User talk:ChrisB/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You Love To Fix Culling[edit]

Fix this: 01:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World[edit]

You reverted my additions to the Next Album section. I can tell you the four songs I put down that were played live are reliable sources, Jim Adkins said so at the show I went to, and the names are correct also, I crosschecked with the set list. I admit that the Chase This Light as the album name didn't come from a reliable source though. 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On a different note for Jimmy Eat World: 'So no classic rock is considered classic rock? It HAS to be rock, and can never be called classic rock, as they never classified themselves as classic rock when their songs were new? Things change, I have seen Early Emo classification before. I will not change it back, if others agree an Early Emo category will be started someday.--WhereAmI 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it some more, and why not both? After all, classic rock bands are also classified as rock bands--WhereAmI 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Best Group 1999, Best Album 1999[edit]

I'm looking at my Junos, and that's what's engraved on them. They may indeed have handed them out in 2000, but the awards relate to the previous year. If you have another suggestions for changes to mine or any page where my name appears, perhaps you'd like to discuss them via email. Unfortunately this means you'll have to come out from behind your veil of anonymity and register an email address.

-Ian Browne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrowne (talkcontribs) 08:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Alternative rock articles importance ranking[edit]

Hey, we've implemented a ranking system for the Alternative music Wikiproject (Top, high, mid, and low importance). You might want to drop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music to discuss the application of rankings to articles on the talk page. WesleyDodds 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain Forbes ranking[edit]

I wrote the paragraph about the Forbes top dollar earning dead celebrity list back in October, and at the time I argued long and hard to keep it in there. While I still think it is worth noting, perhaps the first sentance should be revised to read, "In October 2006, Cobain was ranked by Forbes Magazine as the top dollar-earning dead celebrity, earning an estimated $50 million from October 2005 to October 2006." As it stands, the sentance is a little misleading since the event, while significant to his fans, wasn't much more than a passing headline on a slow news day as far as the mainstream media is concerned. What do you think? --Atomicskier 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

your recent edits to the Courtney Love page[edit]

Whatever your beef with mistertruffles, way to make it kurt fans vs courtney fans. That's really going to help both pages.

I'm not going to RV your edits, because they make that ridiculous paragraph shorter, but by your own logic, maybe you should. If people's relationships to KC and opinions on whether he was suicidal or not are relevant on the KC page, then perhaps they're relevant here. This has really swayed me towards feeling I'd rather all of this nonsense was taken to a separate page, where perhaps it may stop provoking you and others into childish shows of force on the pages of two reasonably interesting and influential artists. White hotel 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely do not appreciate your characterization. If it was ever "kurt fans vs courtney fans", it was certainly the case before I made those edits. I had not even read the paragraph in Love's article until just before I made those edits - it was not in the article the last time I read it.
I did not remove those statements because I disagreed them or as a "show of force" - I removed them because they specifically fail Wikipedia's three main guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR
The absence of family members questioning suicide cannot be used as proof that he committed suicide. It's a drawn conclusion based on non-existent statements. We cannot assume any position that Cobain's family takes without their specific statements (or a reliable source compiling them). Most of Cobain's direct family are not on record saying anything about his death. That doesn't mean that they think he committed suicide or that he was murdered. (Without a source, we can't even prove that they've ever been asked for their opinion.)
The statement about Harrison and Grant never having met Cobain is also unsourced and irrelevant. If someone had to meet a victim in order to believe that they were murdered, police officers would have a very difficult time doing their jobs. If Harrison and Grant's character needs to be challenged, it should be done using citeable statements from verifiable sources, not on the grounds that they never met Cobain.
What was there did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. That's the only position I was taking. -- ChrisB 06:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you. It seems obvious to me that you went to the Courtney page as a response to mistertruffles' criticism of the conspiracy part of the KC page. You've done that repeatedly. If you've done so because it frustrates you that two pages referring to the same conspiracy are so different, I can see that that's reasonable, and again I think that it points clearly to a separate page where the differences can be resolved, since the two pages don't seem able to agree what (in content, in tone, and in intention) constitutes NPOV on this one.
As for 'the absence of family members questioning suicide cannot be used as proof that he committed suicide' - it has never read as any kind of gesture at 'proof' to me. The conspiracy theory as a whole is there because it's notable - because many people believe it or don't. Speculating as to KC's family's beliefs is OR; stating that they've never challenged the official verdict is reasonable.
'If Harrison and Grant's character needs to be challenged, it should be done using citeable statements from verifiable sources, not on the grounds that they never met Cobain.' Right - because the Kim Gordon quote is thrown in on the KC page just as an aside. White hotel 13:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Foo Fighters[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, ChrisB! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bvids\.myspace\.com\b, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


