Talk:Bleach (Nirvana album)

Opening lines

Well I agree the opening lines contain way to much information. I have actually just removed a line which was about two singles that were not even from this album. I also removed "Sliver" from the singles section in the box on the right hand side as this wasn't a single from this album. As for allmusic.com I think it has been mentioned in guidelines that this is a reliable website to use as a source although I don't know about, about.com. You mentioned the Finland chart position being included, well why not ? this album does not have many chart positions. As for Poland I don't think there was an albums chart back then and there certainly isn't an archive or book. I should also mention that although this album was released in 1989 it did not make the charts until it was re-released in 1992. mjgm84 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has improved over the last couple of days but I think it really should include the track listing for the live CD that comes with the 2009 re-release. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I re-added it.. Someone removed it per notability guidlines, however, that's a pretty popular issue of the album so I think it's notable. CrowzRSA 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

re-release

'The album was re-released outside of the US by Geffen records in 1992. It was well received by critics. The re-release debuted at number eighty-nine on the Billboard 200.' What? It was released outside of the US, still it charted? How can it be possible? 85.217.47.47 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I was in the middle of some edit changes when I got an edit conflict. I did a simple copy and paste as I didn't want to go through the changes bit by bit as the read out was rather confusing. The conflict edits will have been lost, so I'll now go through and try to restore them. SilkTork *^YES! 09:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Cheese

Big Cheese currently redirects here, but I have proposed making that title a disambiguation page and moving the song's redirect to Big Cheese (song). Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 8#Big Cheese. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

English-language live albums

I would argue the inclusion of this category is not really appropriate for two reasons:

1. Bleach was not a live album to begin with, and
2. even in its expanded edition only about half of it is live material not released separately.

Thoughts anyone? LazyBastardGuy 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't find any of the additional "live albums" categories to be appropriate either. LazyBastardGuy 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: move Bleach (album) to Bleach (Nirvana album), but leave the other two at their current name. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

---

• Bleach (album) → Bleach (Nirvana album)
• Bleach (Bleach (Japanese band) album) → Bleach (Japanese band album)
• Bleach (Bleach (American band) album) → Bleach (American band album)

– 1st move required by WP:NCM, partial disambiguation. The other two for discussion only, (raised by another editor, I am neutral) proposing but note that double parenthesis is used frequently in categories. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the first one; what about disambiguating the other two chronologically? Bleach (2003 album) & Bleach (1999 album)? Bleach (American band album) suggests to me that the name of the band is "American band". It's also partial disambiguation, of course, as the Nirvana album is also an American band album. Red Slash 02:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The year isn't used WP:NCM, and with good reason In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the first one The others are fine as they are, the proposed titles are bad. Nirvana is an American band, so that is ambiguous as to what that refers to. Alternately, you can have Bleach (1989 album), Bleach (2003 album), Bleach (1999 album) respectively. "Bleach (album)" should redirect to the disambiguation page, as should "Bleach (American band album)" -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the first one; It should be Bleach (Nirvana album).QuintusPetillius (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the first one. Yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the first one. I agree the second two need new names, but I reserve judgement on what they should be. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW the second two were prompted by discussion about Embrace (2014 album) - two albums called Embrace by 2 bands called Embrace. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:NCM does not require that the article be moved. An alternative would be to keep the article at its current title and to include a hatnote indicating the existence of the article about the Japanese album. This would be appropriate if the Nirvana album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not saying which is best, but the closer should note that votes up to this point may have been cast based on a misunderstanding of policy. Formerip (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. This isn't about Bleach, since if it were the primary topic it should occupy "Bleach", otherwise it isn't the primary topic, therefore should contain unambiguous disambiguation -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It may or may not be a bad idea, but it is allowed in policy, that's all. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2014 (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.

Punk rock

I have unintentionally and accidentally taken part in an edit war with User:Statik_N over the past two days do to my want to include punk rock into the list of genres. I have multiple reliable citations calling the album punk and although Stick N has claimed it, I have searched to try and find a consensus against the inclusion of the genre, and I have come up with no evidence to suggest that, only people saying that if it wants inclusion then there should be sources. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't oppose including the genre in the infobox. it's just that adding punk rock to the genre field of Nirvana articles is controversial. Since I don't oppose it, find other people who do oppose it and then form a consensus with them. Besides, a lot of grunge pretty much is punk rock. See the edit page for the article Nirvana (band). it says you aren't allowed to add punk rock to the genre field there because it's been discussed extensively and is considered inappropriate. Statik N (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see people saying that on the edit page, but there was actually no consensus on any of the talk pages, the closest i could find was somebody saying that if they want to include the genre then they need sources, maybe it didn't archive correctly if it did happen.Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it has been discussed extensively for adding punk rock the main Nirvana page genre field and is considered inappropriate. i really don't think people will consider it appropriate to add punk rock on the Bleach genre field. besides, some grunge is punk rock anyways. Statik N (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

References

“Kurds Kobain”

My first press of the LP lists the spelling “Kurdt Kobain” on the sleeve. Looking at the article’s Wikitext, I’m inferring that there was a previous edit war about this and that the deniers of such spelling’s existence prevailed. And yet I’m staring at the name ”Kurdt Kobain” on this record from 30 years ago, yearning for this to be included in this article. So? Morganfitzp (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"Hard rock"

@71.244.236.102:, every time I return "hard-rock" to the genre-box for "Bleach", you remove it with insufficient reasoning.

Your latest reason was: "The source you provided, and it only uses the term "70s influence heavy rock sound" as a over arching term to describe the Grunge sound favored by the label". This might, in your opinion, be the case, but "grunge" isn't mentioned anywhere in said sentence. The fact remains that the source describes the album as showcasing a "heavy-rock" sound, which in all other cases warrants the inclusion of a "hard-rock" genre.

If you wish to change the genre, then your reasoning must be more substantial JoeyofScotia (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Also remember that just because Nirvana is a Grunge band, doesn't mean everything they do has to be considered Grunge. A Punk band can put out a Heavy metal song or album. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marcos FTO:,

This has been discussed elsewhere at length on Wikipedia Wikipedia, the presence of "heavy rock" or "loud rock" within a reliable source suffices the inclusion of "hard rock" within the corresponding Wikipedia article. Please do not remove sourced and discussed content without first consulting the Talk Page Thanks, JoeyofScotia (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Statik N: See above discussion, thanks.

JoeyofScotia (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't mean the source is calling it hard rock. just because wikipedia agrees loud rock heavy rock=hard rock doesn't mean everyone else does. many people say heavy rock to describe metal or grunge or punk. We aren't certain the source is calling it hard rock. So including hard rock is a bad idea. also, grunge kind of is a subgenre of hard rock. so should we also include simply rock as a source? since grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock, should we include alternative as a genre? it's redundant. Statik N (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Drums personnel credits

For clarity, Chad Channing played drums on all tracks on which Dale Crover did not, plus tambourine on one -- is that right? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's the case, and that all of the live tracks are Channing and Channing only. Is this not clear in the article? That's not meant as a snarky question. The band went through a lot of drummers before settling on Grohl including friends from other bands temporarily filling in, so it's a legit question. Just wondering if the article should be tweaked to clarify this. CAVincent (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not 100% clear. My first reading of it was that it was saying that CC played "drums, percussion" on only that one track. My third one was that maybe the "mix" on those tracks could include both CC's and DC's drumming! To make this entirely clear perhaps it should say "drums (all tracks except "Floyd the Barber", "Paper Cuts" and "Downer"), tambourine..."? Which I know is a little long-winded. Or the same idea as a range of track numbers? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)