas Kurt introduced Lori Goldstein as “our friend”. Imagine offline (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

He was being introduced for that session only. Smear was never, at any time, considered a permanent member. Zaathras (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nirvana was never supposed to be a three piece band. Pat was supposed to put some guitar down for “You Know You’re Right” before Kurt died. It was said at least once that he would contribute to future studio albums as an official member. I think somewhere on a forum a Nirvana guitar tech said Pat was treated as an official member, so I don’t understand why this is never recognized. Imagine offline (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

He’s also credited on the live albums he appears on with Kurt, Krist, and Dave as Nirvana, separate from Lori Goldstein, Chris and Curt Kirkwood, etc. Imagine offline (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if the band had been able to continue past 1994, it would have been a different story and become a 4-man act. But we're not a blog, and we do not engage in speculative writing here...an encyclopedia reflects what actually was, as covered by reliable sources. The sources are pretty clear here, Smear was a touring member. There's no wiggle room here. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pat Smear is notable enough to be in the member section

I obided by the rules. I did not add him as a full member, just a touring member, since there isn't a full on consensus. I personally consider him as a full time member, but that is neither here nor there. But, he is AT LEAST significant enough in the bands history to be included in the timeline. Pat appeared in two of Nirvana's biggest performances, including their largest, that being unplugged. He was definitely more significant than Jason, no matter how much I love Jason and the Bleach Era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxxyBoy (talk • contribs) 03:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Smear is already listed, under "Touring musicians". What was removed was your addition of him to the timeline graphic, which is only intended to track the tenures of actual members. Zaathras (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Better picture

Can we get a better picture that includes Grohl and has better quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine offline (talk • contribs)

Hi, from what I understand, the Wikipedia project is very limited in what kinda media it can use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Zaathras (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021

Hi i think we should take away the grunge genre label from every band on here that is labeled as grunge so more people will realise that it's not a real genre and also these r the genres i'd class nirvarna as imo Genre:Punk rock, alternative rock, hardcore punk, sludge metal, hard rock, garage rock 2A00:23C8:1A82:BD00:5DF4:B686:38A9:6A88 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

First, Dale did backing vocals during his first stint, (Downer and Spank Thru).[1] Second, Nirvana placed an add in the October 1987 issue of The Rocket, requesting a drummer. Third, Krist did backing vocals on "The Money Will Roll Right In". [2] Fourth, Krist did vocals on every version of Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves, which was played until at least January 3rd, 1988. Here is one example, you can find the others here too. [3] Dave Foster played shows with them until May 29th, when Chad played his first show. [4]BoxxyBoy (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Roberts, Alex. "January 23rd, 1988". LiveNIRVANA.com. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
  2. ^ "Nirvana - The Money Will Roll Roll Right In (Live at Reading, 1992)". Youtube.com. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
  3. ^ Roberts, Alex. "?? 1987". LiveNIRVANA.com. Live Nirvana. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
  4. ^ https://www.livenirvana.com/concerts/88/88-05-xx.php
"livenirvana.com" is some guy's blog. It appears in the archives of this talk page several times, and does not appear to be looked upon as a reliable source. Zaathras (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

possibility of adding a new genre?

I have a suggestion of adding the subgenre “noise rock” to this article. Kurt was heavily influenced by many noise rock acts and they have many songs that could for sure be classified as noise rock, especially on their debut album “Bleach”. I could find plenty of external articles to back this up Xxzcx (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The recent genre dispute