There is more than one band named Nirvana, Nirvana from American and The UK band). Feel free to discuss this, but I beleive this change would most defiently satisfy our guidelines on disambiguation. Nirvana (band) is anything should be a disamb. for the two bands or a redirect. — Moe 06:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss this on the talk page and move it appropriatly after consensus is formed once again. But you can't deny the fact that there is two Nirvana's and this disambiguation is nessecary. One can't be Nirvana (band) and the other one be Nirvana (UK band) and expect disambiguation to be the best it can be. The UK band could in theory take the same title as Nirvana the Washington band and it still would have been correct. Disambiguation is meant to be clear enough so viewers (not editors) of this site can easily navigate it without confusion (not the only reason for DAB though). I'm going off-line now. — Moe 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about the last change on emo, I compared the wrong versions, your current one does seem to be OK--Josquius 18:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Emocore and Emo[edit]

WHY do you change the genre Emocore to Emo at the Jimmy Eat World page? emo and emocore are the same!

but emocore and emo are still the same styles! it's like punk and punkrock,you know?

Meaning of "jejune"[edit]

Sorry, Chris, but I was right. The word "jejune" is deived from the Latin jejunus - which means void, or empty. (It is related to the jejunum - part of the small intestine.) The addition "sparse" is more recent. There is a modern corruption "jejeune", which is - seemingly - cod French, and doesn't appear in my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, which would seem to mean "childish", but I have no way of telling without a proper dictionary entry.

So: please restore my edit ... Hair Commodore 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have added that the definition of "jejune" in Wiktionary agrees with me too! (However, it adds another meaning: not nutritious.) Hair Commodore 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music and sources[edit]

As part of the Alternative music WikiProject, we're gathering a list of sources on this page. Could you take a look and perhaps add any written references you have access to? Thanks! CloudNine 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


EMOCORE AND Emo are the same things! it's like punk and punkrock! punk is the short form of punkrock! so emo is the short form of Emocore and you know it! so please let this stand there!


Ethnic categories[edit]

Why do the ethnic categories (irish-american, german-american, etc) have to particularly relevant to the life of the individual? There are countless people in the whatever-American categories whose ethnic origin was not relevant to their lives, but they are all included. Furthermore, the book Come As You Are, the Story of Nirvana, states unequivcally that Cobain was of German and Irish descent. Why is this an issue? Asarelah 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chris

Starting an MGB-specific page would be great. Matt's page is in my opinion full of half-truths.

ps I uploaded a new image because the current one has been tagged for deletion. If you can find it and post it up for me I'd appreciate it (I still haven't figured out how to do this without screwing things up)

Thanks -Ian

foo fighters[edit]

even if it's not a reliable source (who else's songs would they be though?), i think we should keep some of the titles up. it's good for fans to hear/see that their foos are working hard and to get a glimse into the album.

i mean what's the point of having a "sixth album page" if there isn't some working titles. lighten up, and i'll put it back later.

Emo (music)[edit]

While I appreciate your contributions to the article, I have to disagree with your reversion of my edit. Because of the ambiguity of the term, we have to consider the two changes I made. (1) I said "style" instead of "genre" of rock. This is clearly delineated in the article and elsewhere, because the more general and more recent interpretation of the word most certainly does not define a genre. (2) However, it is highly important to precisely and immediately note that it was a genre, but a particular kind of genre. The first sentence of the article should be concise and precise, and I believe your version sacrifices the former for the latter. It indicates nothing about the stylistic roots for two of the three "waves" of emo, and furthermore, it completely belies the fact that the "new" definition of emo is actually confused for a genre when it has come to describe an ambiguous and ubiquitous style of rock music. All of that is clearly outlined in the article, and should be reflected in the introductory sentence. "Emo is a genre of rock music" is highly uninformative and could easily stand to be more precise without being too much longer. That introductory paragraph is way too vague. --Cheeser1 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing album credits[edit]

Regarding the edit summary you provided for this change, could I ask you to expand this argument at WT:ALBUM#Sourcing lists (specifically track listings and credits). I was trying to get some discussion going there on this topic, to ultimately make a decision about what to do for album articles in general. Thanks in advance. --PEJL 20:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music June 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 3 - June 2007
"I had a pair of cotton black pants, and I wore them every day for months. And Bill hung them outside the van 'cos they smelled so bad. And they flapped off on the highway. They were the only ones I had." - Michael Stipe
Project news
New members

Riana, Kyjb70 and Scarps joined the alternative music fold during June.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 00:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) .

