Talk:Nirvana discography

U.S. sales of Nevermind

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)

"All Apologies" Billboard chart history

There were three promotional singles released in the United States for this song: "All Apologies" (LP version) DGC 4581, "All Apologies" (LP version)/"Rape Me" (LP version) DGC 4582, and "All Apologies" (MTV Unplugged)/"All Apologies" (LP version) DGC 4618. "All Apologies" (from In Utero) entered Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks chart the week ending December 4, 1993 and the Album Rock Tracks chart the week ending December 18, 1993. "All Apologies" then entered the Hot 100 Airplay chart the week ending January 15, 1994. "All Apologies" (MTV Unplugged) DGC 4618 did not appear in Billboard until three weeks later (February 5, 1994 issue) when it was reviewed in the new single releases section. There is no indication that it was the MTV Unplugged version that appeared on the Hot 100 Airplay chart. Piriczki (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Piriczki, thanks for taking the time to discuss this matter properly. According to the Billboard website, "All Apologies" did not peak until April 2, 1994. And so based on that late date, it is more likely to be the latter of the promotional releases that made it onto the Hot 100 Airplay. However, if the song title entered the Hot 100 Airplay in January then you do have a point. Maybe the peak position of April 2, 1994 was a combination of both ? Anyway you have shown good evidence for your argument and I am not going to get into an argument over something as petty as which version charted. However, can you show me any of your above sources ?, such as that the MTV Unplugged version was first listed in Billboard in Feb 5, 1994 issue. So while I will accept that you might be right on which version charted, I still don't need to think that we need to put (Unplugged) in brackets in the promotional singles table as it is already shown that it is from the Unplugged album in the album column. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just had a thought though, as well as the 100 Airplay peak being on April 2, 1994 which is closer to the MTV Unplugged promo release (Feb 5), there is a book that says that it was the Unplugged version that received most radio airply: St Thomas, Kurt and Smith, Troy. Nirvana: The Chosen Rejects. St Martin's Griffin (2004). ISBN 0-312-20663-1. The author, Kurt St. Thomas, seems like a reliable source.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Further, the Billboard magazine from 5 Feb 1994 (), clearly states that it is the Unplugged version that they would be bringing to "pop" radio. Which indicates more that it was the Unplugged version that was on the Hot 100 Airplay.QuintusPetillius (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact is the song entered the Hot 100 Airplay chart before the Unplugged version was available and Billboard never changed the listing during its chart run. Billboard.com says it was the In Utero version on that chart and Whitburn says it was the In Utero on that chart. The problem is Billboard typically doesn't list two different versions of a song by the same artist. The Unplugged version certainly got airplay, unfortunately it is just not documented by the Billboard charts. Piriczki (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, one last thing, who is Whitburn ?

Joel Whitburn publishes reference books on the Billboard charts. Next to Billboard itself, they're the best resources for chart histories. Piriczki (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Further to above, the Unplugged version that was released as a promo in Feb 1994 also included the studio version, but the unplugged version is the first track. At the time the Unplugged album had not even been conceived, and was not until after Kurt Cobain's death in April 1994, finally being released in Nov 1994. As such the promo single, released in Feb 1994, only attributes the unplugged version to "MTV Unplugged" (as in the TV series) and does not say anything about an actual Unplugged "album" (see images here:). Therefore even the unplugged version of the song could only have been attributed to the In Utero album at the time. It is clear that from Feb 1994 both versions were being given airplay on Top 40 radio formats and so the Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) peak must have been a combination of both. Some sources:

Retail singles

So, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Per-release states that there should be "approximately" 10 charts included, that does not mean it has to actually be 10 charts we could have more. It also says that for which charts should be included a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart. There are currently 15 charts and I will give my reasons on which 10 should be kept and which should go as follows:

• US Hot 100 - keep as Nirvana's domestic country.
• US mainstream rock - keep as Nirvana's domestic country.
• US alternative rock - keep as Nirvana's domestic country.
• Australia - keep - there are certifications for this country, they had a good number of songs on the chart including one that charted higher than their first hit.
• Belgium - cut apart from one number one most of the peaks are relatively low and it is an extremely small country population wise and so less relative to band's success.
• Canada - cut - most of the peaks are relatively low compared to the other countries and it is a relatively small territory population wise.
• EU - cut - is a pan-European chart of multiple countries and not a single country.
• Finland - keep - there are five Top 10 hits including a number one which wasn't their first hit "Smells Like Teen Spirit" so very relative to band's success.
• France - keep - the band has a number one on this chart which is relative to its success, there is a certification which is also relative to its success and it is a major territory population wise.
• Ireland - keep for the fact that that the band has four Top Ten hits on the chart which is relatively good compared to their chart performance in other countries and so is relative to their success.
• Netherlands - cut because all of the peaks are relatively low compared to some other countries and is a relatively small territory population wise and so not as relative the band's success.
• New Zealand - keep because the band has three Top 10 hits including a number one and a Top 5, and so is relative to its success.
• Portugal - keep because band has five Top 10 hits on the chart which is more than in any other country.
• Sweden - cut because the peaks are relatively low compared to the other countries and population wise it is small so is less relative to the band's success.
• UK - keep because the band had more hits in the UK than any other country, there are many certifications, and this country is extremely important in the band's history: e.g: the recent When Nirvana Came to Britain documentary.