@Bowling is life: @MetalDiablo666: @Zaathras: can we talk about this civilly please? I can see both sides of this argument; while the source is indeed valid and completely reliable, I believe it may be fringe to call hard rock a primary genre that Nirvana are described as. Furthermore, I think grunge and alternative, and even punk, may not have enough sources attributed to their overall style to clearly differentiate this difference in description, and generally do not find any of their individual works described that way by reliable sources, either. Any thoughts? dannymusiceditor oops 03:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that this is even a point of contention. First, allmusic is not a reliable source for genras, they just use a catchall name-list to catch anything under the sub. Second - alternative rock. What do we think it was the "alternate" to? It was mainstream, major label rock n' roll, which is what hard rock encompasses. Zaathras (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Addendum, there's even a project shortcut for it - WP:ALLMUSIC. "Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability." Zaathras (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Addendum 2, man this just gets worse as one digs. "Hard rock" was sournced to an ARCHIVED version of the page, and the only thing there was the headline. archived page vs. live page. The live, current one doers not mention hard rock at all. So all we're left with after that is a 20-year-old VH1 top "hard rock artists" page. So, no, this is not really at all defining. Zaathras (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
AllMusic is a perfectly fine source for genre, and to dispute that is another discussion that should be had entirely. As for the project page, the topper to the artist's AllMusic biography, where this information is taken from, counts as "accompanying prose". I do not see any merit to the argument that using an old, different version of the page is invalid, as long as there was nothing factually inaccurate influencing the editor's opinion at that time. Musical genre is a subjective matter that should be handled by published experts, and that is exactly what this is, even if the version we see has changed. dannymusiceditor oops 22:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
However, while it is reliably sourced, I am still in favor of removing it from the infobox anyway per my above reasons. I think AllMusic's opinion would still be worth noting in the musical style section. dannymusiceditor oops 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Zaathras: I agree more with what @DannyMusicEditor: said. AllMusic is a reliable source, and the quote about hard rock is "accompanying prose." Plus, your arguments in the edit summaries like "Not even remotely "hard rock." Jeez, hard rock is like Aerosmith," is not a good argument. If the genre is sourced, the genre can be included. Genres are not based on Wikipedia editors' opinions. That's up to the sources to decide. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the guideline that says to avoid using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar refers to the info on the side of the site. Under the section that lists when the band formed also lists genres and styles. Those genres can not be used. Only what is in the prose can be used. Maybe adding one more source for each genre would be good. DannyMusicEditor, if we can't find more sources for hard rock, it would be a good idea to at least keep it in the musical style section like you said. But, with the first thing you said, are you suggesting to remove grunge and alternative rock if we don't find more sources? What else would we put in the infobox. Those genres have been there forever, and removing them, especially grunge, would not make sense. Or is not what you mean? Bowling is life (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Bowling is life, I believe a vast expanse of support exists for Nirvana being grunge and alternative rock by comparison and I am skeptical about hard rock especially, perhaps punk.
What I'm saying is that only two refs next to these when punk rock and hard rock have only one paints a misleading picture that support for such a description is nearly the same. We need more for their main genres, and I personally think it best we should focus especially on what their individual works are consistently referred to as in situations like this. dannymusiceditor oops 02:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm feeling like people didn't even read what I wrote above, so I'll include this part again - archived page vs. live page, because as far as I can see, the only instance of the term "hard rock" appears in the Allmusic archived page from 2017, and that is ONLY the headline - "Second-generation punk's most unlikely success story, a rampaging hard rock trio that influenced countless artists but ended in tragedy". And no, a title does not count as "accompanying prose", especially when the term appears nowhere else in the body of the artist bio. BUT that is largely irrelevant, as it is a 4-year-old snapshot. the CURRENT Allmusic entry (linked as "live page" above) has NO MENTION of "hard rock" anywhere. Please address the citing of an old version vs. the actual article as it appears today on allmusic.com, as I feel this point is being ignored. Thanks. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
If you read my post at all you'd see I considered the fact that it no longer appears that way as something of little to no consequence. Using an older version of a reliable source for historical reference is perfectly valid. You are unfortunately holding a minority opinion elsewhere. That is simply the introduction to the band's biography. That perfectly counts as Wikipedia's definition of "accompanying prose", and it always has. dannymusiceditor oops 02:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. The old version of the current article is 100% invalid. It has been replaced. Zaathras (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Need a better source than allmusic anyways. Joey Camelaroche (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe for where it currently is, that's true, but for it to be present in the article at all I think it's fine. I do not think it needs replaced, just supplemented. dannymusiceditor oops 03:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, can you guys leave it alone, Hard rock is a pretty generic term, Queen did rock music, Nirvana did heavy rock, which is pretty much the same as hard rock, hence the link in the info box. Sourcing, pfft, there is plenty in the article. Govvy (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Heavy rock" ? I'm sorry, what is that? Heavy rock disambiguates to 4 similar-sounding actual genres, it isn't an actual genre of its own. Also, please point out the "plenty" of sources in the article to support hard rock, because at the moment there are 2 extremely tenuous ones; an outdated version of an allmusic.com article, and a VH1 Top 50 list. Zaathras (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

To me, it would make the most sense to include the main genres which most sources use. If a single genre mentioned by a single source is proving contentious, do we really need to mention it? Does that one source fairly represent a consensus among sources?