"Hung out"[edit]

Just saw your edit(s) on Nirvana, I think "hung out" is just as vague and, perhaps, too informal. It is a colloquial term... Might I suggest a substitute for "hung out" is in order?

Suggestions for changing wording of "hung out":
  • gathered
  • attended [wording of the syntax would need to be changed too]
  • spent time
  • haunted [noun version]
  • frequented

ScarianTalk 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary: name one song that grohl played piano on[edit]

Even though it would be insatiably difficult to find a source for it: Dave Grohl can be seen playing piano on the 'Times Like These' Acoustic [version] video. One can assume that he did play piano in the song. If I find a source I will add it back in, is that okay with you? ScarianTalk 20:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... as I said earlier "it would be insatiably difficult to find a source for it" and I was right... But now I understand and recognise your point about Grohl not primarily being a pianist. All the best and thanks. ScarianTalk 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what to do?[edit]

Someone decided to needlessly tack -FMs onto almost all Atlanta area FM stations like WSTR and WNNX, and a bunch of others citing proper naming conventions, which is completely not the case because WSTR-FM is not the callsign of WSTR like WSB-FM is a true callsign of its frequency. The proper name would be WSTR (FM) because WSTR disambiguates for WSTR-TV, but WSTR (FM) redirects to WSTR-FM. In WNNX's case there's no need for disambiguation, but the user made WNNX point at WNNX-FM. I can't move the pages to existing pages, even if they are redirects. --Tv's emory 04:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:ArtAlexakis.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ArtAlexakis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary sources[edit]

That last one took the feckin' biscuit... At least one of them was decent enough to stay on there stating Novoselic founded JAMPAC. [1] That is one hell of a fine feckin' reference from a reliable source. The other two sources were just to piss you off because I knew they were crap too... But that one is absolutely fine. I'm putting it back in, if you remove it again, I shall put it back in again and open up a consensus for OTHER PEOPLE to have a say. ScarianTalk 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

quick reply to discussion on my tp[edit]

Hello ChrisB. I am "Libs"a nickname many Wiki-admins have given me because I am a libraian... go figure re: br v. comma... You're right. It's not in the guideline. But it is clearly marked out that way in the example given... which, unless the musician project suddenly changed it, would be the verification needed. I would love to see it marked out in the specific guidelines eother which way. It's really a matter of... casual users and "newbies" tend to lean with the coded breaks while the "vets" (especially many admins) prefer the commas. Editors aren't supposed to "own" articles. But if you look around many of the music articles... as I do... you will see that many of our valiant admins :D have taken concrete ownership of their favourite band pages. And nary a 'br' appears on any of them. Not to chastise the admins as most of them are longtime "Wiki-friends" whose opinions I respect when it comes to the project. After 40K edits here I know which ones I don't mind sheeping in behind to follow their lead. It would be nice to see it get decided one way or another within the musician project. But I don't hold out hope there... the project spins it's wheels for weeks and weeks trying to pick out pretty colours rather than just cut to the chase to ask themselves... "Why are we using these ugly and absolutely useless colours in the first place" :D. If such a discussion and consensus happens I would appreciate someone letting me know. For now I'll just follow the example as it is the only place where a decision seems to have been made. Ahoy 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) "Libs"

Matthew Good[edit]

