Talk:Nirvana discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list 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 so.
Featured topic star Nirvana discography is the main article in the Nirvana studio albums series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 15, 2007 Featured list candidate Not promoted
September 24, 2007 Featured list candidate Promoted
December 15, 2010 Featured topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured list
WikiProject Alternative music / Nirvana  (Rated FL-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic 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 list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Nirvana taskforce (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Discographies (Rated FL-class)
WikiProject icon 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 quality scale.


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

Additional Content[edit]

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)


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.

"Other" Releases[edit]

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)

New Album ?[edit]

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)


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 ? 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Would be good to use ISO-3 country codes for the chart positions (Except US and UK). 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)


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)

Unreleased songs[edit]

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)

A mess[edit]

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. 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

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


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

I'm sure the In Utero sales are 5.5m in the US. 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)


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

Sources and References[edit]

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. 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)

Use of multiple sources[edit]

Would it not be better to just use one linked source for info from the website. As per Wiki guidelnes. 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)

Missing Albums[edit]

What about "The Very Best" - compilation CD; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundmedmunn (talkcontribs) 04:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it before. It looks like a bootleg or an unofficial release. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some more definitive info:
1: - Hormoaning
2: - Hormoaning [Japan]
I have this CD in a box in the attic at my parents home. Have not had the chance to check it out.

"Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flowing Throught the Strip"[edit]

I would just like to point out that "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flowing Throught the Strip" was indeed released as a single, albeit a promotional cassette:

Just so you guys don't think I'm a vandal.-- (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, no ones discussing this, they're just deleting it. It's a simple promo, it deserves a little mention. Notice I didn't add it to the main singles, just promo singles. I think it should stay.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
We're going to need better proof than a picture on a page dedidicated to the word "flow". I haven't found any mention of it in Nirvana discographies. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada Certifications[edit]

Certifications for releases in Canada can be found here: (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Bleach: 1999. Gold. 50,000 units.

Nevermind: 2001. Diamond. 1,000,000 units

Incesticide: 1997. 2 x Platinum. 200,000 untis.

In Utero: 2001. 6 x Platinum. 600,000 units.

Unplugged: 2001. 9 x Platinum. 900,000 units.

FTMBOTW: 1996. 2 xPlatinum. 200,00 units.

LTSO: 1995. Gold. 50,000 units. (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --JD554 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

There is no restriction against using File:Nirvana album cover.jpg in the infobox because the image is not copyrighted. – Zntrip 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why use an image that may be acceptable when you can use an image that is without a doubt acceptable. And why would you want to use this image anyway? It's ugly and bland. A picture of the band performing is much better.-5- (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Nirvana album cover.jpg is 100% okay to use. It's just text on a background, so it cannot possibly be copyrighted. And it makes since to use this image because unlike the previous image it 1) has to do with the band's discography and 2) isn't used on the article about the band. – Zntrip 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the cover of their greatest hits album. It makes sense to use it in the article about that album, but it doesn't make sense to use it in an article about the band's entire discography. A photo of the band itself makes much more sense in this case. Check any other band's discography page for example.-5- (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it makes a lot of sense. The cover of Nirvana better represents the band's discography than a picture of them preforming. Additionally, File:Nirvana around 1992.jpg is used in the infobox on Nirvana (band) and it would be nice to use a different image. – Zntrip 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is that cover representative of the band's entire discography? I think most people would find Nevermind or even In Utero to be a more essential album in the band's discography than the greatest hits album. Who cares if the image is used twice? It is free, representative of the band, and a nice shot of them in concert.-5- (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As an additional note, search through the featured discographies at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies and show me one that has an album cover as the infobox image.-5- (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The album cover is representative of the band's entire discography because it is actually a part of the discography and it is the band's greatest hits album. May I ask you how a picture of the band performing at the MTV Video Music Awards is more representative of the discography? I agree it would be nicer if we could use another album cover such as Nevermind, but the fact is that the cover of Nirvana is not copyrighted and as a greatest hits album it is basically a condensed version of the band's entire discography. File:Nirvana around 1992.jpg is also over used. It appears on Kurt Cobain, Nirvana (band), rock music, grunge music, 1990s in music, and this page; I think you would agree that it would be nice to try to find a different image to use. Additionally, your quo argument does not apply to this discussion because there are very few cases in which an album image is not copyrighted. – Zntrip 04:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said it would be nice to use Nevermind as the image for the article, I said most people would find it more essential to the band's discography than the greatest hits album. The greatest hits cover is just one album cover out of their discography consisting of ten albums. What makes the greatest hits album more important than any of their other releases? You'll get differing opinions depending on the person as far as what image should represent the band's discography. However, I doubt you'd get much disagreement about including a photo of the band itself on their own discography page. After all, they wrote, recorded, and released these albums. Again, you won't find an image of an album cover on any other featured discography. I'd rather this article be consistent with the characteristics of a featured article.-5- (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That fake cover is a unauthorized reproduction of an actual album cover, which is a hole 'nother copyright problem. Regardless, in discography articles, you want pictures of the band members. Free/licensed ones at that. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why no one is addressing any of my points. I understand what is done on most discography pages. However in this situation we happen to have an album cover that is not under copyright protection. Furthermore, this album cover happens to be the band's greatest hits album. This album, in a sense, represents the entire discography. That is what makes this image notable. A picture of the band performing has less to do with the discography than the album cover. If all of my statements thus far are correct why are there still objects to including the image? – Zntrip 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"This album, in a sense, represents the entire discography."