I'm a little conflicted about the issue of using an older version of a reliable source. When a source has changed, that might reflect a correction. Popcornfud (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, your initial comment is exactly the point I'm trying to make. I don't think it does represent that consensus. I'm not opposed to it being mentioned somehow in the article, but I think the way it is right now is misleading. The other opposition is asking for its removal entirely, and for the wrong reasons. Normally, a source change likely does reflect a correction. But this was a style assessment by someone who is supposed to be a published expert. Given that the nature of this assessment is entirely subjective to said expert, I have no problem with showing that assessment on Wikipedia as historical record. dannymusiceditor oops 17:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank-you, the use of an archived version of an article that is COMPLETELY different from its current version is absurd. Zaathras (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Early band names

The fourth Name of the band before the 5th one that the world knows as Nirvana was BLISS. 2601:82:8200:FFB0:AD53:4C14:6A35:EAAC (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been in and around the biz for 30+ years, and have never heard that name associated with Cobain or Nirvana. Source? Zaathras (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Illuminatus reference

I'm surprised that the article does not mention that Nirvana was the name of a rock band in the Illuminatus trilogy, published 1975. Here is link to a description: https://fakebands.com/wiki/index.php?title=Nirvana_(The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy). I was very impressed at the time by this manic stream of some 60 rock band names, which showed that a name can be literally anything.

It's not in any of the archived talk pages, either -- but it really should be mentioned in the article. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:5D8A:B87E:340D:EFA8 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks kind of ridiculous and irrelevant, honestly. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Pat Smears as a full member

Sorry to revive that discussion, but at no moment of rock history touring members have been part of official photoshoots. Smears was : https://www.clashmusic.com/features/nirvanas-in-utero-at-20-pat-smear-interview/ (top of the page - full article is interesting on this subject too)

What's more there are interviews (all, I guess?) where Dave Grohl says Smears really joined the band (not just "helped the band on tour"), eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wCjNN6U_ec&ab_channel=TheHowardSternShow

I really don't get that consensus of Pat Smears not being part of the band, whereas most of people on the timeline also never played on any record, were on no official photoshoot, and so on.

