Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Iha not in

Okay, Iha told Rolling Stone here that he will NOT be in the reunion. I added it hastily into the article, and for some reason i might have saved it like 3 times, cause something was SNAFU'ing. I did no use the proper cite format either, so if someone could do that? Cheers. -- Reaper X 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RX. On it.—DCGeist 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
i've added the info about Iha to the beginning of the article once or twice only to have it edited out, i went and checked and the last time it was edited out, the note left stated that the information was not "necessary for the lead", however my statement came immediately after "So far Corgan and Chamberlain are the only confirmed memebers". Now IMHO that reads like theres a chance that the other members may return so (again IMHO) the info that Iha won't be returning is necessary as long as said statement is present. 68.255.249.56 20:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I may have written that line actually... I don't remember. But anyway, I read it as "Corgan and Chamberlin are the only confirmed members and other members (returning or new) are yet to be announced/confirmed." - Phorque 18:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems tricky to me. In my opinion, tacking on "Iha will..." seems kind of blunt, and seems to screw up the lead. I say leave it out and be patient until the full line-up is announced (damn Billy and his secrecy). Then we will include that in there. Thank you for discussing it though. -- Reaper X 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

'Zeitgeist' complete

According to musician Ben Lee (in the March 31 entry of his blog) the new SP album is complete, and a wrap party has been held. He also goes on to briefly relate his impressions of the new music. Not quite sure if this info is relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the article or not, and if it is, how to cite it. pmppk 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The new album "Zeitgeist" appeared on the net July 1st, 2007. I perhaps missed this, so I'm just filling in any missing gaps. 24.68.69.28 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New Member Rumors

Why were the rumors of the new members removed from the page? People are interested in any information available, since Billy is releasing so little. I think one sentence describing the rumor is worth including. Rock rumor webzine Buddyhead is reporting that the new bassist is Ginger Reyes, ex-Halo Friendlies, and the new guitarist is Jeff Schroeder, ex-The Lassie Foundation. (4/6/07) Mark 11:54, 7 April 2007 (PDT)

You've got to cite sources with ref tags. That's probably why they were previously removed. - Phorque 19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I did include the reference tag, I just didn't retype it in this discussion section. Here: Rock rumor webzine Buddyhead is reporting that Ginger Reyes, ex-Halo Friendlies is the new bass player and Jeff Schroeder, ex-The Lassie Foundation is the new guitarist.[1]Mark 12:08, 7 April 2007 (PDT)
I think we should wait till this is picked up--even as a rumor--by a mainstream professional source. However credible we may personally find Buddyhead, I don't thinks it's encyclopedic to be reporting rumors yet to be mentioned in the mainstream press.—DCGeist 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll shop it around to the various newspapers via email and see if anyone wants to bite the bullet.  :) Mark 12:42, 7 April 2007 (PDT)
That's why I removed it. If new members have been selected, we should wait until the band issues an announcement to confirm it or a mainstream media source (Rolling Stone, Billboard, even CNN) mentions the story. WesleyDodds 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, there's absolutely no rush here. Our job is to get the information accurate and properly cited the first time it gets added - not to beat someone else to the punch. Accuracy trumps speed in an encyclopedia. If it takes another month to confirm this info, that's fine. Girolamo Savonarola 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. -- Reaper X 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So what's this with Jeff Schroeder and Ginger Reyes being added to The Smashing Pumpkins template? -- Reaper X 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Phorque has removed them. -- Reaper X 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

confirmed: http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=2117

No, it's not. That article was published on the 17th, and if it had been announced, the major music media outlets would have mentioned it as well. WesleyDodds 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
it is now: http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/4690/893935025590935/1600/z/417947/image-upload-25-731121.jpg
I see four people and no names (oh, and Billy's wearing a dress. Again.) WesleyDodds 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Pre-order

You can now pre-order Zeitgeist off Amazon but thats not the point of this. I thought that it was meant to be released July 7th but according to amazon:

" Availability: This title will be released on July 10, 2007."

So whats up with this then? Debaser23 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

July 7th is a weekend apparently. Either the record company wants it out on a Tuesday (the nearest being the 10th), or Amazon just won't get their shipments until that day. WesleyDodds 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah most likely but Amazon usually get their shipments the day albums are released so I'm guessing that its not being released 7th July 07 but 10th July 07. Debaser23 08:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the "official release date" and the date when a website or store will receive a shipment and have it available differ right? -- Reaper X 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think they did. I thought big companies like Amazon would get a shipment just before the release date? Oh well I maybe wrong but still it seems stupid to release it the 7th cause it wouldn't get a very high chart position within a day because here in the UK the chart is on a sunday. Debaser23 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I think we should stick with 7 July 07 as the release date, as the offical Pumpkins website should be a better source than Amazon.com. -- Reaper X 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't think we should change it I just got kinda confused but time will tell. Debaser23 12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Security guard

Hey, I think it would be cool to mention that the lead singer of Smashing pumpkins was running people over with a golf cart at Lollapalooza and was tackled by a security guard(my father). I don't have any proof except my dad's word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.132.67 (talk • contribs)

No offence, but I believe it's unverifyable, and too trivial. I'd say no. -- Reaper X 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds totally rad, but no. - Phorque 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
At least they added that tidbit to the talk page instead of the article... pmppk 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly raises the question as to why Corgan was running people over with a golf cart in the first place eh? -- Reaper X 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins Concert

Smashing Pumpkins will appear in Heineken Jammin festival on June 16, in Venice, Italy. I think thi information should be mentioned somewhere.

151.96.0.8 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Zigo

:Somewhere? Google it--it's mentioned 'most everywhere. Of course, you don't think it needs to be mentioned in this here encyclopedia, do you? You do!?! Then, by all means, start a new article titled List of Smashing Pumpkins 2007 concerts.—DCGeist 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)DCGeist 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I should have been more clear.. I think should be mentioned somewhere in this article since it is one of the first appearences before the 2007 reunion tour, as far as I know of course. I also think that is better to discuss this before editing the article myself.