No it doesn't. It represents 14 songs out of the 100 they recorded.-5- (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize it is only 14 songs, all I'm saying is that it is more representative of the discography at-large than a picture of the band. Would you care to address any other part of my previous comment? – Zntrip 05:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything in your previous comment that we haven't already gone over. I think Wesley and I have made our points. He makes a great point about this being an unauthorized reproduction, so this image may actually need to be re-reviewed. If you really feel serious about this you should start a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies.-5- (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your last comment, you clearly have not been paying attention to what I have said. How could there be an "unauthorized reproduction" of a non-copyrighted image? Why would we have to discuss this at WikiProject Discographies? Have I not made the point that this is a special situation? The only thing close to a guideline for this situation would be here, but this is in no way a consensus. Since I get the feeling that you are unwilling to discuss this any further I will make a request for a third opinion. – Zntrip 05:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead.-5- (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"Images used should ideally be free images; that is, not subject to copyright restrictions". That "free image" that simulates the cover to the Nirvana compilation is a copyright infringement, as it's attempting to replicate the content of a copyrighted image in order to avoid fair use restrictions (which, if you used the actual cover the album, would apply, but then again, you shouldn't be using fair use images in the infobox). The photo of Nirvana performing, on the other hand, actually is free and doesn't infringe on any copyright. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That image shouldn't even be used for the compialtion album article, when the actual image can be used just fine under fair use, but that's a bit of a tangent. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of the image in the infobox is to try to identify the topic of the article visually. An image of one of their albums is great at visually identifying that album, but not so great at identifying the band's discography. It would be impossible to identify their discography with a single image, so an image which identifies the band would be the logical image to use rather than an image which simply identifies one of their albums. --JD554 (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To WesleyDodds: The cover of Nirvana is not under copyright protection because it only consists of text on a black background and thus does not meet the threshold of originality. It is not a fair use image, it is a public domain image.
To JD554: I agree that the image in the infobox should "identify the topic of the article visually". The cover of the band's only greatest hits album is a logical candidate for such an image. I understand that the album is just a handful of songs and may not do justice to the entire catalog of the band's work, however the image is more representative of the band's discography than a picture of the band performing. – Zntrip 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
My point is that you cannot visually represent an artist's discography. It then comes down to what should be try to visually represent - an album or the artist? It's my opinion that it's better to show the artist as that encompasses all their body of work whereas an album cover only represents a single piece of work. With regard to this particular album cover, it's not even a particularly well known album cover - obviously the best known are non-free images and can't be used - but that is besides the point when a picture of the band represents their work better. --JD554 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on that point. I simply think that for a discography page, the cover of an album, especially the greatest hits album, would represent the discography better than a picture of the band performing. The album is in the discography and encompasses some of the best known works of the artist. The image of the band performing has less to do with the subject of the discography than the album cover. – Zntrip 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright issues aside, I think File:Nirvana around 1992.jpg (the current image) is more appropriate than File:Nirvana album cover.jpg. The photo of the band preforming is more interesting and visually appealing, but it also has more encyclopedic value. You don't need an image to illustrate the word "Nirvana", do you? Zntrip (talk · contribs) does have a point in that the album cover is more representative of the band's discography rather than the band itself, but I feel its scope is too narrow to cover the entire topic. So, as an uninvolved editor, I find myself agreeing with -5- (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Another aspect we should consider is that File:Nirvana around 1992.jpg is basically the only non-album cover Nirvana image used on Wikipedia. Aside from album and song articles, the three major Nirvana articles are probably this page, Nirvana (band), and Kurt Cobain. All three display the same image in the infobox. Should diversifying the infobox images not be a priority? – Zntrip 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The best image to represent the entire discography should be the priority. --JD554 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's better to be consistent wherever possible. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, I just thought that was an additional consideration. But back to the main argument, the cover of Nirvana is a logical representation of the the entire discography, as it has songs throughout the band's career. How is the scope of the image "too narrow to cover the entire topic"? The picture of the performance is "more interesting and visually appealing" but has less to do with the subject at hand. You can argue that a collection of images of American life would be more exciting that a map or the flag of the United States, but the later better represent the subject. It seems to me that everyone is giving more wait to taste than to a logical representation of the subject when it comes to their arguments and opinions. – Zntrip 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"the cover of Nirvana is a logical representation of the the entire discography, as it has songs throughout the band's career". No it's not. Logically the ideal picture would be a photo of all the releases in Nirvana's catalogue. Nirvana definitely does not cover the band's entire discography. What about From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah? Or various non-album/compilation tracks? Hell, the cover to With the Lights Out would be more appropriate. At this point, you have to acknowledge you are the only one pushing for the inclusion of this image. Most everyone here has worked on discography articles before and I trust their judgement. And putting aside copyright considerations (the image is an unauthorized attempt to replicate a copyrighted image, something you keep ignoring), I have to agree with Juliancolton in that of all the images you could pick, why choose the dullest thing possible (the band's name on a black background) that doesn't illustrate anything you couldn't get from the article text? At the end of the day, all the cover is is the band's name on a black background, which is pretty silly given the band's name is mentioned throughout the article. That's a pretty dull, useless image. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the only thing being ignored here is by you, Wesley. Do you not understand the concept of the threshold of originality or is it beneath you read my comments? File:Nirvana album cover.jpg is NOT copyrighted because the cover of Nirvana is NOT copyrighted. This is not my opinion, this is United States federal law. And on a side note, I would appreciated it if you and -5- would stop removing the image from Nirvana (album).
As for the issue at hand, I must be mistaken, I though the band's greatest hits album was a collection of some of its most well known singles, with selections from all of its studio albums as well as samplings of its most famous performance. I think you have made it clear that you are basing your opinion on aesthetics rather than logic. This is the only public domain image of a Nirvana album available and as a greatest hits album it is associated with various parts of the entire discography—containing songs from various stages of the band's career. Aesthetics aside, does it not make since to use the image most closely associated with the subject of the article? Clearly, the cover of Nirvana is the only eligible image that comes close. – Zntrip 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the key point of your argument is that the album is "a collection of some of its most well known singles". Therefore the album can only represent those particular singles. Whereas that band obviously recorded their entire catalogue and therefore an image of the band is better to represent the entire (not just some of their) discography. --JD554 (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
How did you formulate this notion that the band and its discography are synonymous? – Zntrip 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've never said that they are. I've clearly said that an image of the band better represents their entire body of work than an album cover that only represents a small portion of it. --JD554 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you understands what the word "represents" means? The greatest hits album doesn't represent only a small portion of the discography, it represents the whole thing. There are songs from all their studio albums, songs from the band's most notable performance, songs from throughout the band's career. Yes the album is only 14 out of however many songs is the entire discography, just as the House of Commons is 646 people out of 61 million people. But to say that the album isn't representative of the entire discography is simply wrong. – Zntrip 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"The greatest hits album doesn't represent only a small portion of the discography, it represents the whole thing."

