Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Archive 5

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

Band history confusion

Auf der Maur is considered a former member of the band, yet her only official contribution in the studio was very limited (I can only think of one track) and only played on the farewell tour. The Pumpkins have had a lot of touring members play with them, one of which was Matt Walker who also contributed to limited studio tracks. Yet his name isn't on the former members listing? Then there's the whole backlash with the new tour line-up and how they're only considered to be touring members as well. I just think it's weird that Auf der Maur was considered a part of the band when she technically never was. —Vanishdoom (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. You can check the archives. There isn't any particular backlash against the current line-up (aside from those who insist this isn't the "real" Pumpkins); we had them listed as full members until the press reports about the initial performances in 2007 came out calling them touring musicians. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
"Time and again Wesley wins not on the merits but just because he persists." What's hilarious is that in the old Matt Walker/MadM debate, Wesley claimed that Matt was never "considered a member" but that Jeff, Ginger, and Lisa WERE members. Guess that issue was resolved in the archives too, Wesley - maybe you ought to check them out! Jjb (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Because my underlying point is sure to be missed, it's this: there has never been any hard evidence provided by anyone that specifically demonstrates MadM was "considered a member by the band" -- and yet, that is the standard that Wesley purports to apply. I would rather we dropped the fool's game of parsing statements from the band and just apply the obvious standard: there are the original four, and then there is everyone else. Jjb (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I see the whole ordeal. I'd hate for this to move into personal attacks (not that it would be initiated by me to begin with) but Wesley's power hungry control on the article is getting old. If Auf der Maur is considered a member by Wesley's tyrannical logic, then so should all other touring members, which in the very end doesn't make any sense either. Original four or bust? I'd like to think so. This same kind of control also applies to how the FOL single is "notable" whereas TBITEITB being re-released for Watchmen is "not." I thought Wikipedia was community-based on its contributions and edits? —Vanishdoom (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Watchmen soundtrack

The song "The Beginning is the end" is the movie's trailer soundtrack as well as representative of the whole feeling of it. should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.41.175 (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more appropriate for the song article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Members section

I was looking at this article and I think it would be really helpful if there was some sort of section to show a list and timeline of membership including touring members. I know the members are mentioned in the other sections of the article and it might be a little redundant but it would be nice to have a list for quick reference. I've seen other articles with sections like that and it seemed to be really helpful. RKFS (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jeff should be included in the official/current members section now that he is participating in the studio. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to cite shit on Wiki and besides that someone will likely disagree with me and change it back. 58.170.119.111 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of "the" in "The Smashing Pumpkins"

They are not called "The" Smashing Pumpkins. It is simply Smashing Pumpkins. I understand that it should be clarified that it's an adjective, but that's something that should be explained in the article, not the title of the article. Why? Because that's not the name of their band. We shouldn't go around changing band names to explain what it means. That is information for the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.159.148 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Corgan has said himself that the band is "The Smashing Pumpkins". The name is correct, and it is staying that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.97.216 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For you to say "Corgan said it himself" You must provide a source, or really, you just said it. And, for the record, The title will stay whatever we make stay, so......

Technically you are both correct. Gish and Siamese Dream were both credited as "Smashing Pumpkins" but every album following the huge comercial success of the second album have all be "The Smashing Pumpkins" Either way, the band is currently called "The Smashing Pumpkins". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acglass (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

the band was on the chris isaak hour several months ago, and in the interview, corgan said that it's always been "the smashing pumpkins". i can't remember if it was the same interview that he mentioned why "the" was dropped from certain album covers, but at one point he explained that it was for aethetic reasons. gish, for example. this is a ridiculous matter to get all up in arms about. it's a three letter word for crissakes. get over it and leave the article be. —Vanishdoom (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Their Grunge. They were part of the Grunge movement, and toured with grunge bands. Billy says their not any genre, it's just music. But their highest popularity came when Grunge music was toping all music charts and the pumpkins were on those charts and listed with those bands. Most people don't consider them Grunge because they are from "Chicago" and not "Seattle". You don't have to be from Seattle to be in a Grunge band. Oh, another key point is, the band uses similar instruments as others use in known grunge bands and had the same album producers as other grunge bands. and there's just so many other things i can list to say that their grunge. Gish was definitely a grunge album, Siamese Dreams for the most part, the aeroplane flies high, mellon collie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.229.206 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
First- "They're" is the correct term. Second- They have produced some grunge songs, but they're not a grunge band. Grunge started off as a combination of hardcore punk and 70's metal. Some of the bands leaned more to one side than the other; Nirvana was more punk and Alice in Chains was more metal. The Pumpkins' music has elements of shoegaze, dream-pop, and psychedelia that don't usually fit into the grunge category. Another thing they have going against the grunge genre is their extensive foray into progressive metal and just jamming out. Then they made Adore, an album closer to trip-hop than anything grunge. Gish was closer to indie rock, SD was closest to grunge, Mellon Collie was more prog-rock, Adore was "arcane night music", and Machina was a wall of sound.--Zahveed (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Grunge was one of the few genres that Billy denied being. Alternative is the best genre to put them in. The problem with the Pumpkins is they are so broad. You cannot really put them into one genre. They were at the same time, so they got mixed up with it. Pearl Jam had the same problem. 222.154.243.247 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey!!