151.96.0.8 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Zigo

Their first performance in Paris and their headline slots on the Virgin Festival and Reading are more notable. We really don't need to mention it. WesleyDodds 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be mentioned again seeing as this is a new talkpage: We're not going to note down every single performance. These individual dates will fast become meaningless and irrelevant to their career as a whole. What's important is that the band is back together in a new incarnation and touring. I think we have communicated that effectively enough with what we've said in the article so far. - Phorque 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And that is what I was trying to get at. Phabulous.—DCGeist 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
To make it simple: Wikipedia is NOT a directory. "For example, an article...should not list upcoming events...although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable". -- Reaper X 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And what Reaper X mentioned earlier is also something I wholeheartedly agree with: The world will not end tomorrow! I was actually thinking that we could remove the statement about "the official tracklisting was announced..." because it's already mentioned in the Zeitgeist article, and just isn't that relevant in the context of this article. I'll go do that now, actually.- Phorque 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

spfc.org

why is the collaborative not mentioned in the external link section? it contains much information anyone interested in the pumpkins could find useful --ThrowingStick/Talk 19:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know. Most other band articles I can think of don't really list fan sites... you could fill a page with fan sites for any given topic I think. Does anyone know of guidelines for this kind of thing? But the external links section does seem kind of thin... surely there's some more usual stuff to put in there? A link to the Machina II download, for example, would probably be something worth including. - Phorque 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No individual fansites should be linked to. Link to a directory of fansites if there is one. WesleyDodds 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I added starla.org to satisfy the above discussion: it's a portal site that includes spfc.org. It's a good site. JesseStu 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Robbery

The recent theft of materials from the Smashing Pumpkins by two fans has been a huge story in the press, but no mention of it here. Will it be eventually added to the article, or is it too minor of an incident?Joe 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds minor, but link us to the article anyways. - Phorque 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
he's talking about the stolen Zeitgeist photos, which are already discussed on the album's page.65.43.211.192 15:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
See Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album)#Possible leak of album artwork and subsequent discussion. I think it's notable enough to have it on the album page, but not notable enough to have on this page. -- Reaper X 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

© Limited Potential Records?

Is this someones idea of a joke? Last I knew, the SP's never signed any sort of deal with a company called 'Limited Potential Records'. -- Chossenji - 17/05/2007 12:49 PM

The picture is the label's property. We need to indicate who owns copyright. WesleyDodds 06:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If i remember correctly Limited Potential records is/was an indie label owned by Mike Po(tential) and released light into dark? or maybe its one that released the first I Am One single... in any case, the copyright statement is not a joke, as it is/was a real company that the band was really associated with. pmppk 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clearing that up mate, I don't recall it myself but hey I'm no fountain of knowledge. However what you said is more than likely correct, as this photo is obviously one of the very earliest in the bands time line. -- Chossenji - 18/05/2007 04:35 PM
Indeed this is not a joke. Limited Potential was the Pumpkins' first record company. They released the I Am One single, however Tristessa was released on Sub Pop (I think). MrHate 08:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins Tribute LP

Is this worth mentioning anywhere? A few well known bands such as Panic!, The Academy Is, 30 Seconds to Mars are working with Myspace to release a tribute album. Source: [1] Vality 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's worth mentioning here, that's up for debate. I do bet it'll suck, though. JuJube 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll work it in somewhere among the bands they've influenced. WesleyDodds 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two other tributes I know of that might be worth mentioning. I think they're called "The Killer in You: A Tribute to The Smashing Pumpkins" and "A Gothic-Industrial Tribute to The Smashing Pumpkins". - Phorque 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the artists on them aren't too notable, and neither are the releases. This one's pretty notable because there's a lot of recognizable artists and it's being promoted by Spin and MySpace. I was thinking of throwing it in at the end of the paragraph about bands they've influenced since that's the idea behind the comp. WesleyDodds 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should be the ones to judge what artists qualify as 'notable'. All tribute albums should have at least a note about them in my opinion. Also 'The Killer in You' isn't all that bad, there are some OK covers. --86.137.21.20 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Just a reminder to everyone: with the upcoming tour dates there will be opportunities to obtain non-fair use pictures of the band. If you're going to a show let us know if you think you'll be able to get any. I'm attending the residency date at the Fillmore in July, but my picture-taking abilities have always been lacking. WesleyDodds 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

not that anyone's relying on me for anything, but just a heads up, i will not be able to take any pics cause i'm not attending anything. sorry to disappoint, ladies. ;) --ThrowingStick/Talk 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Will see them here in Barcelona on May 31st, don't know if I be able to take pictures, but will give it a try of course.. --Johnnyw talk 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It just occured to me that we'll know for sure who's in the band by tomorrow (their first date, in France). WesleyDodds 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will probably be seeing them at the Virgin Festival in Toronto September 9. Thanks for reminding me, I will be sure to try to get as close as I can and get some pics. No promises though, I'm not sure my girlfriend is the type to sleep at the gate hours before the show, but I'll ask her! -- Reaper X 16:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it looks like a commons user by the name of Schnékert has uploaded this excellent picture of the bands performance at Luxembourg, and it fits pretty nicely with the infobox. So kudos out to him, makes a nice substitute for the copyrighted picture we had before. -- Reaper X 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"SP" equals semi-protection

I got the page semi-protected so we can add reliable info about the new line-up at our leisure without getting caught up reverting well-intentioned edits that jump the gun. Make sure to look at reliable music sites (rollingstone.com, billboard.com, nme.com, mtv.com, etc.) and the band's MySpace and official website for definitive information and announcements about the lineup in the new few hours. WesleyDodds 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New Members Announced

According to The Smashing Pumpkins Myspace in a recent blog entry:

"At the Grand Rex, they welcomed Jeff Schroeder (guitar) and Ginger Reyes (bass) to the line-up, which is supported by keyboardist Lisa Harriton."

So Jeff Schroeder and Ginger Reyes are the new members.

Let me check, and then I'll add it. WesleyDodds 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've performed a number of edits to ensure the page is up to date. We'll have to do another rewrite of the "Reunion" section when Zeitgeist comes out. WesleyDodds 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Billboard[2], "he three-hour, 29-song set introduced new guitarist Jeff Schroeder, bassist Ginger Reyes and keyboardist Lisa Harriton into the Pumpkins' lineup, which now includes lone original members Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlin.", so include Lisa Harriton as well -137.222.211.69 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The Keyboard woman should NOT be listed as a member. The official SP Myspace says "which is supported by keyboardist Lisa Harriton" Supported does not equal member! -srt4b

Smashing Pumpkins.com Password Protected

As of right now www.smashingpumpkins.com can not be accessed due to being password protected. Anyone know what is going on? Smashing Pumpkins.com --buzlink 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's back up.