That leaves us with the best 10 as per the guidelines.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Retail singles

Song	Year	Peak chart positions										Certifications	Album
		US	US Main	US Alt.	AUS	FIN	FRA	IRE	NZ	PT	UK
"Love Buzz"	1988	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—		Bleach
"Sliver"	1990	—	—	19	—	—	—	23	—	—	77		Non-album single
"Smells Like Teen Spirit"	1991	6	7	1	5	8	1	15	1	2	7	RIAA: Platinum (physical) RIAA: Gold (digital) ARIA: 8× Platinum BPI: 3× Platinum RMNZ: Gold	Nevermind
"Come as You Are"	1992	32	3	3	25	8	12	7	3	8	9	ARIA: 4× Platinum SNEP: Gold BPI: Platinum
"Lithium"		64	16	25	53	1	—	5	28	4	11	ARIA: 2× Platinum BPI: Gold
"In Bloom"		—	5	—	73	16	—	7	20	10	28	ARIA: Platinum BPI: Silver
"Heart-Shaped Box"	1993	—	4	1	21	9	37	6	9	4	5	BPI: Silver	In Utero
"All Apologies"/ "Rape Me"		—	4 —	1 —	58	—	20	20	32	—	32
"Pennyroyal Tea"	1994	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	121
"About a Girl"		—	3	1	4	8	23	—	—	—	185	BPI: Silver	MTV Unplugged in New York
"You Know You're Right"	2002	45	1	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—		Nirvana
"—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that territory.

QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be better to cut the two US rock charts, I don't see much of a point in having sub charts listed when the band charted on the US hot 100. OBLIVIUS (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Ok, I guess the US rock charts were included because they are relative to band's success, but I am willing to agree that the US Hot 100 would be enough for that country, which in turn means that we could, continuing from the above, re-add two countries choosing from Belgium, Canada, EU, Netherlands or Sweden. I want to make clear that I have not made the choices above based on population alone but on how good the peaks are in those countries. So it is the population combined with the peaks. The latter as per guidelines. For example, "Lithium" peaked at number 83 in Canada but at number 1 in Finland, and "In Bloom" peaked at number 87 in the Netherlands but at number 7 in Ireland. So you have to ask which better represent's the band's success as suggested by guidelines. I would choose Belgium for having a number 1 hit and Sweden for there being a certification. There is also a good number of hits on each chart. This is in keeping with guidelines of representing the band's success.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That then leaves us with this: QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Retail singles

Song	Year	Peak chart positions										Certifications	Album
		US	AUS	BEL	FIN	FRA	IRE	NZ	PT	SWE	UK
"Love Buzz"	1988	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—		Bleach
"Sliver"	1990	—	—	—	—	—	23	—	—	—	77		Non-album single
"Smells Like Teen Spirit"	1991	6	5	1	8	1	15	1	2	3	7	RIAA: Platinum (physical) RIAA: Gold (digital) ARIA: 8× Platinum RMNZ: Gold BPI: 3× Platinum IFPI SWE: Gold	Nevermind
"Come as You Are"	1992	32	25	15	8	12	7	3	8	24	9	ARIA: 4× Platinum SNEP: Gold BPI: Platinum
"Lithium"		64	53	28	1	—	5	28	4	—	11	ARIA: 2× Platinum BPI: Gold
"In Bloom"		—	73	—	16	—	7	20	10	30	28	ARIA: Platinum BPI: Silver
"Heart-Shaped Box"	1993	—	21	31	9	37	6	9	4	16	5	BPI: Silver	In Utero
"All Apologies"/ "Rape Me"		—	58	43	—	20	20	32	—	—	32
"Pennyroyal Tea"	1994	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	121
"About a Girl"		—	4	13	8	23	—	—	—	20	185	BPI: Silver	MTV Unplugged in New York
"You Know You're Right"	2002	45	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—		Nirvana
"—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that territory.