I think is good to put alternative rock in the band generes but... in the songs genere should be placed the real, because i don't thinnk is fai r to only because the band is asociated with the alt rock, all his songs must be that, please change the songs genere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.18.124 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with that, but furthermore, categorizing the band's music as "alternative rock" when Corgan himself disagrees might be a strange stance for an encyclopedia to take. I'm not sure if that means it should acknowledge the somewhat silly "American Gothic" description that Corgan agrees with. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, from the articles and interviews I've read Corgan has always classified the Pumpkins an alternative rock band. He was one of the few alt-rock stars of the 90s who wasn't shy about using the term. WesleyDodds (talk)

Why is there no mention in the article about the 1994 unplugged album. It's certified RIAA gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.13.114 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Band Members

This is actually about the band's template and not this article itself. I know this has been a recurring issue here, but since Billy has spent a lot of time trying to explain that "Smashing Pumpkins" just happens to be whoever is playing these songs with him at the moment, shouldn't we get this infobox up to snuff with that? Lisa, Ginger, and Jeff were involved in the last tour, but haven't played on a single recording, including the new album. Meanwhile, Mike Byrne, Mark Tulin, and Kerry Brown are confirmed as participating in the new SP album... so are they SP? Point being, I think it makes sense to just list "Billy Corgan", maybe with James, Jimmy, and D'arcy listed under because they are the only *true* past members. What do you guys think? It just seems like a more accurate, simple way of looking at it. (brief addendum: since the band went to the hoopla of naming Byrne as "the new drummer", it might make sense to just have Corgan and Byrne as members, as it is now. I just think there are too many people listed in there right now.-Werideatdusk33 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Smashing_Pumpkins"

Billy Corgan is the only member of the band, if you put Byrne and Corgan in there then why not the guitarist, keyboardist, etc. You can't have both, either have Billy Corgan as the only band member, which he is, or stick everyone involved in the project on there.
Byrne was announced as a "member" by a press release, while no other musicians save Jimmy have been referred to as such. I don't know that Billy Corgan would agree that he's the only band member. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Gish

Shouldn't there be something said about Gish on the opening page considering that it became one of the biggest selling indie albums ever in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't. Caroline Records was affilated with Virgin. Even then, it wasn't one of the biggest selling indie records. Records ranging from Motown to the Offspring's Smash (the biggest selling indie label record ever) have sold far more. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But before Smash Gish sold more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Caroline wasn't wholly independent, and there have been a number highly successful indie label albums that that have sold more than Gish, before and after its release. Even a cursory search reveals Gish wasn't all that successful; Gish was certified Gold by the RIAA in 1994, and not certified platinum until 1999. In comparison, Nine Inch Nails' Pretty Hate Machine (on TVT) was certified Gold in 1992, Nirvana's Bleach (released on Sub Pop) was certified gold and platinum in 1995, Smash was certified three times platinum by the end of 1994, and the Commodores (on Motown) scored a platinum album way back in 1978. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Influences

Probably should add Muse as one of the bands influenced by the Pumpkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents and sections

I think the era's of the band need to be better defined. I hate the idea that all 2005-2009 is defined by is "Reunion" and "Chamberlain's departure". Every major album by the band should be in the name of a section... minus Gish and Siamese Dream need to be stated clearly upfront, as does Zeitgeist. The albums are the true definers of their eras, as each had it's up's and downs. Combining Adore and Machina, for instance, is wrong. Plenty happened in both those 'eras' for them to be SEPARATE. Using "Mainstream success" and "early years" over "Siamese Dream & mainstream success" and "the Early Years & Gish" doesn't make sense.

I vote to change & split the content/section names to era albums & major events. "Early years & Gish: 1988 - 1992"... "Siamese Dream & mainstream success: 1993-1994"... "Mellon Collie & the Infinite Sadness: 1995" "Chaimberlin fired & Adore: 1996-1998"... "Machina & Post Break-up: 1999-2004"... "Reformation & Zeitgeist: 2005-2008"... "Teargarden by Keleidyscope: 2009-"

The break-up and post break-up and Machina go hand in hand in hand, no need to have these be separate sections. The reason Machina was recorded was for "one last go" as THE Smashing Pumpkins. I think all this can be combined into one section, as it's all clearly related.

Calling it a "reunion" in 2006 is a error, because that would indicate that more than 50% of the band was back together. The band "reformed", but it was clearly anything but a reunion. Also, to ignore Zeitgeist as it's on section is a sad oversight. While not nearly as successful as their other albums, it wasn't a failure either.

Chamberlin leaving shouldn't be the only defining moment of 2009 for the band. Releasing a 44 track album, for free, is clearly the bigger news story at the end of the day. Justinp81 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still a reunion. Also, it's not necessary to title sections after albums. It helps, but it's not the only metric. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Teargarden tracklist