Harriton's status

The Billboard.com article we're now citing for the band's new members--"Smashing Pumpkins Return To The Stage In Paris"--makes absolutely no distinction between Schroeder and Reyes on the one hand and Harriton on the other: all three were "introduced...into the Pumpkins' lineup." Maybe the Pumpkins never had a keyboardist in their main lineup before, but our source indicates that they do now. Is their any rationale at present for excluding her from the article and the list of band members?—DCGeist 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The MySpace post made after the show today makes a distinction. Yes, it's pretty much the equivalent of a shoddy press release, but there's a distinction between the new members and the touring keyboardist that Billboard.com didn't pick up (they also just cut and pasted the setlist verbatim without noticing some of the song titles were abbreviated). I'll have to read the post again in the morning, though. WesleyDodds 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oy. Not only did not I read the thread above (and thus the MySpace post), not only did I write "Is their any rationale," but I inspired no more than provisional semi-witiness. I blame it on the Black Sabbath greatest hits CD I took out from the library today (I must say, I do like that "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath " ditty).—DCGeist 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"Oh yeah!" WesleyDodds 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite fond of "Electric Funeral" myself. - Phorque 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Orchid

On the blog site, the song "Orchid" is listed as the fourth song played, but I can't seem to find on Wikipedia, does anyone know when it was made.[3] 75pickup (talk · contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I missed the song ""Bleeding the Orchid" from the Zeitgeist article. Duh.

Melvoin in "Zero"

Is that Jonathan Melvoin playing keyboards in the "Zero" video? 75pickup (talk · contribs) 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. WesleyDodds 08:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I've always thought Corgan is a huge fan of the band Cheap Trick but they're not being mentioned in the Musical style and influences part. I'm sure there are enough sources, I'll look some up later. sources:

  • "...he began playing guitar himself (citing such hard rock bands as Cheap Trick and Van Halen as important early influences). In 1985, Corgan formed his first real band..." [4]
  • "The band also covered "Rock On," originally by the Chicago based band Cheap Trick." [5]
  • Corgan wiki [6]

etc.


And maybe the band Between the Buried and Me could be mentioned as an heavy metal/metalcore band that was influenced by tSP. I read in interviews some band members stated Siamese Dream was one of their favourite albums. I'll be able to find some sources to underline this. sources:

  • "in a flash as lead singer Tommy Rogers fleshes out his vocals and utilizes the keyboards to create something that sounds more like it should be on a Smashing Pumpkins album"[7]
  • "With a myriad of influences ranging from their hardcore and metal roots to artists like the Smashing Pumpkins and Dream Theater, Between The Buried And Me creates sincere, artistic songs" [8]
  • Track 7 of their cover album "The Anatomy Of" contains the song Geek U.S.A - The Smashing Pumpkins
  • "One of my favorite all time records is Smashing Pumpkins “Siamese Dream”. Not only is it a great record but it made me want to play guitar in general." - Paul Waggoner [9]

Emmaneul (Talk) 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If Between the Buried and me is ntoable enough, we can add it. However, I excluded Cheap Trick when writing the section because they seemed more an influence on Corgan alone rather than the band as a whole. WesleyDodds 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding The Marked as an associated act.

I added The Marked as an associated act for the second time--this time complete with citation--and was reverted by Mr. WesleyDodds yet again. Mr. Dodds offered the following response: "We're only including associated acts where more than one member was involved; otherwise, this list would be quite a bit longer." I reject this for two reasons. Firstly, among all the associated acts in the Pumpkins history, The Marked are among the most important and should to be listed. Secondly, it wouldn't be a bad thing for this list to be longer as long as it retains it's factual accuracy. For example, it could possibly favor truth and factual accuracy to add acts like The Frogs or Catherine to this list because one could contend that they are, following the criteria of this listing, associated acts. Adding a comprehensive list of associated acts would not be a harmful thing by any measure. The Bob Dylan article--also a Wikipedia featured article--lists 9 associated acts, and there is nothing cumbersome or intrusive about the associated acts list on that page. On the contrary, the comprehensiveness of that list is a credit to Wikipedia.

Rather than being concerned with how many members were involved with an associated act, we should be concerned with whether or not it is an associated act. For example, The Last Hard Men are a band that contained a member of the Pumpkins, but, for various reasons, they are not and should not be considered an associated act.

Holding absolute standards, setting totalitarian criteria and refusing to consider anything that challenges these criteria regardless of facts, is dangerous, harmful and goes against Wikipedia's mission statement.

I would like suggest that Mr. Dodds read the following articles pertaining to Wikipedia guidelines: Edit war, Resolving disputes. Particularly the paragraph in the Edit War article pertaining to "revision wars", and the paragraph entitled "avoidance", in the Resolving disputes article. I hope that the boldfaced sentence in the latter captures his attention.

We should be focused continuing to insure that this article progresses with the facts. Yes it is a very good article, as recognized by Wikipedia, but this should not prevent us from trying to make it as complete and factual as possible.

I will revert the page back to the version I updated to draw Mr. Dodds' attention to this discussion. I ask that you consider content of this discussion, particularly my above-addressed interest in factual accuracy completeness.

If anyone would like to challenge the factual accuracy of The Marked as an associated act of The Smashing Pumpkins, that's fine; however I must warn everyone that short of a factual dispute, there is no basis in reverting my revision once again. Grim-Gym 05:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