I'd like you to re-read that sentence and to understand how ludicrous it is.-5- (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"just as the House of Commons is 646 people out of 61 million people"

So, you think the infobox image for British people should be changed to an image of the House of Commons?-5- (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

← Zntrip, it seems consensus is pretty clear here. I think we could probably remove the {{3O}} template at this point. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Juliancolton: The template should probably be removed, as you did give your sincere third-party opinion.
To -5-: Misrepresenting my analogy does nothing to strengthen your own argument, which contains no logical basis or even a thoughtful explanation. – Zntrip 03:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point that a simulacrum of the cover is not the same as a scan or photo of the actual cover itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An image of the band that made all the music is more represenative than a single release from the band's discography. Really, the band's name in white against a background is the best there is to represent Nirvana? I could write "Nirvana" on a sheet of paper and upload the photo to Commons, and it would have the same effect for readers. Also, it's not a greatest hits compilation; only about half of those songs charted (some not even very highly). It's simply a straightforward compilation album, the tracklisting of which I'm pretty sure was determined by Courtney Love. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
How is File:Nirvana album cover.jpg any different from the album cover? I see no difference. And would you like to reconsider your statement that Nirvana is "not a greatest hits" album? Do you even realize how ridiculous this statement is: "only about half of those songs charted (some not even very highly)"? – Zntrip 23:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Oh look! There's a dead horse..." --JD554 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess arguments are easier for you if you repeatedly ignore the other person's points. – Zntrip 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more that consensus is clear and not likely to change unless someone new joins the discussion, because we all know where we stand. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