Just dropped in and glanced at the page history, and I see that longtime article owner WesleyDodds has been repeatedly reverting the efforts of editors to add a sentence noting the release of the second Teargarden track "Widow Wake My Mind." The reason he gives for these deletions is WP:NOT#NEWS, which is simply not good enough -- not only does that policy allow that "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate," but the Wikipedia article on Teargarden by Kaleidyscope has a sentence about the track that not even Wesley would try to delete. Perhaps one could argue that the sentence is appropriate on the album's page but not on the band's page, but that is not the argument Wesley has made, so his reverts are at present unjustified. However, since what is truly driving Wesley's reverts is his unquenchable desire to own this page (in violation of WP:OWN, of course), I'm sure he will quickly switch over to the more defensible argument I suggest. Jjb (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"The sentence is appropriate on the album's page but not on the band's page". Please remain Civil, attack the content, not the editor. If you're contributions are being reverted, don't complain and revert, make better contributions. The 'news' that a song is up for download is not really notable in a band's overall history - FA's especially should be more strict on trivial information such as this. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"Make better contributions" is not an effective strategy for dealing with Wesley precisely because he has a long record of reverting perfectly justified edits. His M.O. is simply to persist, to keep making up reasons for his changes and citing a variety of WPs either until one rationale sticks or until the other editor gives up out of exhaustion. (The one policy Wesley never cites, by the way, is revert only when necessary). Jjb (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not a policy. That's a user essay. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Each song is being released one at a time. It would be madness to list when every single song is released. Furthermore the band's entire history needs to be considered - we want to avoid recentism. Also, assume good faith. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of perceived intentions or rationale, in this case, WesleyDodds is doing the right thing. Sergecross73 (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Well I believe the page is separating the albums into groups simply because they were different eras for the band. Gish was a great album, but it was different than siamese in the sense that it was much larger. Mellon collie is well, melon collie. Each album sounds different. I believe the reason they bunch adore and machina together is because both of those albums contained much more experimentally influenced music. You cannot compare them to either of their first two albums, and mellon collie is defined as a great rock album even though there were elements of experimentalism on the record, the powerful rock songs are what defined the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.236.72 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Band members section

Statistics I personally think that a section on band members is useful as the membership of The Smashing Pumpkins has become increasingly confusing and convoluted. I figured I would take a look at the other featured articles on pop/rock bands and see what they have:

In sum, most band pages that have as complex of a background as The Smashing Pumpkins have this section (in a ratio of 13:5), and three which have had no changes or only marginal ones still have a section on their membership (Radiohead collaborators as well.) While this is not binding on the content of this article, I think it makes a compelling case that it is common to have these sections and it is likely useful for readers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The big problem here is that much of the information incorporated into such a section such as tenures and touring personnel not mentioned elsewhere in the article is uncited. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So then add [citation needed] tags to the band members section for personnel not mentioned in the article body. Or move these members to the talk page until a source can be provided. No reason to throw out an entire section due to a few bad eggs. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on those wanting to keep uncited information. Uncited information in biographical articles must be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Except for the members not mentioned in the article body, this section was comprised of information taken directly from sourced information in the full article. It's basically a brief summary of the article pertaining specifically to band members. This is no different than the current/former members section of the infobox or the discography section – neither have sources as they only summarize specific information within the article. Above, Koavf provided a list of several featured class rock band articles with members sections. Only one had citations due to the fact it was formatted in prose and not a list. If your issue is specifically with the touring members that were not previously mentioned in the article body, then ONLY remove those. There is absolutely no reason to throw out an entire section under that guise. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the important point. All uncited information in biographical articles must be removed immediately. This is primarily a problem with the touring members. Some of the touring personnel are not mentioned in the article body, and many of the date ranges are unverified. Until this can be verified, it can't be in the article. "Other pages have it" is not a valid rationale for keeping material that violates policy. And once you remove all the unverified personnel information, the Members sections becomes pretty straightforward, to the point it's pretty redundant to the introductory paragraph and the band infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the argument is the list does not have any refs to back up live or past members not listed in article I have spent the last couple of hours inserting refs. This should resolve that objection. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that sheer number of refs necessary? You only need one ref to verify a given fact. Any more than that is overkill. You also need to steer away from primary source information such as blogs. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have heard that before about primary sources. Why is that. I thought would make and encyclopaedia better. Can you direct me to a policy on this? -- Phoenix (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Primary sources. The main problem with primary sources is that since they come directly from the subject, they are inherently biased. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest only listing official members of the band, because it's almost impossible to sort out information regarding touring musicians with this group. It's very hard if not impossible to find clear references for when a musician started touring with the group and when they stopped, because bands don't often make grand announcements about that sort of thing, as when a core member joins or leaves. Most of the references provided are live reviews that simply mention that a particular musician played with the group during a particular show; as such they're useless for what actually needs to be verified. There's also the fact that about half of these people don't even show up in the article body, because they're just not important to the group's overall history. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's awfully cluttered with some of those random trumpet and accordion players listed, and I wouldn't consider them "members" as much as a few touring musicians that may have played on a couple of songs. It's not like those types of instruments are prominent in this band's music Sergecross73 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think we should take off the random trumpet and accordian players, as I don't think it's notable that they played with the band live for about a month, but even if we don't do that, doesn't it look silly when listing members, to have the list start with Melissa Auf der Maur? Or to have Billy Corgan, who essentially is the Smashing Pumpkins, listed fourth? Sergecross73 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Listing everyone alphabetically is a pretty sensible objective method of organization, and I agree with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
How is alphabetical more objective than chronological? Because the section as a whole is basically a timeline, which is organized by current and former band members, chronologically sorting members within each sub-section seems like a more logical choice over alphabetical. Chronological ordering still satisfies any issues of neutrality, objectivity or bias. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The band members section looks very disorganized and confusing.Mattpaige (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit war you are all having is unacceptable. Especially on a featured article, to boot. Work it out, and then change the article. Keep it at the status quo until you have a consensus. Nymf hideliho! 12:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Auf der Maur in members section