I would agree with Grim-Gym, The Marked could be seen as a precursor to The Smashing Pumpkins, as they became The Smashing Pumpkins once James Iha joined. If that's not enough to include them in the associated acts list, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlord2 (talk • contribs)
I'm not challenging the factual veracity of The Marked being an associated act. They're mentioned in the prose of the article after all. The real issue is that there's lots of bands associated with the Pumpkins. If we include every one in the infobox, it will become long and unweidly. And frankly The Marked aren't all that important; they're the unsuccessful band Billy Corgan was in before the Pumpkins, and little more. WesleyDodds 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the real issue is that there are a lot of bands associated with the Pumpkins. However I don't wish to cite any loose link I can find between the Pumpkins and whatever band. For example, I don't wish to contend that Nirvana should be added to the list, just because Courtney Love dumped Billy for Kurt Cobain. We should draw firm and substantive links between the Pumpkins and their associates. If such a link is found, we should cite it. A factual link shouldn't be denied just because, in someone's opinion, it's not "all that important". I also think that the infobox becoming long and "unwieldly" is not a very pertinent concern. In my opinion, we could add more acts than the Pumpkins are actually associated with before it becomes overlong and cumbersome. The list is short enough now that we should be concerned with facts and comprehensiveness rather than aesthetics. Grim-Gym 06:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, Grim-Gym. I mean, it was the beginning to it all, the great music to follow. But I feel it's kind of silly to include it if Pumpkins came to fruition once Iha joined. Thats not association, thats transformation. And as Wesley said, they were simply an unsuccessful band that Corgan was in, not notable besides the fact Corgan was in it before he was famous. -- Reaper X 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be possible for anyone to convince me that Starchildren should be listed but The Marked shouldn't. The Yardbirds are listed as an associate of Led Zeppelin, although The Yardbirds "transformed" into Led Zeppelin. That's an identical situation yet The Yardbirds are properly listed as one of Zeppelin's associated acts. We shouldn't discriminate against the facts because The Yardbirds attained success and The Marked didn't.
The Marked are one of the most important associated acts in the history of the Pumpkins. As I said earlier, we need to be less concerned with the appearance of the infobox and more concerned with the facts. Grim-Gym 06:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC
The Yardbirds put out records; The Marked didn't. That's a big difference in regards to notability. And "The Marked are one of the most important associated acts in the history of the Pumpkins," is frankly, quite wrong. They were just the band Corgan was in before forming the Pumpkins. WesleyDodds 07:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - Hexen was an unimportant Corgan band. Snaketrain was an unimportant Iha band. But the Marked to a certain extent evolved into the Smashing Pumpkins in as much as some of the members were slightly involved in early Pumpkins recordings, IIRC. (Roesing aggrandizes his role, but clearly had some place, however tangential.) Furthermore, a select few of the Marked songs did make it into the early Pumpkins repetoire, or evolved into early Pumpkins songs. And Marked footage appears on Vieuphoria. Although so does some pre-Pumpkins Jimmy which is unimportant... (JP and the Cats?) My point, though, is that Marked material probably is far more relevant than other pre-SP bands, both directly through the above arguments and indirectly due to the inordinate weight that Corgan exerts on the band. If it weren't so relevant, I doubt that fans would have as much interest in the Marked demos as they seem to. Girolamo Savonarola 08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, unlike the other bands listed, the Marked never released anything commercially. WesleyDodds 08:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that has a bearing on relevance and association. Girolamo Savonarola 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It means a lot in the realm of notability. The Marked are about as notable as the other pre-Pumpkins bands the other bandmemebers were in--bands that played local shows but never got as far as releasing records, ie. creating official documentation of their work. WesleyDodds 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability is an AfD standard, not a documentation one. Girolamo Savonarola 10:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been sufficiently explored and the article has been satisfactorily updated. I'd like to thank to everyone who contributed to this discussion, especially Mr. Dodds who addressed our opposing viewpoints with respect and courtesy. I think this case is closed. If anyone disagrees let it be known. Grim-Gym 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Add SP Logos

Could someone add some free-use logos of the old SP Heart[10] and the Machina-era SP Cross ? Other bands (e.g. NIN) have their band's logo image at the top of their infobox. StevePrutz 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you could get them free-use, It'd be alright to add them to the article right? Not sure how to make it free-use, but we can't add it as per your example because a) Image:Nine Inch Nails Logo.png is non-free, and b) IMO, it would be inappropriate to use a band's abbreviated logo in the title field, ie. SP, NIN. -- Reaper X 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Reaper X's points, and I personally feel they'd be unnecessary anyways. WesleyDodds 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Would the logos be "appropriate" somewhere else in the article as a whole? I think it would contribute to the people that are trying to "connect the dots" ('I saw this heart symbol on a poster, what band is that?'). StevePrutz 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I really can't think of a way to fit it into the article. It's not like the Nine Inch Nails logo where it's quite important in the aesthetics of the group and how it presents itself (ie. stamped on all related projects and merchandise). WesleyDodds 01:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Smashing Pumpkins" not "The Smashing Pumpkins"

I do not have a source in my mind right now but I am pretty sure that they must be called "Smashing Pumpkins". Named after "the act of smashing more than one pumpkin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.230.121 (talk • contribs)

Like I said on Talk:Zeitgeist, do we have to open this can of worms again? -- Reaper X 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Smashing" is an adjective, not a verb. I once read an article where a very pissed off D'arcy was complaining that jokes about smashed pumpkins weren't funny to the band because that's not how the name is intended. WesleyDodds 03:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? they are called "Smashing pumpkins" not THE smashing pumpkins

They've gone by both. WesleyDodds 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct- they've gone by both on record titles and such. Billy himself has used both - he regularly says "we are the smashing Pumpkins" at concerts, but has said "Smashing Pumpkins" in the past. They are more popularly known without the "the" but either works. -Werideatdusk33 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be crazy, but I think the loss of the The may be contractual. The "band" moved from Virgin Records to the WBR sphere. Maybe Corgan filled out the papers without a "The". Another hypothesis would be the Zeitgeist album artist just designed the cover that way...
Youre crazy. the "The" appears on the promotional art, their early-2007 website, and the iTunes cover art for "Tarantula." Also, They went "the"less on their first two album covers and the related singles. Theres really nop set pattern to it, but I think the cover art lacks the "the" because most people dont think of the name as having a "the". Jeez, what a way to spend my life. -Werideatdusk33 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides, we don't deal with hypothesis'. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, NOT a science experiment (uh, I mean "...a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses...such as proposing theories and solutions."). -- Reaper X 22:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence shows that it has no "The" on most of the album covers. Some bands do not use "The," such as Talking Heads. Others, like The Rolling Stones, do. In this case, the band name should probably have no "The." And "smashing" is not used as an adjective in the United States, where the band is from. It is a form of the verb "to smash," as the user above points out. Badagnani 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Most? The "The" appears on Mellon Collie, Adore, and MACHINA, plus Rotten Apples, the videos DVD, and the accompanying singles. Also, Talking Heads have been quite insistent that there's no "the" in their name. In contrast, the band has used the "the" frequently. Billy Corgan even used it in the 2005 Chicago Tribune ad. As for the verb vs. adjective question, D'arcy has been quoted as saying "smashing" was always intended to be an adjective. WesleyDodds 08:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think 'The' is probably the correct phrasing. While Zeitgeist is without the 'The', the official website includes it. However, I think the main thing that should come out of this arguement, is a mention of the whole situation in the article, since it seems to be coming up so much, and it seems the band did make a conscious effort to add the 'The' starting with Mellon Collie and not before. The KZA 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's already a footnote linked in the first sentence. WesleyDodds 11:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reunion"?