Puddingstud (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we'd need several secondary sources to state this explicitly, rather than pointing to some interviews and photoshoots and drawing our own conclusions. Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
An official photoshoot is a primary source, an interview for the drummer saying "he joined the band" is also a primary source.
Another important primary source is that there are four pictures on the back cover of "Unplugged in New York": Pat Smears, Kurt Cobain, Krist Novolesic, Dave Grohl.
Do we really need a secondary source to write the words "full band member" for us? Puddingstud (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we do — otherwise we're just making personal interpretations of primary sources. Additionally, we have billions of secondary sources that describe Nirvana as a trio. Popcornfud (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
But do they rely on any primary source (interview, photo, credits etc) from 1994 ?
Nirvana was famous for being a trio, so of course you'll find billions of sources saying so. Puddingstud (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If so, here is already one: "The other comment on the brochure is the acknowledgement of Pat Smear’s elevation to full band member."
https://nirvana-legacy.com/2013/09/26/interval-for-in-utero/ Puddingstud (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
That appears to be some sort of fansite or blog rather than a reliable secondary source like Rolling Stone or something. Also, as I said in my initial reply, we'd also need several secondary sources to make this statement because, as I said in my second comment, the claim goes against the billions of secondary sources that describe Nirvana as a trio.
> Nirvana was famous for being a trio, so of course you'll find billions of sources saying so.
Exactly, so that's pretty much what Wikipedia has to say, too. Remember that Wikipedia isn't actually really about reporting "the truth", it's about collecting what reliable sources say as a whole and trying to reflect that as neutrally as possible.
If you can find several reliable secondary sources that say Smear was a full member then we could perhaps add this to the prose, like "According to XYZ, Smear was a full member of the band" but it would have to be a very large amount of evidence for us to update the infobox formally. Popcornfud (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I really don't get that official photoshoots, interviews and album covers are not reliable enough sources, but anyway. You've got your opinion on this subject I guess. Puddingstud (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If we found a '94 video of Cobain saying "Pat is an official member of Nirvana", would it be enough, or you'll still need Rolling Stone to quote it? Serious question. Puddingstud (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point a bit. If Cobain said that, it would almost certainly be recorded in a reliable secondary source. Was it? Popcornfud (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Let's put it another way. What are your reliable secondary sources saying Dale Crover was a full band member? Puddingstud (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Me personally? I don't have any. I've never worked on anything to do with Dale Crover. Do you think the sources cited in the article are sufficient to list him as a former member? If they're not sufficient, it should be removed. Popcornfud (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
To my definition of "member", it is okay that he's here. To yours, definitely not. Puddingstud (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, it’s not my or your definition that matters. It’s the sources’ opinion. Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources. This isn’t my opinion I’m describing here, it’s Wikipedia policy. If you haven’t seen it already, I recommend you take a look at WP:SECONDARY. Popcornfud (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia official definition of "member", you know it, don't hide yourself behind rules and objectiity that don't apply. I am perfectly aware of what sources and reliabiliy are. Puddingstud (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Since there's no Wikipedia definition of "member", then we're going to have to go by what sources say. :) Popcornfud (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
One mistake that's causing you trouble, is that someone decided to put a "Final line-up" section, that is thus seen as a synonym of "Most known line-up".
Therefore, having Smear as a member would be way to much important, in regard to his contribution to the band.
But for most other "dead" bands, there is not such "Final line-up", only "Former members" : Ramones, Sex Pistols.
The Clash has a more convenient "Classic Line-up".
Sonic Youth also has a "Final line-up" section: therefore it contains a 5th member Mark Ibold (being only on tour! makes me think of someone...), and nowhere is the classic 4-people line-up.
Anyway, you don't have to answer, I'm writing that for other potentials contributors that would be open to discussion. Puddingstud (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF type of argument, which carries no weight here. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I mean come on...
Internet is full of primary and secondary sources stating "In 1993, Pat Smears joined the band".
And the more they are reliable or primary, the less they say "as a touring guitarist".
===== Secondary sources: =====
> During the interview, Stern asked Smear – who joined Nirvana in 1993 -
> Smear, who joined in 1993 for the In Utero tour,
> Smear joined the band in 1993.
> Pat Smear joined Nirvana in 1993 as a second guitarist
> Pat Smear joined the band around this time.
And finally your beloved Rolling Stone for primary+secondary source:
> "He said Nirvana was always meant to be four people. I thought, ‘Wow, I want that.’ And then it happened."
> [...] Smear said yes.
===== Primary sources: =====
> "It made the band a lot more fun to be in, having Pat in the band"
> ITWer : [When Cobain asked Pat to be in, were you like "Oh no, it's the three of us!" ?]
> "No! At one point, Nirvana was a 4-piece, so it didn't look weird to me"
  • "Unplugged in NY" back cover showing them four.
  • Official photoshoots showing them four.
What more do you want.
Now give me your more reliable secondary and primary sources for Nirvana being a trio in 1994. Puddingstud (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think these amount to the inarguable body of evidence you think it does. There are two main problems with those quotes:
1) Most of them are passing quotes in interviews, rather than unambiguous factual statements from reliable secondary sources.
2) Many of the quotes could easily mean Smear physically joined the band for performances (ie as a touring member), rather than he joined Nirvana an official permanent capacity.