It was my understanding that a musician is considered an official band member after contributing to, and writing music for, a studio recorded album. Melissa Auf der Maur was only a live fill in for D'arcy Wretzky, after having been kicked out for her drug addiction, during the 2000 Machina Tour. Her involvements were no different than Jeff Schroeder, Lisa Harriton and Ginger Pooley during Zeitgeist-era Smashing Pumpkins. True, Auf der Maur was featured on the B-sides compilation Judas O, but this was only a live cover recording of "Rock On". Likewise, even though Schroeder, Harriton and Pooley were featured on American Gothic and If All Goes Wrong, they are only considered live musicians. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Since there is a "former live members" section, and it's not just a "member vs. non-member" situation, I really don't see any room for debate. Whether she was truly "in the band" or not, she only played live and had no studio contributions, so it seems like she the live member section is the only way to go. Sergecross73 (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
At the time she was called a member of the band and I am unsure but I think she even contributed to a song on the Machina album after D'Arcy left. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not thinking of "Rock On", which was just a live song during the Machina era? From my understanding, D'Arcy did a lot of the bass for the album before she left, and anything done after she left, like "Age of Innocence" or "Untitled", Billy did the bass for. Sergecross73 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not surprising that Billy did it, but she was taken on as a new member at the time.. All the press releases from BBC, Rolling stone, and other respected fan sites at the time say as much: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The rolling cast of live preforming members is more of a recent thing. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Just checked the liner notes in my copy of Machina, and Auf der Maur is not listed as a contributer of the album. All press releases prior to the release of Zeitgeist call Schroeder and Pooley new members. [7][8][9][10][11][12] Auf der Maur was no more of a contributor to the band than these two, despite sources calling them official new members. If Schroeder and Pooley are considered live and touring members, then so should Auf der Maur. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Machina: Auf der Maur isn't listed as a member because she didn't play on it. D'arcy is the credited bassist. Auf der maur was hired after the album was completed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not spin-off the members list into a new article?

The new members section is messy and cluttered, and spoiling the appearance of this otherwise excellent Featured Article. How about we delete the section from this article, and create a new article—List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members? We could use List of Nine Inch Nails band members as a template to follow. Subsequently, we can include a link to the new list in the See also section of this article.—indopug (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks a lot better than what have going on here. The one on the main page still looks like a mess, and is constantly being edited and undone. Sergecross73 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but I would have to agree with Sergecross73. The editing would still be constant, unless we agreed on all of the official members and touring members, or disable the page from editing. Any other suggestions are fine, but, yes, I do believe The Smashing Pumpkins should have a seperate article of the list of members. WereWolf (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
See also List of Megadeth band members and List of Slipknot band members; they are also featured. It seems like it would be wise to take a similar approach as the discography section—where the studio albums are listed and {{Main}} directs readers to more information—current members can be listed here and anyone wanting more information can be directed to the appropriate article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you speaking about merging Nicole Fiorentino to this article about the band? I saw some banner to that effect on her article, I think.. if merge, why? I think each individual of a band merits their own article. It IS a biography article, no? We can work on articles that do not reach even GA status. Plus, for Biography articles, give them their own spot-- mention when and where they were born, and all the other stuff. Your environment does affect you. Or am I speaking off the hook and you mean something else, Justin? (I was proud of finding that photo of her, BTW)...--Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members created

I just created the List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members page, and I would like to let anyone willing to improve the article that they now can. I did post a basic outline of the member history, which can (and should be!) edited for a more comprehensive introduction to the article. I have not yet posted a timeline, or a member list, but any suggestions/edits are welcome! WereWolf (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Membership on infobox.

I just undid an edit here [13] on the main infobox for this article. I have an issue with directly linking to the list of members. The band's membership isn't entirely hard to understand: it has been based around Corgan sine its inception, with three official current members and four official former members. James Iha, Jimmy Chamberlin, D'arcy Wretzky, and Melissa Auf der Maur are all considered former members of the group, according to allmusic [14]. The new members, Mike Byrne, Nicole Fiorentino, and Jeff Schroeder have been officially confirmed by Corgan as members. This isn't hard information to understand; therefore, it's not necessary to link the member section in the infobox to the list. Also, when a band links to a member list on the infobox, it keeps the current members, and only redirects in the "Past members" section. See here at King Crimson and Guns N' Roses.