I would like the "Reunion" section to be renamed "Revival." "Reunion" is not really the appropriate word for what has happened - Billy and Jimmy never stopped playing together since 2000, and they simply wanted to "revive" their old band and set of songs. The other members did not enter the fold. Moreover, in Billy's announcement in June of 2005, he did not once use the word "reunite" or "reunion"... his exact phrase was "renew and revive." I know this is a reference to "Hummer", but it was a conscious, and more apt, phrase than "reunite". On top of this, "reunion" and "revival" are synonymous enough that a casual reader will understand right away what the section is about, without getting into the inaccurate connotations brought by the term "reunion." What does everyone think? -Werideatdusk33 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reunion" is fine in my opinion. WesleyDodds 10:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"Reunion" seems more direct and common to me at this time. Maybe it could become appropriate to rename the section in retrospect, depending on how long-lasting / successful / etc. this "reunion" / "renewal" / "new era" (depending on what the next years bring ;) it will be. --Johnnyw talk 11:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Reunion is more appropriate at the moment. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Dodds and Scotty - uh, thanks for the well-developed arguments. Johnnyw- As I said, "Reunion" is more direct and common, but has incorrect connotations. "Revival" is similar and more appropriate. -Werideatdusk33 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it seems like a relatively minor point. In legal terms, it's a reunion of a previously disbanded partnership. There are a nunber of bands that have reformed without all of the original memebers and they are still referred to as "reuniting". WesleyDodds 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
My interest is, a lot of people are bitter at the new SP because it's supposedly calling itself a reunion while excluding half the original band. In reality, the Pumpkins never called it a reunion, and I don't think we should misrepresent their intent. -Werideatdusk33 03:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's misrepresenting at all. Since it's a reunion, it makes sense to keep it indicated as such. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the band's MySpace blog refers to the "reunion tour". WesleyDodds 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though the website says that, a lot of people on their board even think that this is simply a revival. Billy Corgan is saying that they are reuniting, but it is only him and the drummer. And the drummer only came into the scene after a string of others. The founding members - Denny, James and Billy are NOT reuniting. IMO this is not a "reunion" even if it is marketed that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logical paradox (talk • contribs) 10:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, I miss Denny. -Werideatdusk33 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Taper-Friendliness

I recall Billy and the band's taping policy coming into question previously. Although it's well known that the Pumpkins support taping, there were few verifiable sources (save the DVD commentary for the "Perfect" video). Their new taping policy includes video as well. http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/news_1003 MMBKG 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the band's taping policy is all that important. WesleyDodds 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Members

Why are the band members listed as "Billy Corgan, Jimmy Chamberlin, Jeff Schroeder, and Ginger Reyes"? Those last two members just joined not a few months ago and suddenly they're some defining force behind the band? The band should be listed as it was formed, promoted, documented, and recorded before it was disbanded: Billy, D'arcy, James, and Jimmy. How does it make ANY sense to list a band as the members it retained 7 years after it broke up? As if the 12 years it was a band didn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.10.51 (talk • contribs)

They're the current band members. WesleyDodds 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyways dude, that only goes for templates. If anyone were to read that article, they would be able to figure out that "The band...as it was formed, promoted, documented, and recorded" from it's incarnation until disbandment in 2000 was Billy, D'arcy, James, and Jimmy. D'arcy and James are noted to be former members in the infobox anyway. -- Reaper X 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he brings up a good point for other reasons... Zeitgeist was apparently recorded by Billy and Jimmy alone. In fact, there hasnt been any kind of statement saying "these two are full-fledged band members" by anyone. If it were up to me, Id list the band members as Billy and Jimmy for now. But then, apparently people dont like my ideas here. -Werideatdusk33 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The official announcement that they are new full fledged members of the band came at their premier performance in Paris. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean just their presence there means they're full-fledged "band members"? I'd disagree with that, as the Pumpkins have toured with non-members in nearly every tour since 1994. Nonetheless, none of the four original members has really been "replaced"... there is no studio-recorded Smashing Pumpkins song where so-called "replacements" Melissa, Ginger, or Jeff play. It seems that Billy and Jimmy intentionally wanted to be the only people playing on the album, just as "Untitled" had only Billy, James and Jimmy even though MADM could have easily done the bass. Just something to think about. -Werideatdusk33 05:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. So according to some of these people, let's go ahead and start listing every mixer, engineer, and live performer that ever toured with this band; how utterly ridiculous! lol
Take a quick look at many other band templates on Wikipedia. It is very common to list the band members as it is listed here. Examples: Fleetwood Mac, Black Sabbath, U2, NIN, Chicago...and many many more. Keeping it this way is in standard practice with other band templates. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and not including Christine McVie in Fleetwood Mac is completely absurd. She's an artist that wrote and performed seven Top 20 hits with the band; to exclude her is nothing short of disrespectful.
She's not a current member of the band, therefore she is not listed as a current member of the band. --ScottyBoy900Q 14:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
They're been reported to be full-fledged bandmembers by major news outlets, and if I recall correctly the band issued a statement the night of the Paris show confirming they were part of the band. WesleyDodds 05:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The only article I found cited is the billboard article, which says that Ginger, Jeff and Lisa were "introduced into the band's lineup" but does not give a source. If there is a press release that says they are BAND MEMBERS and not just TOURING BAND MEMBERS I will shut the hell up. -Werideatdusk33 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The announcement is in the MySpace blog, which I can't link to because of the Wiki spamfilters (as I've just discovered). It's the entry dated May 22, 2007. Schroeder and Reyes are also popping up in the "Tarantula" video. WesleyDodds 07:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. Melvoin was in the "Zero" video. Matt Walker was in the TEITBITE video. Kenny Aronoff was in the Perfect video. Doesn't mean anything. They haven't been confirmed as "FULL" band members. -Werideatdusk33 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I read the original announcement, which mentions "At the Grand Rex, they welcomed Jeff Schroeder (guitar) and Ginger Reyes (bass) to the line-up, which is supported by keyboardist Lisa Harriton." That seems clear-cut enough for me - consider this dropped. -Werideatdusk33 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This might not make any difference, but on Ginger's myspace page, she acknowledges her membership in the group as well. --ScottyBoy900Q 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Another thing I noticed was Ginger and Jeff have been added to the "Band Members" section of the Pumpkins Official MySpace page. Lisa is also mentioned here though. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding this to this discussion, as it involved members. I've gone ahead and added Lisa Harriton as a member. My reasoning is that:

  1. She's listed as a member on the band's Myspace, along with Jeff and Ginger
  2. She's in their latest video, Tarantula, along with Jeff and Ginger
  3. She's performing with them when they are on TV, along with Jeff and Ginger