Hey Chris. I came here to talk to you about this. For some reason, it grinds my gears to think that Matthew Good himself can take control of his article, and leave out just a simple reference to his earliest work. Besides that, the article has no pages linking to it except a redirect. I don't see the rationale behind not including it. I don't think I can say this any better than Cazart! did on the talk page: whether matt says to include it or not, it's still part of his history. this is an encyclopedia entry, not a selective history. the subject should not be able to control what goes into it and what doesn't. I'd like to know why he wants it out, and where he said to leave it out. -- Reaper X 18:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well am I going to get a response? -- Reaper X 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's a logical and fair argument. The fact that Good was controlling his article made me blind. Thanks for the response. Cheers. -- Reaper X 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Hi Chris, was wondering (if I haven't already asked you this question) if you saw (On the tele or internet) the Foo Fighters play at LiveEarth in London a little while ago? Basically, Grohl says: "This song go's out to you know who." at the start of 'Best of You'. I was wondering if you had any idea who he was talking about? Thanks in advance, anyways. ScarianTalk 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music July 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 4 - July 2007
"Thurston Moore? Is that your real name? I mean, give me a break. You made that up. That's a good one. Did you have a mom and shit like that?" - Gibby Haynes
Project news
New members

Killereditors, Xihix, M2Ys4U and Lostvalley joined the alternative music fold during July.


User:CloudNine, User:WesleyDodds

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 21:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC) .

Nirvana discography[edit]

This article is currently nominated for featured list status. I would feel much more secure if someone really familiar with the topic was willing to give the article an in-depth look. All I can do is skimming through related articles for oversights. Circeus 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang) Suggested Move[edit]


There is currently a discussion at Talk:Emo (slang) reagarding a suggested move to Emo subculture. In an effort to generate a greater consensus, I am attempting to contact any user involved in similar discussions previously on the article's talk page.

The great whale commands it... --ZayZayEM 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Concerns[edit]

Christopher, I have bit my tongue for a fair few months and assumed good faith about your... hmm... attachment... to the Nirvana and Nirvana related articles. I have read previous conversations on the Kurt Cobain discussion page about ownership concerns that other editor's have had about you. I would like you, even if you already have, to read WP:OWN. I do this as a personal request because you are... insatiably... defensive of Nirvana and Nirvana related articles. I am not a 'crufter' neither am I a dumbass. I know what I am doing. Yet, you continue to revert my non-counter-vandalism edits. I fail to understand this. I am not doing a bad job. I am not your usual run of the mill editor. I happen to know how to use Wikipedia. I happen to be intelligent. But still you revert common sense edits. I make minor corrections and you revert them. My edits are not repeat not bad and neither do they cause harm to the article(s) but yet you still revert them. Read WP:OWN and change your ways and be prepared for people to edit "your" articles. Please, be less protective. If you continue, I will ask for an administrator to review everything that has gone on in the past and he/she will make a decision about whether you have breached this guideline. I beg of you. Be sensible. ScarianTalk 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana and Cobain[edit]

[2] - You're not blaming me for the removal of that information are you? I was busy trying to stop the I.P. and User:Alexandersedov from damaging the article anymore. The user was insistent on ignoring the hidden notes to replace the image and the I.P. wanted to list the festival's that Nirvana had played at in the middle of a paragraph about Cobain and Love. How wonderful. ScarianTalk 16:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music August 2007 Newsletter[edit]

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 5 - August 2007
"The amount of time it took to get Morrissey onstage was getting longer and longer. There was this great game he'd play of wanting to be asked 15 times if it had been 14 the night before. Johnny was like, 'Let's rock!' and Mozzer would be 'Well, somebody's gotta ask me another seven times.'" - Andy Rourke
Project news
New members

Freaky4jesus32, Razorblade666, and Grim-Gym joined the alternative music fold during August.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) .

Your former vote on Emo (slang).[edit]

Hi, I noticed you are one of the people who voted against moving Emo(slang) to Emo(subculture). I voted the other way (although I think "social group" is equally good or better). Now, a source has turned up and I would like for you to take a moment to check it and reconsider. I am sorry if you have seen it before, as I am aware that this message (of which there are three) would otherwise be out of line or at least a waste of your time. The source is an abstract of an unpublished, peer-reviewed talk/paper given at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association 2003. It is called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’" and the abstract can be found here [[3]].