I will be willing to redirect to the list of the band members in the "Past members" section of the infobox (since there is still controversy regarding Ginger Pooley's status as an "official member"). I am open to other suggestions as well. I just felt the need to undo that edit and to discuss instead, since I wasn't happy with that choice yet. Hopefully this all makes sense. WereWolf (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason the separate article was made was to eliminate all the endless changing/arguing about members, so it certainly shouldn't be the way you reverted it to. I think it's best to just link it to the "list of members" articles and call it good, but your idea stance on keeping the current line-up, and linking the "past members" to the "list of members" article is something I'd be alright with if other feel that way too...Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, consider a person who doesn't know anything about the band. I'm almost positive that they would want all of the main information in the easiest spot to find, in this case, the band infobox on the main page. This way, they can find the current members easily, and, if they want to, they can continue on to the list of members for further information about past members. That was the main reason for my edit, but I hope and pray that the edit war doesn't continue on the List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members. I'm trying extremely hard to get it to WP:FL, and a constant edit war is not acceptable for nomination. WereWolf (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes Infoboxes are useful for capitulating information. In the case of (e.g.) King Crimson, Eels, or The Minus 5, there are a huge number of members who have been associated with loose musical collectives or more-or-less solo projects. In the case of The Smashing Pumpkins, their membership history seems to me to be straightforward enough that it can be summarized in an infobox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I just misunderstood the purpose of these "list of..." articles. Best of luck getting it to featured status, I imagine it'll be tough with those edit wars, considering how divided the fan base is over the quality, and exact status, of all the various members...Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In December 2010, Corgan stated on his Facebook page (since deleted) that there is no such thing as an 'official' member of The Smashing Pumpkins. I think that alone means that Melissa Auf Der Maur ought not to be listed in the band's infobox or as a full 'former member.' It's pretty clear she has no 'special' status anywhere above Ginger Pooley Reyes or Lisa Harriton... who indeed played more shows with the Pumpkins and were listed as bandmembers on the If All Goes Wrong DVD. I am hoping that Corgan's statement on facebook debunking claims about 'official' membership is enough to make these changes but given the history of the issue on this page, I am doubtful. I just think relying on some guy on allmusic who randomly decided there are 'official' and 'unoffical' members and that Melissa qualified as the former over Corgan's word is silly. Especially since you now have members (Jeff, Mike, and Nicole) making significant contributions to studio recordings. Even Mark Tulin recorded more than Melissa did with the Pumpkins. I can provide Corgan's archived quotation if necessary. Just wanted to document this. 99.73.18.131 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Elisha Christiansen

Are we supposed to know who this is? Pumpkingrrl (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't, and there's no source either, so I'm thinking it needs to be deleted unless someone can verify/explain it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Start year of Smashing Pumpkins is 1987 (please correct this on Wikipedia)

In December 1987 Billy Corgan and James Iha recorded the song "I Fall" in Billy's father Home Studio. This song appeared on a Smashing Pumpkins Pumpkins demo tape (http://www.spfreaks.com/?page=COLLDETAILS&item=547). Technically Smashing Pumpkins exist since 1987. Here is another source for 1987 as the start year: http://www.starla.org/chrono/1987.html. But the best source is Billy Corgan himself, who said 10 days ago on Facebook "‘old’ SP ended exactly 10 years ago this night, and it a’int ever coming back. from my vantage point, that’s a good thing. that band will never sell out and never grow old gracefully (because honestly it couldn’t). long live SP 1987-2000 a great fucking band when it was ‘on’. and a nightmare when it was ‘off’. thanks for checking out these thoughts/memories, love BC".

Arthur (SPfreaks.com)

SPFC.org shows this song as being recorded in 1988, not 1987 (http://www.spfc.org/songs-releases/song.html?song_id=367). DigiFluid (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Overdubbing

The article states: "While Corgan knew many of the songs would be difficult or impossible to replicate from their recorded versions in concert (in fact, some songs were drastically altered for live performance)..." Which songs were "drastically altered"? Lugnuts (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know in separate interviews, he's mentioned that songs like "Soma" or "Through the Eyes of Ruby" have 40+ guitar parts, so I imagine those. I've heard some pretty different versions of Heavy Metal Machine as well. I don't think it'd be right to include in the article unless we found out for sure though... Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The String Quartet Tribute to The Smashing Pumpkins

Relevant? 91.49.245.163 (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

List of The Smashing Pumpkins awards and nominations merger

The article is not very long and I'm sure its contents could easily fit on the main page. Lachlanusername (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre revisited (2012)

Considering the songs such as Zero, Bullet with Butterfly Wings and the songs in Zeitgeist, I think alternative metal should be also added to the genres. It is also known that Billy Corgan took influences from heavy metal bands such as Black Sabbath. If no one objects, I will add "alternative metal" to the genres. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look through the archives of this talk page. There has been A LOT of arguments over the band's genre. I believe alternative rock was the only one that virtually everyone could agree on. I know Consensus can change, so it may be worth revisiting; honestly I was planning on opening up this discussion had you not, because people are constantly changing it.
My two cents: I'd be against adding alternative metal because they're not commonly referred to as such by reliable, third party sources. They have some songs that fall into that category, but I wouldn't say majority of their works falls into it. If we were to add anything, it seems like grunge would cover more of their material. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Do you even know any of their songs? Their music is anything but grunge.

So many labels these days...--108.230.184.144 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it's a point of contention, and a source of arguments, for just about any band/musician who dabbles even the slightest in more than once style of music (ie a vast majority of articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