With that evidence, it seems, at least to me, either she should be there or Jeff and Ginger should go as well. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks, though. Godlord2 09:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for something more definite, rather than connecting the dots and verging on original research. Shame the band can't be mroe explicit on the subject. Until they are, I think Harriton should not be listed as a member. WesleyDodds 10:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a new YouTube interview with Billy and Jimmy (only), and Jimmy introduces the pair with "We are the Smashing Pumpkins." Considering they're also the only people who play on records, I think wikipedia should demote the others to 'touring members' until it becomes more explicit that they are permanent members, because it doesn't seem that way with Jimmy saying that he and Billy "are" the Smashing Pumpkins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44C9Eh03M -Werideatdusk33 04:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there's nothing inherent in the statement that conclusively implies that they are excluding anyone else from being considered in the band. Second, the Template:Infobox musical artist guidelines are quite clear - the box should declare the current members of the band in the order that they joined, with no further clarifications in the template itself. Therefore, the distinctions are to be discussed only in the article body. The touring members are the current incarnation of the band. The template makes no statement as to their permanence or membership class. Girolamo Savonarola 05:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It definitely conclusively implies exclusion of the others. I think you should look that word up. And I don't think it's ever been wikipedia policy to put the touring members in the infobox... For instance, the Rolling Stones currently have several additional touring members ( Darryl Jones, Blondie Chaplin, Lisa Fischer, Bobby Keys, Bernard Fowler, Tim Ries and Chuck Leavell) that are not listed.. only the four "main" members are in the box. So when Billy and Jimmy introduce themselves as simply "we are the Smashing Pumpkins", I think we should take their word for it. -Werideatdusk33 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I was arguing against the conclusive. That's my whole point - the argument against the tour members as members requires an assumption. Girolamo Savonarola 04:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page request

I have requested that this article is featured on the main page for July 10, the American release date for Zeitgeist. See it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Date_requests and comment if you like. -- Reaper X 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on an article ("Smells Like Teen Spirit") that's been on the main page. Let me just say from experience that if this one goes up on the 10th, I hope everybody has plenty of free time that day and is ready to revert like hell. WesleyDodds 07:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Been there, done that as well. -- Reaper X 07:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you got my vote. Too bad I am on vacation that week and won't be able to help out. Johnnyw talk 09:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about the reversion factor - there will be more eyes on the article from good editors too. And there is a contingent of people who do monitor the main page article specifically for vandalism. But the more, the merrier! Girolamo Savonarola 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Release date Zeitgeist

The article states Zeitgeist is going to be released 10 July (and that it's 'announced'). This information is not right. I've just been to my local CD store and bought the album... I was surprised they had the CD because I thought this article was accurate.

Emmaneul (Talk) 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Errors happen both ways. Your CD store may not actually have been authorized to do that. If there are a significant number of people (in the hundreds or thousands) who are able to legally obtain the album today, it will probably merit a mention. Short of that, we have to stick to the official press release, which is sourceable and considered a notable source. A single personal account is not enough, unfortunately. I hope you're enjoying the album, though! :) Girolamo Savonarola 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Stores often get their merchandise before the actual street date (they just keep it in the back), and sometimes they put it out early by mistake. WesleyDodds 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The album is out in many places, just not the US yet. I've had mine since yesterday. --125.238.106.23 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist article states it has been released yet (06-07-2007).. Emmaneul (Talk)

I see there's an edit war going on, and nothing is being discussed... please discuss this matter. I think WP:Album is more important than any consistency issue. The English wikipedia is not made for Americans only so I think we should do what WP:Album tells us to do: release date "Should refer to the earliest known date". It has been released 2007-7-6, that's a fact, the earliest release date is 2007-7-6. I've listened to the album dozens of times (and every time it gets better) so it's really weird for me (and apparently for other people too) to read the album has been released today. So please don't be stubborn and accept 2007-7-6 as the earliest release date Emmaneul (Talk) 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS is a guideline, not a policy. We use what works best for each individual article. While I understand the intention behind listing the earliest release date, I reverted back to the July tenth date for simple consistency with the other release dates in the article, which are the American release dates. The UK, for instance, tends to release albums the day before the US. It's also the iTunes release date, and as far as I understand, that isn't specific to one country. WesleyDodds 07:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So, to be consistent and to follow the guidelines we should change the other dates too. I think that would make sense because Wikipedia is a global phenomenon. The music of any artist is known from the earliest release date onwards, then, "the global community" can listen to the artist’s music for the first time.Emmaneul (Talk) 08:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That's if we choose to do that. I've worked on album pages for American and British artists, and, like the use of American and British English in an article, the preference is generally to indicate domestic release dates. WesleyDodds 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, there you have a point. But I'd like to say the following to editors of this article, please keep WP:3RR and WP:OWN in mind. Every change or addition seems to get reverted. We don't need wikipedian police, even if most of the additions are crappy.Emmaneul (Talk) 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we all appreciate the sentiment, but given this is a Featured Article maintained by at least a half-dozen other editors besides myself, the "crappy" edits (ranging from misspelled and unverified good faith edits to outright vandalism) will be fixed as quickly as possible, as is expected and hoped for for articles of this calibre. WesleyDodds 23:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy Corgan visiting Master Musicians of Joujouka March 2006

added info and link through footnote

Pisces Iscariot

Pisces Iscariot is being added to the discography on the main page from time to time. I noticed that these good faith edits are often being reverted by some of the owners of this article, without any discussion. Apparantly some editors feel Pisces Iscariot should be in the list, and in fact, I agree... Why not include B-side albums in the list (like f.e. in the article of System of a Down)? As far as I know Pisces Iscariot is the only B-side album tSP released (except for Judas O but that's a bonus CD). This makes sense, doesn't it? Emmaneul (Talk) 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The mini discography on the article is just a list of albums, with the main discography in a seperate article. Pisces, while LP length, is not an album, so doesn't belong there. If you include Pisces Iscariot, why not include Earphoria? and Judas O? and Rotten Apples? and the iTunes b-side collection? It's strictly albums only, otherwise the list grows unnessecarily while there's a whole discography article. MrHate 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What he said. WesleyDodds 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. KISS principle. Girolamo Savonarola 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
OK Emmaneul (Talk) 07:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, after seeing the edits adding Pisces, and then the reverts by people who think their opinion matters more and is thereby the correct one, I am for adding Pisces...as well as Judas O and Earphoria to the list on the page. There is no rule somewhere saying those releases could not be added to this section. It is simply some peoples personal preference. The section is not titled "Studio Albums," It is titled "Discography." --ScottyBoy900Q 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, we can add Judas O, Earphoria etc, but then we'd have to add The Aeroplane Flies High, a set of singles, so if we include those, we should include other singles right? And it goes on and on. There's an article that details *all* of this, so there's no point in listing it on the main article. MrHate 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The point of article splits is to allow the main article to lightly gloss over the subject and refer the reader to the split-off article for more information in depth. This is considered standard summary style per MOS. Girolamo Savonarola 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to gloss over. Especially in a featured article. --ScottyBoy900Q 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see every reason to follow the MOS. Most especially in a featured article. Girolamo Savonarola 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the same way as Girolamo here. Summarizing is the way to go here, there's no need to include compilations and re-hash the info. -- Reaper X 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Taper-friendliness redux