I personally think this is a very good source, as I think we can trust the American Sociological Association to accept papers that use sociological terms appropriately. I believe ignoring this source because is has not been published would be wrong, as we have the abstract, which is pretty clear on the matter. Despite ones view on the source's usefulness, I think one must at least admit that emo can rightfully be called a subculture and refraining from using this knowledge on wikipedia is kind of contrary to WP:IAR. Lundse 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Be careful through reverting too much in one go, your opinion doesn't make it right and I'm sure someone, at some point, will contest your refutation's. But anyway, my main question: [4] - I don't care about the rest of the crap you took out, but specifically you removed "Musician" and "1986-". Um... this is a "no brainer". Why? Do you have consensus on why that shouldn't be there? Is he not primarily a musician? Was he not active (With major bands such as Scream) from '86 onwards? Cheers in advance. ScarianTalk 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back. My rationale is: Infobox = Way for reader (Even if they don't know Grohl) to quickly establish information about whomever the article is about... It'll probably help someone at some point. Cheers. ScarianTalk 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Additional Note: I would agree that Drain Bamage would count as Grohl being a musician, and one could thus add to the years of activity. It's your call... Was he in there from '84 onwards? I have no idea. Up to you to find out that year. ScarianTalk 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music October 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 7 - October 2007
"It's weird when you play a show somewhere and there's a disproportionate number of people backstage talking about how they're witches."- Trent Reznor
Project news
New members

Sorchah and Tarc joined the alternative music fold during October.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) .

List of Nirvana band members[edit]

Do you find that article completely unnecessary? ScarianTalk 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Death of Kurt Cobain[edit]

Death of Kurt Cobain, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Death of Kurt Cobain satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Kurt Cobain and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Death of Kurt Cobain during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Docg 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


There is absolutely nothing which prohibits, restricts or discourages editors from making revisions and content changes during an AfD process. Indeed, such changes may be made in an effort to save the article from deletion. FCYTravis (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Please review this particular section of WP:NPOV:

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

The conspiracy theory view is held by a small minority and will not be represented as if it deserves as much attention or credence as the official ruling of suicide. We will report on alternative theories, but we will present the official ruling as the accepted truth. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain[edit]

A lot of the statements (ones invariably start with "Critics say . . .") are unsourced; thus in many instances the only referenced source is the Who Killed Kurt Cobain? book. The section needs to be seriously restructed. I think the fault is relying so much on that book as well as Kurt and Courtney. I think the angle to go for (if we are going to keep a suicide dispute section) is to see what mainstream media soruces say about the topic. As it stands much of the information in that section (such as the point/counterpoint about Grant's theories) can be moved to the articles for the book and DVD. It definitely does not belong in the article itself since by going point-by-point it gives undue weight to what is essentially a fringe theory. I mean, some might view JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories as ridiculous, but there's not denying that they are extremely notable topics. Aside from the book and the documentary (And that Justice for Kurt site, which is not a reliable souce) is it really all that notable? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music November 2007 Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 8 - November 2007
"Personality. Personality. Personality. Personality>Personlaity>peporisnaitiu.Pelsonlaity>personality> PSoDURYW'OB>peojuiuauA>PRFIVGU-JSNN.;YN~CPJHOQA" ALFIHI-WUSAZ;/P ioy iqNLKH GZW IGDB." - Thom Yorke
Project news
New members

Cambrant, Chickpeaface, Atlantik and Thelastfetusdying joined the alternative music fold during November.



You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix(talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World Genre[edit]

Hello, I believe the justification you gave for the removal of pop-punk as a genre for Jimmy Eat World is insufficient. I’m not debating whether or not the band is considered emo, in fact, if you check some of the article’s history, you will see that I have frequently fought for its inclusion. That said, I believe (and the source provided agrees) that Jimmy Eat World do have strong elements of pop-punk in their music. Several other band articles in wikipedia have various genres listed for the band (ie The Offspring, Green Day) Jacknife737 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Love Spit Love[edit]

Hi Chris. I noticed this. Can you point to a consensus or MoS entry on this, or is it just your own preference? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What you say makes sense. It might be worth a wider discussion though. --John (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


[5] - We've already discussed and decided "hanging out" is too colloquial. I'm changing it back to: "Cobain [often] frequented their..." etc. Just thought I'd inform you. Have a nice day! ScarianTalk 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


"In November 1993, Nirvana taped an appearance on MTV Unplugged" just doesn't make sense. Their performance was taped for MTV Unplugged. They didn't appear on MTV unplugged until the tape was broadcast. I don't care if the expression is used elsewhere - it's poor English, which is why I changed it. What was wrong with the sentence that I replaced it with?--Michig (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)