It's entirely possible that Nirvana did indeed plan to make Smear a formal member, and may have been thinking of him in those terms, but was any contract of membership ever signed or was it just a vague, informal thing? If Smear was an official member, then why did the legal ownership of Nirvana's legacy fall only to Grohl, Novoselic and Cobain's family, and not Smear? If it's so obvious that Smear was an official member, why do sources always refer to them as a trio? If we place so much weight on band photographs as proof of band membership, why does Smear not appear on the cover of the box set With the Lights Out? etc.
To me, the jury is still out. Perhaps others will disagree.
What more do you want.
When Smear rejoined Foo Fighters as a permanent member, the band issued a press release stating that longtime extended FF family member Pat Smear now joins the permanent FF core of Grohl, Taylor Hawkins, Nate Mendel and Chris Shiflett. Rolling Stone et al have dutifully reported Smear as a member of Foo Fighters ever since. Something like that would be pretty good. Popcornfud (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
> was any contract of membership ever signed or was it just a vague, informal thing
It was probably informal, as it is in any music band. You don't have to sign anything to be part of a band.
> if it's so obvious that Smear was an official member, why do sources always refer to them as a trio
Because the band's most famous and long-lasting line-up, from 1989 to 1993, was a trio. So much that it can even be used as a metonymy for the band.
> why does Smear not appear on the cover of the box set With the Lights Out?
Because he was only a member for 6 months, and did no album. Again the most iconic line-up of Nirvana was a trio with Grohl, it would have no sense (logically and commercially) to include Smear.
Same as The Who's last drummer being Kenney Jones: it would make no sense to picture The Who's box set without Keith Moon on the cover. Puddingstud (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, all of those are sensible possible explanations — but it's all conjecture, just like your assessments of the sources are conjecture. We can't rely on that for Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Again, maybe other editors will disagree. Popcornfud (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, all your arguments were also conjectures, I'm only answering. Puddingstud (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely! But that's my point — we can only speculate back and forth. Nothing you present there is inarguable. Since there's no definite statement we can use either way, we have to resort to the status quo, which is to describe Nirvana as a trio. Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Secondary sources say X, primary sources say X, none says "X is wrong", and to you "it's not inarguable", wtf...
Do you have any legal proof that Chad Channing was ever part of the band? Was there a press release? And Jason Everman?
It's all nonsense, you just don't want to change your mind. Very subjective of you. Puddingstud (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
A touring member is not an actual member. This has been addressed multiple times over the years, for far longer than I've been editing here. Let it go. Zaathras (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The whole subject is that he's not just a touring member, but I guess you've read nothing. Puddingstud (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
He was just a touring member, you can't go back and change something that happened 29 years ago, my friend. Smear was added for the SNL appearance in Sept of 1993 and toured with them right up to the Rome overdose (or suicide attempt, depending) in March of 1994, about 50 shows. He did not join the band in studio in Jan of 94 for the aborted recording session that only got through "You Know You're Right" and little else. Smear was not asked to this because, again, he was not a full-time member. Could've turned out differently later that year, but we'll never know. When sources say he "joined the band", they generally mean in the context of the tour. Or they put in quotes to indicate it was not real, like this Vice headline, Remembering In Utero With Nirvana's "Fourth" Member, Pat Smear. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Man, I don't care, at a personal level, about Pat Smear being in the band or not – unlike you perhaps. All I care about is truth and consistency.
You want more-than-absolute proofs and 250% sure sources for Smear that you don't need for Jason Everman, Dale Crover and so on.
As a reminder, Jason Everman didn't play on Bleach either, and that's a full session, not just 3 days of trials and preparation. Puddingstud (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
What's more, for the '94 sessions:
> In a 2002 interview with the website Nirvana Fan Club, he said Cobain had sent him a cassette of the recording and told him he could add his part later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Know_You%27re_Right#Origin_and_recording
Meaning he was only supposed to arrive later in the recording process (overdubbing probably).
And once again, Jason Everman didn't record at all. Puddingstud (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we are all aware that there was intention to probably make Pat a full member down the road. It didn't happen. Your comments on Jason Everman are irrelevant, as however brief his band tenure was, he was still a full member of the band for that time. Zaathras (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I only speak to people who listen, I'm gonna stop there. Puddingstud (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a wise choice, as you seem to have dug yourself into a hole. If you attempt to introduce deliberate falsehoods into this or any other article, regarding band membership, you will be reverted. Zaathras (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Help

I accidentally removed the image from the article in adding links to the proper nouns in the image caption in the name of public interest. I do not know how to undo my mistake and I apologize for it. Ded Meem (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Just click on "View History" and then click "Undo". CAVincent (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Jason Everman’s backing vocals

His backing vocal duties were added onto the band a while ago, but I haven’t seen or heard any performances of him doing any kind of vocal duties, nor have I seen any kind of source suggesting this. This was also back and forth edited in and edited out of the article. Can anyone tell me about any times Everman did any vocals? Actuallyjoseph (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Eyes Adrift

Should also be added to the "Spinoff" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Adrift 77.23.118.252 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Chad Channing

When it says ‘members’ on the main bit, I think Chad should be on there Actuallyjoseph (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

Add the insecticide album please 2A01:C23:61C0:6B00:2510:78C0:8E74:D204 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Only studio albums go in the discography section of the band's main article. Compilations, EPs, and live albums can be found on the band's separate discography article. Bowling is life (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_(band)/Archive_7&oldid=1189978950"