@Indopug: Timelines are common in articles about bands who have had various members over the years. They provide an easy visual reference to distinguish who was performing with the group at what time. Examples of other featured articles with timelines: Nirvana (band), Foo Fighters, Pixies, Wilco, Pearl Jam, many more. Timelines do not always render perfectly, but that's an issue you should bring up on MediaWiki. — MusikAnimal talk 13:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, unless there is some sort of consensus against using timelines, this band seems ideal for a timeline, with all of its membership changes. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The timelines in all of those articles have been added without discussion; given that they are FAs, they should be removed prior to obtaining consensus. And to say that they "don't always render perfectly" is an understatement; they are hideous, and illegible even on my widescreen laptop. They must appear even worse on mobile.
Worse, they are simplistic and lacking in nuance. For eg: we know for sure that Iha and Wretzky played barely any of their instruments on Siamese Dream. It was all Corgan (and Chamberlain). The timeline misrepresents this. So rather being "ideal for a timeline", the Pumpkins are a particularly bad group for it.—indopug (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is meant to covey album credits, but simply official members. Such was the case with D'arcy and James during the Siamese Dream era. I have notified relevant WikiProjects of this discussion as I think any consensus reached should be reflected on the appropriate MoS pages. — MusikAnimal talk 15:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That argument doesn't make any sense, the timelines are merely a visualization of what is already present in the "band members" (and discography) section. If you don't object to it saying James Iha (1988-2000) and Siamese Dream (1993) directly below it as text, then it doesn't make sense to object to the visualization of the exact same information. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, featured list List of Nine Inch Nails band members uses the timeline, for example. I honestly think the SP one looks better than that one, as SP hasn't quite gotten to the convoluted level of NIN yet. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed there's a List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members article, so the there's the matter of duplication too.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've always found them to be rather ill-designed, to be honest. What is the reader getting out of one like Red Hot Chili Peppers#Current band members? Does one need to be shown a solid blue line to convey the fact that Flea has been there throughout? Does the broken stagger of lead guitar green convey crucial information that text is failing to do so? IMO what a reader would more interesting about music personnel changes is a timeline of the actual lineups. The Dead also have one of these graph things, but before that is a list of the lineups at Grateful Dead#Band lineups. Work that out as a graph, and I thing we'd be onto something. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The first two Yahoo! Music sources were using the wrong archive URL, but I think that's because the original page become a redirect when it was archived, so the Wayback Machine also redirected. Anyway, I fixed them. The third Yahoo! Music is dead and doesn't appear to have a working archive URL. — MusikAnimal talk 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This thread seemed to reach its natural conclusion over a week ago. Per WP:STICK, I'm closing this, because it has just descended in to two editors poking holes in one another's logic, and I doubt continuing this thread would result in any further rational debate. The case has been made sufficiently from both sides, and there is a broad consensus here to stick with what we got - citing the band's own vagueness/contractile stance on their name, plus a variant of WP:ENGVAR and, most notably, WP:LAME. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the title of the article be "Smashing Pumpkins" or "The Smashing Pumpkins"? 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Smashing Pumpkins - "Smashing" is a verb in the band's name, like with Counting Crows, and we don't call them "The Counting Crows". While the band's albums use both forms of the name, with and without "The," the bands official website has it without. Moreover, the bulk of third-party reliable sources — books and music-industry databases — lists the band as simply "Smashing Pumpkins":
It is "Smashing Pumpkins" at the databases at Rolling Stone [15], Billboard [16] and AllMusic.com [17]. It is "The Smashing Pumpkins at MTV [18].
The first three books that appear on a Google search, dating back to 2004, use "Smashing Pumpkins":
  • Smashing Pumpkins: Tales of a Scorched Earth by Amy Hanson (Helter Skelter Publishing, 2004; ISBN-10: 1900924684; ISBN-13: 978-1900924689)
  • Smashing Pumpkins: The Secret History" by Alan Cross (Kindle - Audio Joe; HarperCollins Publishers, 2012; ASIN: B0083DHJ1O)
  • Smashing Pumpkins Anthology (Hal Leonard Corporation, 2006; ISBN-10: 0634079557; ISBN-13: 978-0634079559
The band's verified Twitter page has "Smashing Pumpkins" [19]. The band's verified Facebook page has "The Smashing Pumpkins" [20].
The band's official site [21] uses "Smashing Pumpkins" consistently back to March 2014, the site's earliest page:
  • Example (Dec. 14, 2015): "Twenty-five years ago this month, Smashing Pumpkins released their second single … This limited release by Smashing Pumpkins is a "must have" for collectors …."
  • Example (Dec. 16, 2014): "LA TIMES: Q&A Billy Corgan on Smashing Pumpkins: 'We're in a vacuum'"
  • Example (March 27, 2014): "Smashing Pumpkins lead singer Billy Corgan pulls back the curtains on the pro-wrestling world." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that if you do your own research on it, you'll see it's pretty split. Anyone coming down on one side or the other is probably cherry-picking or doing a pretty incomplete search. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection and review, I'll be neutral as well and follow WP:ENGVAR-like logic below to keep it as is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral as they are interchangeable:
    For the record, the same aforementioned sources, using "The":
    You could argue that the databases of the sites don't use "The", but I doubt they changed it to use "The" just because when Mellon Collie came out the band decided to start using "The". Pitchfork, a site that coincidentally lauched around the Mellon Collie time, is an example of a database entry that does use "The".
    The first book source, Tales of a Scorched Earth, clearly has "The" on the cover of the book itself [22]
    I did not see Smashing Pumpkins Anthology when searching for "The Smashing Pumpkins" or "Smashing Pumpkins", but I do a more less equal balance of variations the list of books, or pages therein.
    I'll also repeat what I wrote above: The band was billed with "The" during the most recent tour [23][24]. Their official tour poster used "The" [25], yet their VIP laminate did not use "The" [26].
    The band and/or media representative are conflicting with themselves. Most if not all sources seem to do the same. Going by album covers, band themselves changed it every few albums. They are simply used interchangeably, and both are correct.