I have been watching what goes on here and it is quite obvious that Wesley Dodds is out either to ruin the reputation of the band Nirvana or simply to destroy other contributer's efforts without any good reason. (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think both are pretty unlikely given that he's helped get Smells Like Teen Spirit and In Utero to featured article status as well as getting "In Bloom" and Nevermind to good article status. --JD554 (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but didn't Dodds completely sabotage the Floyd the Barber effort? Clearly sinister motives are at work. CAVincent (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Wow. I didn't expect WP to really have a page at that link....
I wouldn't describe redirecting a non-notable song as sabotage or sinister. You may want to read WP:AGF and WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
That was a joke. I was going to discuss Dodds' sagotage of Mexican Seafood but figured that was too obscure in the discography even for a joke. CAVincent (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. Sometimes it can be difficult to make out wry humour in the typed word. Apologies again, --JD554 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No probs :-) Say, was reading the In Bloom article just now and was surprised to read that Grohl did harmony. Are there other songs with non-Cobain vocals (other than the Territorial Pissings intro)? Maybe a good reference site or book I can check out for the info? I've never read any books on Nirvana or the Seattle grunge scene as I was part of it and it seems weird to read about in a book. Haven't even seen Hype! although I'm told I can be seen dancing in it. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. CAVincent (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Just a suggestion but it might be an idea to have a seperate article for all of the awards istead of on the band page, as has been done for the Foo Fighters. (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Video games[edit]

Perhaps also an article listing Nirvana songs used in video games, again just a suggestion. (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bleach reissue[edit]

Should the reissued version of Bleach be included here, or at least mentioned somewhere? – Zntrip

Netherlands charts[edit]

Charts for the Netherlands can be found here:

It is important to include well referenced info. Please don't remove just because you think that there is "enough already". (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of discography isn't to give the chart positions for an artist's releases, it's to list an artist's releases. The addition of charts is a secondary issue and is intended to give an idea of how well (or not) a particular release has done in various regions. MOS:DISCOG#Per-release states: "A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested". Going beyond that is creating an indiscriminate collection of information which is beyond the scope of what a discography is. --JD554 (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Studio albums?[edit]

Why is there not a separate section for studio albums? Discographies that clearly separate studio albums from compilations are intuitive, this is far from that. Unless there is some insider logic behind lumping all albums together it should be modified. -- (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to change the layout, because there is no mandatory page layout for articles or lists. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really in favour of changing the layout either. But I suppose you could have a section: "Studio albums and compilations". That way Incesticide and the Hits album could be kept together with the main studio albums. And then have a seperate section for live albums and another for boxsets. What do you think ? mjgm84 (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty indifferent, but there really is no pressing/mandatory reason to change the layout, so i'm fine with keeping it as is. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Other apperances: The Grunge Years[edit]

Just thought I'd point out that The Grunge Years is listed in the Other appearances table as being released in 1994. It was actually released in 1991. mjgm84 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


there seems to be some self contradiction by some users; within the Nirvana discography page we have all the studio albums, compilation albums, live albums and box sets together in one table - I have no argument with this. However when it comes to the chronology found on each individual page for each release there seems to opposition against having all the releases in one order - the same as the discography page. Particuarly by User: Wesly Dodds. Are there any wikipedia guidelines which outline rules for these chronologies ? It seems silly to have a seperate chronology for compilation albums; because it gives the impression that there were no albums released between Incesticide and 2002's best of album. mjgm84 (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what WesleyDodds did, see Template:Infobox_album#Chronology where it says "the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains." It goes on to say it may be appropriate to be in one chain, but why is it appropriate for Nirvana? I can see no compelling reason. --JD554 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it may be appropriate for Nirvana, especially as there are only three studio albums and the majority of their discography is made up of live and compilation albums. For example, if a casual visitor to Wikipedia is viewing the Incesticide page it gives the impression that the next Nirvana release is the 2002 album Nirvana with nothing inbetween. Unless you are a know it all Nirvana fan this is the impression you get. I know this probably won't get changed but one suggestion is that each chronology gets titles "studio albums chronology" or "compilations chronology" so it makes sense. And if it is to be kept in its current format then there should be a seperate chronology for Live albums; why was Live at Reading in the compilations discography ? mjgm84 (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The conventional practice for the infoboxes is to link between format type. Each infobox actually says what the format of the release is. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Both the Incesticide and Nirvana (album) pages do not say "compilations" chronology so I will change that, any complaints ?. And should there be a chronology for the three live albums ?mjgm84 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind It's an Interview[edit]