Missing singles charts

There are a number of national singles charts for Nirvana that are missing from the various Wikipedia articles which it would be good to get sources for. These are as follows:

Ultratop Belgium (Wallonia): We have both the Belgium Flanders and Belgium Wallonia album charts for Nirvana as sourced from Ultratop but only the singles charts for Flanders. There is a gap in the Ultratop singles archive for Wallonia from around 1979 to mid way through 1994. However, I have been informed that Ultratop are working on filling this gap on their website at some point but it will take time because they have to go through thousands of newspaper articles.

Belgium IFPI: During Nirvana's time there was also an official chart compiled by IFPI Belgium for Flanders and Wallonia combined. The top ten of this chart was published in Music & Media and so the peaks have been added to the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Come as You Are" articles accordingly from that source. However, Music & Media also used the full Belgium IFPI chart to compile the European Hot 100 Singles, and entries on the Euro Hot 100 show in the key that the Nirvana singles "Lithium", "Heart-Shaped Box" "All Apologies / "Rape Me and "About a Girl" also charted on the Belgium IFPI chart: They are denoted with a "B" to show that Belgium was one of the countries which helped them onto the Euro Hot 100. See page 13 of the magazine here for example: . However, no-one can seem to find an archive for the Belgium IFPI chart beyond the Top 10: a fellow chart researcher has told me that if an archive still exists then it is probably in the possession of Ultratop but they have denied knowledge of it to him, probably because it does not fit with their brand of having separate Belgium charts for Flanders and Wallonia. Fono magazine published a top 20 of this chart and the archives of this magazine are in the British Library, but Fono was only started in 1998 so of no use. The IFPI Belgium chart was based on sales from distributors to retailers and not on sales from retailers to customers.

Denmark IFPI: "Come as You Are" was Nirvana's only hit on the official IFPI Danmark singles chart during the band's lifetime and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" did not chart. However, at the time the chart was based on sales from distributers to the retailers and not from the retailers to customers, as explained here: Hitlisten. The top ten of the Denmark IFPI chart was published in Music & Media which has been used to source the number 9 peak for "Come as You Are" in the song's article. However, again the Denmark IFPI chart extended to a Top 30 which was used by Music & Media to compile the European Hot 100 Singles, and its entries on the Euro Hot 100 show that "Lithium" charted on the Denmark IFPI chart in August 1992 (but below the Top 10): it is denoted with "DK" in the key to show that it charted on the Denmark IFPI chart. See page 23 of the magazine here for example: . I have spoken to a fellow chart researcher who has this data but was not willing to share it, including the peak, because it would be illegal for him to do so under copyright law. By March 1993, the Denmark IFPI chart was fully based on sales to customers, this info is not copyrighted, and the Nirvana single "Lithium" was in the Top 50 as per the song's article. The single "About a Girl" and the "Singles" box set also charted but this was after Nirvana had ended. The Nirvana singles "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Come As You Are" and "Heart-Shaped Box" have had Denmark peaks added from this source: which was a semi-official chart for the North Jutland County and based on physical sales but was not the national chart.

Greece IFPI: I have confirmed that "Come as You Are" was Nirvana's only hit on the IFPI Greece chart (albeit during the band's lifetime). This is confirmed by the Euro Hot 100 entries for the song in Music & Media which show it denoted with "GR" for the Greek IFPI chart, in three separate weeks. See page 37 of the magazine here for example: . However, I have not been able to find a copy of the Greek Pop & Rock magazine which published the full Greek IFPI chart for that month. If found it could be used a source for the Wikipedia article.

Switzerland: There are also Euro Hot 100 entries for "Lithium" which show that Switzerland ("CF") was one of the countries where it charted even though it does not appear in the official Switzerland chart archives.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Canada (The Record): There are also some missing Canadian charts from The Record (magazine) which was the competitor to RPM (magazine) which we already have the charts from.

Scotland (Charts Plus): Music Week subscription chart newsletter, Charts Plus (1990s publication), published Scottish charts before OCC started publishing them in 1994. QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