(This was briefly discussed above.) I think documenting their taper-friendly status is important; I think the phenomenon of bands and artists becoming taper-friendly is an interesting one from a sociological viewpoint, and moreover, they can't be added to Category:Taper-friendly musical groups (where they clearly belong) unless their taper-friendliness is documented in the article. Xtifr tälk 10:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I nearly just went ahead and added information about it, but since this is a FA, I figured I should check the talk page before being too WP:BOLD. Since it has been discussed, I'd like to discuss it further before taking unilateral action. But I absolutely believe it must be documented. Xtifr tälk 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"I think documenting their taper-friendly status is important; I think the phenomenon of bands and artists becoming taper-friendly is an interesting one from a sociological viewpoint" I would agree with this if this were an article or paper on the band. But in the scope of an encyclopedic article, it has little value. WesleyDodds 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And why is their membership in an interesting and clearly encyclopedic social phenomenon not encyclopedic? Do you have any reasons beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? In particular, I'm curious what basis you use for the claim that "it has little value". To whom? I mean, I'll admit that the way this sort of information is often presented ("hey, kids, getcher free tapes here") is not encyclopedic, but I'm not interested in that. I simply want to document a verifiable fact about the band. In fact, I'm not particularly interested in this band, except as one of the more notable examples of an interesting phenomenon. Can you quantify just how much "value" is required before something which is clearly of broad interest can be mentioned in a Wikipedia article? Frankly, I think it has a lot more value than the minor fact that they played a concert in New Jersey recently. Xtifr tälk 10:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with WesleyDodds. I think discussion of a band's "taper-friendliness" is very much encyclopedic, however, perhaps not with this band. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall the band making any strong statements in either direction. Go ahead and do it for bands that have a known strong philosophy in support (or not) of taping, but I just don't think the Pumpkins have said enough/done anything that warrants it being mentioned in this article. MrHate 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is actually in line with what MrHate said. A band's taping policy has encyclopedic value in say, the article on Phish. It's really not that important in regards to the Smashing Pumpkins. WesleyDodds 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The band has made strong statements very recently (June 2007 to be precise). They not only officially endorsed taping, but they opted in to the Internet Archive's open-source live music archive, which is a very strong statement—even (shudder) Phish hasn't done that. It's new information, but not unencyclopedic for that. If this were a case like the Pixies, where the band has been known to wink at tapers, but doesn't really have an official policy, that would be one thing, and I have no plans to add Pixies to the category, even though I love them. But when there's a official published policy, tas with George Clinton or Fishbone or the Butthole Surfers, then I think it's worth documenting. As for the claim that it's encyclopedic to mention about Phish, but not about the Pumpkins, I have no idea why you would think that. Please elaborate. Xtifr tälk 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would guess that the better approach would be to create an article for taper-friendly bands and document it there. I agree that it's an important topic at large and should be discussed there. But within this article, I don't find it wanting. Girolamo Savonarola 20:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a list, but it was just deleted in favor of the category, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands which permit recordings of their performances. And I don't think a single sentence, with citations, is really going to disrupt this entire article (and I don't think there's enough verifiable information to justify more than a single sentence). I want to find consensus here, guys, but I'm not hearing any counterarguments that make any sense whatsoever, at least to me. The whole "philosophy of hippie bands" argument (which is, I assume, why Phish was brought up) is nonsense; punk and ska are as well represented in the category as hippie psychedelic stuff, and to claim that being taper-friendly has to do with some sort of hippie philosophy is pure original research, not to mention, false. This band belongs be in the category, but it can't be in the category unless there's at least a sentence worth of documentation. And so far, all I'm hearing is subjective opinions that may violate WP:NPOV and maybe even WP:NOR. Are there any substantive reasons for not adding this information? Should we solicit a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Xtifr tälk 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're being a little pushy about this. We've given your our honest opinions, but you say "I'm not hearing any counterarguments that make any sense whatsoever, at least to me." Our consensus is largely "it's interesting, but it doesn't belong here." We don't feel it's necessary information to force into the article. WesleyDodds 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wesley...I think its funny you say he's being too pushy. You seem to disregard anything that goes against your opinion and delete it or revert it on this page. Just because you personally don't like somethnig doesn't mean you have any right whatsoever to be the one to make the final call that it doesn't belong on this page. It also doesn't make much sense for you to also consider 3 people (2 at the time of your post I am refering to) to be the consensus on this issue. You say "We don't feel it's necessary," or "Our consensus is..." Seems to me you just want it your way with everything and anything having to do with this article. I left wikipedia originally because people like you do stuff like this and think your ideas and opinions are the end all be all of editing articles. --ScottyBoy900Q 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Seems to me you just want it your way with everything and anything having to do with this article". Not at all. Of course what I meant by consensus was "what the people who have replied have said", thus being the consensus of those who have voiced their opinions (and yes, I notice The KZA/Mr. Hate has now changed his opinion). You have to consider though, what does mentioning the band's taping policy add to the article? It's a rather recent development. Where would it go in the article? Yes, the band has issued an announcement about it, but have the media discussed or reported on it? Of course it's interesting, but in an article that covers the band as a whole, is it really that notable? I say no. WesleyDodds 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry to hear that...sounds like you're in the minority though. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not just cite the category link? Girolamo Savonarola 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the "hippie" thing comes from. I think bands that permit tapers are fantastic, and I'm a trader from way back. I think Phish (and similar bands) was brought up because they are a band with known and strong support for tapers. I have to agree with WesleyDodds and Girolamo Savonarola. I'm even less convinced since you say the previous list was deleted. On the other hand, do you have a source you can show me where the band said they endorsed taping and entered the Internet Archive? Just curious in seeing it. MrHate 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
KZA...the link you would be looking for would be http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/news_1003. This is what it says on their news board: "Also, a clear declaration of our new open-source taping policy...everyone is welcome to tape at our shows in whatever capacity they see fit...anyone is welcome and invited to document using audio, video, or picture cameras (cell phones are welcome)...although we do reserve the right to refuse anyone at anytime (especially if we feel the reason for recording is not for entirely altruistic)...God bless." --ScottyBoy900Q 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I hadn't seen that news updated previously. After seeing that, I have to change my mind. Since that was a comment directly from Corgan, I do say it needs to be mentioned in the article. The KZA (formerly MrHate) 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sorry if I seem pushy; it's because I'm utterly perplexed. I simply do not understand the arguments against this. Yes, it's true that the Pumpkins are not well-known for being taper-friendly. But they've only been taper-friendly for about a month, so that hardly seems surprising. I don't see how the newness of this information makes it any less encyclopedic. I didn't even know they'd re-formed until I read the article. Is that information therefore unencyclopedic? As for the list being deleted, it was deleted in favor of the category (and I'd been advocating a merger for months). The consensus was that a category was a better way to handle this sort of information. But to be added to the category, the (brand-spanking-new) taper-friendliness of the band has to be documented, at least briefly, in the article. Another reason the list was deleted was a lack of citations, so again, it's important to have it properly documented, at least briefly. My whole goal here is to add the band to the category, where it belongs. I have no real interest in disturbing the article beyond that, but I certainly don't want to add an uncited category. So I feel like I'm in a catch-22 here.

