Talk:Nirvana discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured list star Nirvana discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article is under the scope of the Nirvana taskforce.
This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
Featured list FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Sources?

Is there any sources to the sales figures on this page? /Nirvana77


[edit] Additional Content

I think the albums should have track listings and their respective time lengths. With a band this popular and influential I'm sure wiki-pages of stand-alone songs might already exist or will soon exist. --Evoluzion 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Track listings and timne lengths etc. already exist on each album's own article in the infobox on the right. ie. see Nevermind. -- Reaper X 20:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I know the actual album pages have all the information, as they should. But I just thought a quick and dirty list of tracks would be good in the discography page.
I'll be honest and explain my true reasons: I download music (mp3s) and then try to organize it on my computer, but sometimes the actual music file (mp3) doesnt have the correct info so I search the Net. Wikipedia has been a great source for information, so i thought a page like "Nirvana Discography" would be a cool page to visit and see every album produced along with a list of every song produced.
Whatcha think? --Evoluzion 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, unnecessary. It's only a click away. -- Reaper X 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .

Hey now that kicks ass! That should go on the front page, but with the Box sets included aswell.

I intentionally left out the box sets because it makes the chart look ridiculous because of the oddly shaped artwork. -- ChrisB 10:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks a bit crap in that chronological order. It looke better with the 4 Nevermind singles together. Then the On A Plain promo only, the limited Hormaoning EP, the interview and the Oh the Guilt split single. It looked better graphically and was near enough chronological order.

[edit] "Other" Releases

Those repackaged two-in-one "box sets" shouldn't be included here. There's nothing unique to them. -- ChrisB 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Album ?

So when will there be a new album Fecal Metter Demo ? Does anyone know ?

I doubt the Fecal Matter demo will ever be released. Kurt was kind of embarrassed by it, which might help explain why it hasn't surfaced in bootleg circles. (And why only one song was included on Sliver.) We're more likely to see a live release than anything else, but there's been no specific discussion of anything. -- ChrisB 00:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MUSTARD

what a stupid name for a guideline...anyway, I checked it out, the one conflicting thing is that it says not to use album images. Please...besides, they have the Oasis discography as a model, and it uses images. It does however differ in layout, and it looks fairly neat. I don't think changing this discography to that type of layout would be difficult, I say we do it. -- Reaper X 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I re-did the whole discohraphy section. There are some lacking details that will need adding/correcting from you guys.
  • Chart Positions: I only took them from official charts from G8 countries. Plus it wasnt clear to me what was official for the US, so I just used the Billboard Top 200. Add/correct as necessary.
  • Worldwide sales: I guess-timated from the information given on the respective album articles. I have a feeling some of those figures are out-of-date anyway, so could someone please find current ones?!
  • Release dates: Some of these are not specific, could someone find that info too?
  • Notes: Didn't bother adding any to some, add notable facts with discretion.
Besides that, I think it is MUSTARD-worthy now. -- Reaper X 18:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Not bad, I actually started that off a few edits ago if you follow back the history, but as I didn't have time to complete it I changed it back to the old layout. One thing I will say is that the text and bullet points are conflicting with the seperation line in the albums and single tables. Also the Blew (EP) is considerd more of a single-EP and Hormoaning is more of an album-EP. Perhaps a different section for EP's ? 195.137.109.177 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Would be good to use ISO-3 country codes for the chart positions (Except US and UK).83.118.38.37 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I did it up. The only thing is I couldn't find the codes for Holland or Switzerland, so I temporarily substituted in HOL and SWZ for them, respectively. COuld someone find the actual codes if those are incorrect? -- Reaper X 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just learned Holland is the terminology-incorrect name for the Netherlands, thank you Wikipedia for making me less ignorant :) -- Reaper X 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singes

There have only been 14 singles. The others were radio promos not available to buy as singles.

Radio promos are counted as singles for our purposes. --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreleased songs

I'm not sure I like this section. Nearly all of the songs that could be listed here aren't Nirvana songs - they're Cobain demos. I know that many similar Cobain demos were released as "Nirvana" songs on With the Lights Out and The Best of the Box (including The Jury demos, which weren't Nirvana at all), but I don't think his demos should automatically count or be considered as Nirvana recordings for the point of the discography. (And, honestly, "Montage of Heck" and "Escalator to Hell" aren't even songs.)

If we include those, then we end up moving the direction of including Fecal Matter songs as Cobain demos (and "Nirvana songs"). And those songs (save for the ones they actually played) are not Nirvana songs.

We have so much territory that we can cover without including the unreleased material - I feel like we should stay away from it. It's already mentioned in the Nirvana article that other material remains unreleased - there's not much encyclopedic value in specifically naming that material. I really believe we should stick to the items that have been officially released as Nirvana material. -- ChrisB 04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You can take the list part down, if you think it shouldn't be there. To be honest, I only put in the section because there's a section like it in the three featured discographies that I know of, but a list like that doesn't apply as well for most of the reasons you just stated. However, I think that the opening paragraph of the unreleased songs section should stay, because there needs to be some mention that there are several songs under the Nirvana name that haven't been officially released. --Brandt Luke Zorn 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A mess

Someone has really fucked up this discography. At one point it was perfect. I'll try and sort out what I can. Its like the page was either written by someone with half a brain or like someone is trying to shun Nirvana. 83.67.100.248 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

If this Tag is being used, surely it is ok to use the images:

Copyrighted This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For an example fair use rationale, see here.

83.67.100.248 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, album covers cannot be used in lists and discographies, per the Wikimedia licensing policy. Please see the WP:NONFREE policy. ➪HiDrNick! 17:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales

The source used for the U.S sales of albums is old. 83.67.100.248 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the In Utero sales are 5.5m in the US. 195.137.109.177 11:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you can find a reliable source saying so, go for it. --Brandt Luke Zorn 12:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-sides

Is there any need for a table of b-sides in a bands discography. Check the name of the title Discography. 83.67.100.248 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and References

Before altering any info on the page please read this Help:Contents/Links and more specificaly this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Published books are more appropriate as ar as charts are concerned many web "unofficial" web archives such as this one [1] for Australia only list the top 40 when the official ARIA published charts are top 100.

And this unnofficial site only archives charts back to 1993 [2] for New Zealand, where charts have existed since 1966. However this does not mean these sites cannot be used as source just that there are bettersources in the form of books.

Thats just two examples.83.67.100.248 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It also depends on if you can find a more comprehensive book source, and even then it mgiht not be in English, which is preferred. WesleyDodds 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of multiple sources

Would it not be better to just use one linked source for info from the http://www.bpi.co.uk/index.asp website. As per Wiki guidelnes. 83.67.100.248 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia guidelines are you referring to here? I don't think that there's anything about using only one reference over several subpages or that book resources are necessarily preferred over internet references. Besides, the link you gave is the BPI homepage; if anything we'd want to cite this link However, there is still no good reason to reference only that link, and there is a precedent for citing this way from Goldfrapp discography. --Brandt Luke Zorn 17:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)