United States (CMJ): The US peaks for the "Puss / Oh, the Guilt" split single with The Jesus Lizard should be in CMJ magazine from roughly around February and March 1993. The fact that the "Candy / Molly's Lips" single, which was also a split single, with The Fluid, made it onto the CMJ retail chart even before Nirvana were famous suggests that "Puss / Oh, the Guilt", which was released at the height of Nirvana-mania would almost certainly have as well. The "Sliver" single also made it onto several CMJ charts before Nirvana were mainstream. There is an online archive of CMJ magazines here: but it is missing all from 1992 and 1993, but it does get updated. "Puss / Oh, the Guilt" was voted as the fifth-best 7 inch single of 1993 by readers of CMJ as shown in the issue of February 7, 1994, so it should have impacted on the magazine's charts during the year of 1993. It is also possible that "The "Priest" They Called Him" was on the CMJ charts in 1993. The CMJ charts were mostly for releases on independent labels but they did include some major-label alternative releases, so it is possible that the singles from Nevermind and In Utero were on them as well. Some of the latter appear in the early 1994 issues of the magazine but are not the peaks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Split Singles Releases

This article currently lists two split singles with Aerosmith that I do no believe should be included:

• "About a Girl" / "Blind Man"

• "The Man Who Sold the World" / "Walk on Water"

These are non-commercial singles cobbled together by the record label for a small number of jukeboxes in relatively small markets, without the input or involvement of either band. They are not noteworthy in any way.

I edited the article to reflect this, but my changes were reverted by QuintusPetillius. Their explanation:

The fact that they are both with Aerosmith makes them notable enough and they are without question part of the band's official discography, see here: http://www.nirvana-discography.com/pages/official/about_unplugged.html

I disagree with the main point (that the release is notable by virtue of the inclusion of Aerosmith), and I don't believe that the source cited does anything to bolster this claim (it's an unofficial fan-made site that hasn't been maintained for over a decade). The site also lists many other releases that are not mentioned in this article.

As someone who has been involved with the online Nirvana community for over thirty years, I can say that I have never seen a discography or discussion that considered these releases part of the "official" Nirvana discography. Robotpuup (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding them not being commercial releases, in case you haven't noticed, most discographies on Wikipedia, including this one, have a section dedicated to promotional singles. Therefore promo singles are acceptable even if they are not commercial releases and it is no different if they are split singles. Secondly, regarding the fan-made site, it has obviously been well researched. Anyone who has been in the online Nirvana fan community for 30 years would know about this website which has been around since the early 2000s. You would also know that it is very reliable. I have been in contact several times over the years with the owner of the website and the reason it has not been updated since 2014 is because of the advent of Discogs. And on that point everything on the website can be verified at Discogs. If you had been in the online Nirvana community for 30 years you would also know that the Mexican "About a Girl" / "Blind Man" CD is among the most sought after Nirvana collector's items that there is. Not only the nirvana-discography website, but Discogs as well, confirms that these releases are "official". Just because it is only released to radio as a promo single does not mean it is not "official", as already mentioned, many discographies on Wikipedia have dedicated promo singles sections, it makes no difference if it is a split single. Yes, there are many releases on the website which are not included here on Wikipedia but the same could apply to any band or group. It was confirmed some years ago why these two singles were released: Kurt Cobain had said before he died that he wanted to do a collaboration or split single with Aerosmith and this was both band's and their management's way of honouring that. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, they should be included. They were indeed officially sanctioned promotional singles for jukeboxes. They even have Geffen/MCA trademarks and label IDs, as seen here for example.

Discogs itself isn't an RS obviously. But, linking directly to images of liner notes/media falls under 'AV media notes'. If a ref needs to be included. Xanarki (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of this is simply not true.

• Kurt Cobain never expressed any desire to collaborate with Aerosmith. In his own journals he admitted to enjoying some of their early music but even there referred to it as "wanker" rock that pissed him off due to the inherent sexuality and machismo. Aerosmith were the antithesis of everything Cobain aspired to in his career.
• I obviously know about the discography website. The owner and staff are part of an online community that I have been involved in for decades. My point is that it is not an authority and doesn't inherently support your position, other than providing evidence that the releases in question actually exist in some capacity.
• These singles are absolutely not "highly sought after" by fans of the band. I have no idea where you came up with that bit of data, but again, I have literally never seen any discussion of either single in any community discussion.
• These singles weren't released as radio promos. They were released to businesses in two relatively small markets for play in jukeboxes.

My overall point is this: a wikipedia musical discography should document a musician's output as thoroughly as possibly while also excluding niche releases that are of interest to nobody but the most completionist of collectors. As you said yourself, this article does not include every release by the band, and the reason is obvious: doing so would make the page less accessible to the average reader while adding almost no benefit. Folks who are interested in obscure pressings and niche releases are better served by visiting Discogs. These two singles fall outside of the scope of this article, IMHO. If they are to be included, for some reason, they should be listed in a separate category and not alongside commercial releases that were actually conceived of and produced by the band itself. Robotpuup (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

1) This news source shows that Kurt Cobain "loved" Aerosmith “He was pretty quiet. He just wanted to hang out”: Joe Perry remembers when Kurt Cobain met Aerosmith | Louder . It even quotes someone from Gold Mountain Entertainment who were Nirvana's management company who says that Kurt liked Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler. The information that Kurt wanted to collaborate with them came from an interview with Danny Goldberg who was Nirvana's actual manager quite a few years ago. I can't find anything on that right now but will keep looking.

