Talk:Nirvana (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Third opinion[edit]

We're having difficulty establishing the legitimate start date of the band Nirvana, and it falls along POV, not necessarily the band's own statements.

1) 1988. The band first used the name Nirvana in March of 1988.

2) 1987. The band openly considers themselves to have formed in 1987, and there are numerous sources confirming this (including the liner notes to With the Lights Out). They played together for a year before figuring out what to call themselves. And this isn't a case where a band played under an established band name for a period before switching to Nirvana (eg, Kara's Flowers -> Maroon 5). The band didn't finalize a band name during the first year of their existence.

In my opinion, this isn't a similar case to band like The Who (and High Numbers) or The Beatles (and The Quarrymen). Those band's early incarnations were firmly established under those band names for a period of time - Nirvana was never established under any of its temporary band names. During Nirvana's first year of existence, they changed band names at every other show, to the point of becoming a running joke. The music stayed the same.

In the Nirvana biography Come as You Are, the band mentions seven different band names during that first year - are those seven different bands, or the same band using different names? Pushing 1988 would also force us to exclude Aaron Burckhard, who only played in that pre-name version of the band - but was openly considered by the band to be a "former member of Nirvana".

I do not personally understand why there needs to be a firm guideline applied to every band unilaterally. We should have the latitude to establish a band's start date on a case-by-case basis that's reasonable to their history (and to the available sources). -- ChrisB 17:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana (band)[edit]

The band years should reflect the time they were Nirvana - not include their gestation period under other names. 3 of the 4 Beatles played together under various band names from 1958 onwards - but they didn't become the Beatles till they changed their name to "Beatles" in 1960. Same thing about the Beach Boys (ne the Pendeltons) and The Who (ne The Detours) etc etc The musicians in these bands all played togther in varying stages of development prior to the time when they first appeared officially under their final band name. And THAT is the first year when the band becomes an official entity. It is a matter of record that Nirvana didn't name themselves "Nirvana' till February or March 1988. Davidpatrick 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your opinion is neither consensus nor guideline.

2) The band considered their start to be 1987.

Much further discussion: Talk:Nirvana (band) -- ChrisB 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) My opinion is as valid as yours. And yours is as valid as mine.

2) This is not solely about what the band considered. The Beatles considered that they were active from 1958. But they weren't officially billed as The Beatles till 1960. And for that matter the info box in the article for artists has the words Years Active It's about what is factually accurate. Some guys in a garage who consider themselves a band ARE a band. But they are not The Beatles or Nirvana till they declare that that is their name - and they make a public appearance as such. They become ACTIVE as their name only when they leave the garage and appear billed as that name or issue a record under that name. Until then they are in the gestation stage. Band's official life begins at the Christening not at the conception... Davidpatrick 06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack removed[1]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am from Third opinion. My opinion is that they were not Nirvana until they were first billed as such. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism[edit]

Nirvana is one of the most important philosophical concept in Jainism and hence needs to be mentioned on the dab article --Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana 2000[edit]

This article describes Nirvana 2000 as "an overrated metal band". Surely this is going against Wikipedia's policy of NPOV, as who is to say they are overrated? Vorbee (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]