Does Nevermind It's an Interview merrit a place on the discography page ? I noticed someone tried to add it. It was an official release but was only a promo. Being a promo only, makes it a bit less important and perhaps not important enough to be included. There are many promo releases by this band which arn't included in this discography and rightly so due to their lack of significance. That said it was re-released on the iTunes download version of With the Lights Out.mjgm84 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Just in case anyones interested I have the Europarade positions for Nirvana. Euro parade was an official top 40 only chart that ended publication in January 1994. The inforamtion comes from a chart forum, so no proper source yet:

  • Smells Like Teen Spirit: 4.
  • Come As You Are: 21.
  • Lithium: 14.
  • Heart-Shaped Box: 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
All information must be verifiable from reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


A Nirvana live show that is not listed in the discography. I bought this years ago. The CD does not say much except for a code: TORCOOO1 and a "tor" logo of a blue mountain-like object appears on various places on the cover and on the CD itself. Might be a record company, I do not know. From the title the show happened on the 22 February 1994. All I can say further is that of the 24 tracks, the fastest ever Smells Like Teen Spirit features and one kick-ass live version of Lounge Act.

I just wanted to bring it to you guys' attention so that you can make the page perfect and thereby give Nirvana the credit they deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not an official release so it will not be included here in the Nirvana discography.mjgm84 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

NZ triple platinum: In Utero[edit]

Just to let you know: In Utero has been certified triple platinum in New Zealand[3]. I don't know whether you want this added, as at the moment only US, Canada and UK are listed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting album types?[edit]

Unlike most other discographies, this one does not separate out album types (studio, live, compilations, etc.). Just wondering why that is. Would there be an uproar if I split them up? - eo (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not specified in Wiki guidlines that the discography has to be split up. It is more suitable for Nirvana for it to be kept as it is. All the regular users who contribute to this page prefer it as it is. mjgm84 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realize there is no specific guideline - it's just that I've seen albums split basically everywhere else but here, so I was curious. But fair enough; if people want them merged, that works too. Later! - eo (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks better split up rather than one long blurb, honestly. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana (best of) album[edit]

Forgive me if I am wrong but if the 2002 Nirvana album has been certified Platinum in the USA then it must have sold over 1 million copies in the USA, and so the sales figures in the article should reflect that. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sliver: The Best of the Box page has been deleted ?[edit]

I would just like to point out the fact that someone has deleted the page for Sliver: The Best of the Box and put it into the With the Lights Out page. This was done without prior discussion. The Sliver album should have its own page as it was a completely seperate release.mjgm84 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Music videos[edit]

Three songs from the MTV Unplugged in New York album were released as individual music videos back in 1994/1995, each accompanying a promotional single. Those songs were "About a Girl", "The Man Who Sold the World" and "All Apologies". Should these not be added to the music video section ?

Ultra Rare Trax[edit]

how about Ultra Rare Trax which was released in 2010? it seems that you've missed this album. (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever that is its not an official release and therefore does not belong in this discography.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind sales[edit]

11.5 million is not diamond. It's 11x platinum. AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Video albums table[edit]

Currently in the video albums table Live! Tonight! Sold Out!! is listed twice, once for the original VHS and Laser disc release in 1994 and also separately for the 2006 DVD release. At the end of the day the DVD is just a re-release and its not like we have separate listings for re-releases of the albums such as the 20th anniversary editions. If the two listings for Live! Tonight! Sold Out!! were merged together then it could be mentioned in the format section that the DVD was released in 2006.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. sales of Nevermind[edit]

The article states the U.S. sales of Nevermind are 11.5 million. The source for this is a March 1995 article in the British newspaper The Independent. The source says "the album has now sold 11-and-a-half million" but it doesn't say these are U.S. sales. At the time the article was written, Nevermind was certified 7x platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (7 million copies shipped) and would not reach 10x platinum until 1999. The source cited is probably referring to worldwide sales. In any case the source does not support the claim that U.S. sales are 11.5 million. Piriczki (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)