2) The nirvana-discography.com website does back up my point that both of these were "official" releases that were sanctioned by the band's management and label, not just that they existed. Just as Xanarki has agreed above.

3) Anyone in the Nirvana collector's world will know that the Mexican "About a Girl" / "Blind Man" CD is highly sought after, collecting does go beyond the basics of Love Buzz and Pennyroyal Tea.

4) Actually, I think you need to look again: the "About a Girl" / "Blind Man" release was both a radio promo CD in Mexico and a jukebox release in Italy. The "The Man Who Sold the World" / "Walk on Water" release which was the follow up was only a jukebox release in Italy.

Listing promo singles in discographies is standard across Wikipedia now and the original revision of the article had two notes to clearly explain that these two releases were a radio promo CD and jukebox vinyls. Aside from the official radio promo CDs in Mexico, the fact that there were 500 copies of both releases in jukeboxes in Italy is pretty much a commercial release or at least releases that were available to the public. I would also say that your last edit summary to the article: "even if these singles actually exist and were legally released (which I *very* strongly doubt)" contradicts your statement above: "I obviously know about the discography website. The owner and staff are part of an online community that I have been involved in for decades". QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Might want to take a second look at the logs, because I didn't make the second edit you're referring to. Robotpuup (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that one point as it was CAVincent who last edited the article. However, we still only have a 2-2 on the above and I think I have argued the case enough to revert again and refer him to the talk page. Regards. QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Hardly a reliable source. It's not surprising that Cobain and his wife would put on a nice face when meeting Aerosmith, or that Kurt's management would try to spin the relationship between two of their artists to make it sound closer or more mutually respectful than it really was.
2. Note that in my initial comment I put "official" in quotes. I never said that it wasn't a bonafide product put out by the label. My point was that it's not really part of their canon - it's a junk release put out by the label, with no real involvement by or knowledge of the band.
3. Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. This release is not "highly sought after" - not by general collectors, not by hardcore Nirvana collectors, nobody. I can buy a used copy on Discogs right now for $35 USD. The highest price it's ever been sold for on Discogs is $56. Meanwhile, legit copies of Love Buzz commands a price of ~$11k and Pennyroyal Tea is around ~$1k. Even counterfeit copies of these releases regularly sell for higher than the highest recorded sale price of the "highly sought after" release that you are for some reason insisting is a holy grail.

Again, my argument isn't that these are fake releases - my point is that they're such niche and obscure promo items that they don't belong in this article. You keep trying to "discredit" my fandom and involvement with the online community (which I find odd, especially considering that you don't appear to belong to any of these groups after a brief search), but that doesn't change the fact that these items have no notability whatsoever. They don't belong here any more than 90s Anthems, Triple M's 30 Years Of Rock, or Fender 50th Anniversary Guitar Legends do. Robotpuup (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned above we still only have a 2-2 and consensus has not been reached. If consensus is reached then that will decide if they are kept in the article or not. Regards. QuintusPetillius (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that these releases belong in the article, but I'm near the time limit of what I am willing to devote to Wikipedia today. Two questions: 1) is there any internal guidance on promotional releases? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Per-release appears silent on the subject. 2) If consensus is to keep, would these be better moved to the "Promotional singles" section rather than "Split singles"? CAVincent (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Aerosmith discography doesn't have this, this, this, this, this, or the two aforementioned Nirvana split singles, listed on the page. These are all promotional split singles.

Meanwhile, the Nirvana page doesn't have this, this, this...oh hey look another Jukebox one!, or this listed. These are all promotional singles.

I think, if the promo split singles are to stay, then a separate section needs to be made. One for 'Split singles' and one for 'Promotional split singles'. Just like how there's sections for 'Singles' and 'Promotional singles'.

Ultimately though, these are sanctioned and licensed by the label(s). That puts 'em one step above bootlegs, at least. Xanarki (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If these singles are to be included, I agree with CAVincent that they should at least be moved to the Promotional Singles section, or a new, separate section as Xanarki suggested.

I still strongly believe that they should be omitted though, for the reasons I've stated. Robotpuup (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Xanarki that they should be put in a section for 'Promotional split singles' because if they are put in the 'Promotional singles' section then it creates a problem with explaining that they were released together with Aerosmith. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)