Citations: news announcement by the band of their "new open-source taping policy", June 23, 2007 (admittedly a primary source, but still useful), and the Internet Archive's Smashing Pumpkins page containing their official policy as relayed to the Archive, June 23, 2007 (and yes, the Archive would count as a reliable source for this—they're a member of the American Library Association, sponsored by the Smithsonian, and they most definitely have fact checkers for this sort of thing).

So please help me understand here. If you believe the band does not belong in the category, please explain why. If you believe that the band belongs in the category, but still don't want the information added to the article, how do you justify adding a category without documentary evidence? I'm willing to be convinced, but I see no way around the dilemma. Xtifr tälk 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"But they've only been taper-friendly for about a month, so that hardly seems surprising. I don't see how the newness of this information makes it any less encyclopedic." Ok, here is a simple matter of notability, which Wikipedia rests on. Until a reliable, reputable source comments on the matter, we can't include it. By that I mean not just that Corgan says "this is our taping policy now", but that say a news site decides to add to that notability by making a point to highlight that. The newness of the development itself isn't a problem; that the newness means there's no notable commentary or reporting of the topic is.
As for the category (which seems to be what's most important to you), I personally have no problem if you add it. Really, it should be there, in my opinion. If you need verification to add the category, you can always just add some invisible text next to the tag that includes a reference. I just don't think the taping policy is notable enough to mention in the prose. But yeah, add the category. WesleyDodds 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Just make a comment section for the reference in the same line as the category link. No one attempting to delete the category would be able to avoid seeing that. Girolamo Savonarola 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps precedence or example might prove me wrong, but I don't see why it's against notability requirements to say something along the lines of "Corgan has said the band now likes tapers" with his message as the source. As someone who used to trade and tape SP shows in the mid-'90s, I can tell you this comment would have been huge news back in the day, perhaps not so much anymore, but I do think it's well worth recording. On the other hand, simply adding the category will solve Xtifr's dilemma with less fuss. The KZA (formerly MrHate) 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Ah, ok, that seems perfectly reasonable, thanks. Sorry I didn't understand your earlier comment, Girolamo. That should certainly be a good enough compromise for now. Thanks, and apologies if my confusion made me appear grumpy. :) Xtifr tälk 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
p.s. note to KZA above, I agree, I don't think notability guideline apply to article details, merely to article subjects, but the equivalent policy for article details is probably WP:WEIGHT (part of NPOV). Whether a brief mention is really giving undue weight to the topic is arguable, but I'm not particularly motivated to argue further, so... :) Xtifr tälk 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

genre (question about)

I apologize if this has been covered before, but I noticed that here (and similarly on some other band pages) elements of their music (or, "influences" on some other band pages) are listed in the text as "gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, progressive rock, shoegazer", whereas in the sidebar at top, the genre is listed as the more all-encompasing "alternative". How do you draw the distinction between the two?

It's obviously subjective where the line between the two lies, but influence does not equal genre. For example, Tonight, Tonight is clearly influenced by classical music, for instance, but no one would seriously suggest that the song is a classical piece.Girolamo Savonarola 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Primarily because even though they are influenced by a number of genres, they distill it into a rather standard 90s alternative rock sound: loud distorted guitars, lots of dynamics, and ironic, personal, and angst-rioidden lyrics. Additionally, gothic rock, dream pop, and shoegaze are all alternative rock subgenres. WesleyDodds 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the instructions for the infobox specifically say "aim for generality". Overly specific sub-genres (and sub-sub-genres) tend to be somewhat subjective and occasionally contentious. That sort of thing is better dealt with in the body of the article. The infobox is designed to give a quick overview to everyone, even those who may not be familiar with all these various sub-genres, Specifics belong in the article, generalities in the infobox. Also, listing several sub-genres in the infobox tends to give it a cluttered, ugly look. You may see articles with lots of specific sub-genres listed there, but I suspect you'll find that few of those have reached featured article status. Xtifr tälk 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sales

Okay, on The Smashing Pumpkins discography page Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness has a source saying it has only sold 4.51 million copies this doesn't make sense because on the same table it says that it is 9x Platinum, I'm pretty shure that it is 9x Platinum, the source is from MTV.com that is not a very reliable source as they screw up a lot of stuff, so I think that should be fixed. Skeeker [Talk] 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a double album. Double albums are double counted by the RIAA as of 1997. It's sold 4.5 million copies, but because it's a double, the RIAA gives it credit for nine million. This is why albums like The Beatles (white album) and Pink Floyd's The Wall have such huge numbers. They're double albums and thus double counted. 74.77.208.52 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, there's already a footnote on this page that clarifies the RIAA certification of double albums. WesleyDodds 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I get it, that's pretty dumb I think ;)Skeeker [Talk] 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is and it isn't. While it doesn't make sense if you look at the album as a single work, it makes sense when evaluating it by units sold - you're convincing consumers to buy two discs of your music at once, and at a higher price than a normal album. That both discs happen to be packaged together is irrelevant for the RIAA. Girolamo Savonarola 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh that makes sense, thanks for clearing that up. Skeeker [Talk] 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ "buddyHEAD : g o s s i p (shhh)". buddyhead.com. 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2007-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Smashing_Pumpkins/Archive_3&oldid=1136228224"