    That being said, I'm not arguing for keeping "The" other than it's already there. I like to think this is sort of like WP:ENGVAR as both are correct, so go with what we have. This RfC will surely secure this fine band a place at WP:LAME (sorry, I don't mean to rile anyone up, but that's how I feel). In all fairness, I suppose it will finally put this lame debate to rest, so add my !vote to whatever is leading the tally — MusikAnimal talk 23:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to show I mentioned the book in good faith, here are links to two Amazon pages for Smashing Pumpkins: Tales of a Scorched Earth, which clearly show no "The". [27]' [28]. Here are links to the other two books: [29]; [30].--Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries about the initial book, the contradicting covers further support my argument. I did find this on the official website, where they used "The". Many of the news posts also use "The". Also note the background on the official Twitter [31]. As for the profile name, it turns out there's a 20 character limit on the "real name" of Twitter profiles ([32]), so "The Smashing Pumpkins" wouldn't fit. I still don't think "The" is any more appropriate than not having "The", though. I think they one and the same, and this RfC is an imminent "no consensus" -- since we can't go by primary or reliable sources that are clearly inconsistent, even conflicting themselves — MusikAnimal talk 04:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
You make good points all around. The thing that tilts it for me is that if both names are valid, I'm not sure the rationale to prefer the one that's grammatically incorrect. As I've been saying, we don't say "The Counting Crows" or "The Driving Miss Daisy."--Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really think being grammatically correct really has any bearings on article titling though. If they went by "The Counting Crows", and it said that on all their albums, their article would probably be titled that too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move - Both the band and the media use both equally. As outlined here in the list part, they use both equally in their album releases. It's ridiculous to try to make a conclusive call on something that even the band seems be undecided on. Both names are essentially the same thing. Both are recognizable as the same thing. One already redirects to the other. Both are equally fine, so per WP:ENGVAR-type reasoning, just stick with what it is currently. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Two cents, the band is named Smashing Pumpkins. They're using the as a modifier, not as part of the name. It's like going to a show for the 'Transiberian Orchestra' where you notice 'the' in front is there very often. It's a pretty simple mistake for someone to possibly think because it's listed as The TranSiberian Orchestra that The could be part of the name as it's advertised in the name but it's more modifying it to a group name. It's grammer, not naming.FlossumPossum (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
There's probably many examples above that disprove this, but aside from that, this 2011 press release makes it pretty clear in the way that it's written that they considered the "The" as part of the name. Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a press release written by someone at EMI Records, and press releases are notorious for misspellings, bad grammar and other errors. Corgan essentially is Smashing Pumpkins, and the official site spells it without the "The." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with record labels commonly getting the names of their own artists wrong, but beyond that, it's Corgan reposting it through his blog though. I feel like if it were wrong, he would have fixed that, no? Unless, you know, it really didn't matter, so he just posted it as is. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The official site more often has it without "The". I'm not saying both forms aren't used. I'm saying one record-company press release is not the definitive end-all and be-all when many more examples on the same site contradict it. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The official site spells it with and without "The". I already explained that above. It's inconsistent. — MusikAnimal talk 15:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It's "Smashing Pumpkins" not "The Smashing Pumpkins".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The name of the band is Smashing Pumpkins not "The Smashing Pumpkins". It means "the act of taking pumpkins and destroying them", not "pumpkins which are just fabulous".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Music journalism is notoriously bad.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the bandmembers themselves are backpedalling away from the interpretation they've promoted in the past, I'm not one to contradict them. However, we should still drop "The" from the title per WP:THE and from any sentence in the article in which doing so doesn't produce hard-to-parse results, simply because it's redundant, the sources don't use it consistently, and even the band's members can't agree with it. Either way, I still remain in favor of the shorter construction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. I think the MOS says not to include The in the titles of articles. If I'm wrong, then I'd support, but I seem to recall that from another RfC. Maybe check with Moonriddengirl. But it does seem to be their name, The Smashing Pumpkins like The Rolling Stones. Common name. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not like The Rolling Stones or The Talking Heads. In those cases, Rolling and Talking are adjectives. With Smashing Pumpkins, like with Counting Crows, the first word is a verb. We don't say "The Counting Crows." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't use "The Counting Crows" because they don't. For example, there is no "the" on any of the Counting Crows main album covers. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I would like to think you're not purposefully obfuscating and smokescreening but that you legitimately did not understand the basic grammatical point I was making. With The Rolling Stones or The Talking Heads, Rolling and Talking are adjectives. With Smashing Pumpkins, like with Counting Crows, the first word is a verb. Moonriddengirl didn't understand the difference so in the interest of clarity I pointed it out. Do you really want to argue grammar with a journalist? And again, if the bands uses both names, then there is no reason to prefer the version that is demonstrably grammatically incorrect --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing actual grammar with you, I'm arguing its relevance in band names - as in, there isn't any. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that The Weeknd should moved to "The Weekend" because "Weeknd" isn't a real word and "Do you really want to get in argument with Spellchecker"? Perhaps if you read what I actually said instead of trying to pull rank, you'd see that... Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No, The Weeknd is very clear that that's his name and I'm not suggesting anything of the sort that you're claiming. You're making up false claims about what I'm saying, and that's not cool.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It's an analogy of a misguided attempt to apply English writing rules to band names, nothing more. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, there are conflicting stories about the band's name meaning. For example, the band's bassist's explanation in the Washington Post was was that it was an adjective Other accounts are that the name is meaningless or just a joke. All the more reason why grammar would be irrelevant to the article's title. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that fan site's transcription of what it calls "the [sic; The] Washington Post" is correct, I notice the bassist still doesn't say the band uses "The". The first word in Talking Heads is a verb, too, and it's still not "The Talking Heads." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This was merely a response to your irrelevant argument about whether or not it was an adjective or a verb. As in, even if that argument mattered, it's still flawed. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move The band was announced as "The Smashing Pumpkins" when preforming on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in 1997, "The Smashing Pumpkins" at the 1997 Grammy Awards, and "The" as well at the 1996 MTV awards, all following the release of Mellon Collie, while it was known as "The" on the cover. At the 1996 MTV Europe awards, the band is shown as a performer with "The" in its name, while the announcer reads it without the "The", and at the Grammys, Kevin Spacey reads the winning band as "Smashing Pumpkins". At the 1994 MTV awards, the band is referred to as simply "Smashing Pumpkins". This shows it is referred to as what it is most recently known as, and it is most recently know as "The", and as well, is "The" in the majority of its releases. The band has referred to itself both with and without the "The" in the title. When you are saying the title of the band in self-referentialism, as Corgan often was, it makes far more sense to drop the "The" from the title. In a quote from Corgan on the Monuments page, he refers to Monuments as "a very Smashing Pumpkins-like album". If you read it with a "The" before the word Smashing, it becomes a very tedious quote, and simply sounds wrong. In "The Smashing Pumpkins: Graceful Swans of Never" documentary (titled with a "The"), Corgan, when explaining the name of the band says, "The Smashing... Smashing Pumpkins". The name is very clearly interchangeable. When people refer to the band, they are more likely to refer to it with a "The" anyway, as you would any band. Additionally, "The" is included on the majority of their releases covers, including on their highest selling album, "Mellon Collie," and on their newest albums, "Monuments" and "Oceania". People are most likely going to know the band from one of those, and would probably refer to it as "The Smashing Pumpkins", as it is used in the largest variety of places, from where people are most likely going to find the band. Someone mentioned books before, and I doubt anyone will be looking for a book on the band without hearing any of their music, which they likely would of got from something using the word "The". Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains that it is "Smashing Pumpkins" at the databases at Rolling Stone [33], Billboard [34] and AllMusic.com [35]. Are all those respected sources clueless idiots? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And just to seal the issue: "It's The Smashing Pumpkins." - Corgan, William. Interview. Chicago Sports Channel. April 1997 Bomberswarm2 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Without a link to that or at least to a transcript, we're relying on memory of something from nearly 20 years ago. That would not be an RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
GG: (To Billy) Could I ask you since we always have debates over the new names of new teams, you know like should they be the Panthers or the Heat or the Thunder and the Lightning, who thought of Smashing Pumpkins? And is it The Smashing Pumpkins?
Billy: It's The Smashing Pumpkins. That was my stupid idea.
GG: Did you used to smash pumpkins as a kid?
Billy: (shakes head)
GG: Not even on Halloween?
Billy: No. Believe me, it was one of those kind of fickle choices one makes in your life,and you have no idea of the effect it's going to make.
Transcript: http://www.starla.org/articles/sports.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I'm pretty sure I've read similar things too. Just haven't dug any up yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And yet Corgan's own Smashing Pumpkins official site has it without "The". As do the AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard databases. So the AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard databases are all wrong? As I've said from the beginning, we can cherrypick all we like to make WP:SYNTH / POV arguments. What we're supposed to do with Wikipedia is rely on WP:RS third-party sources, and I'm not sure there's anything more RS than the databases of three of the most authoritative music reference institutions on Earth. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm again repeating myself... There are just as many reliable sources that use "The", including the ones you've mentioned. They all use "The" in some cases, in other caes they don't -- AllMusic, Rolling Stone, even the official website. I've provided numerous examples above. The database name was simply what they used when they added the entry. If it definitively governed how they would refer to the band, than there wouldn't be all these inconsistencies — MusikAnimal talk 20:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The Smashing Pumpkins. Other editors have shown both names are used, and that we should keep the original article title in a reasoning similar to MOS:ENGVAR. If I understand the move log correctly (see Special:Log), then there were only two very brief intervals when the article name was something else than The Smashing Pumpkins:
  1. On 2009-08-17, Zonly changed the name to Smashing Pumpkins (band) [36], but this move was immediately reverted by JD554 [37]. Around the same time, there was the discussion Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Archive 5#The use of "the" in "The Smashing Pumpkins".
  2. On 2010-06-27, Graham87 briefly moved the article to Smashing Pumpkins [38], and immediately reverted the move [39] for what I understand were technical reasons.
As per a reasoning similar to MOS:ENGVAR, I would therefore keep the original page name The Smashing Pumpkins. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 10:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @J. 'mach' wust: I was doing a history merge on the article. It was created at the title Smashing Pumpkins in January 2002, then moved to the title "The Smashing Pumpkins" some time later (less than three weeks, at the very least ... the exact date can't be tracked down due to software bugs). The page was at "Smashing Pumpkins" from March 2003 to April 2004; I've merged all of those edits into the main article. I have no position on the page's current title, however. Graham87 11:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It still makes sense to retain the name its used throughout most of its existence, including the process, and achievement, of becoming a featured article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Not when it's not the primary name of the band. Are the AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard databases are all wrong? As I've said from the beginning, we can cherrypick all we like to make [{WP:SYNTH]] / POV arguments. What we're supposed to do with Wikipedia is rely on [{WP:RS]] third-party sources, and I'm not sure there's anything more RS than the databases of three of the most authoritative music reference institutions on Earth. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't understand why you keep asking people "Do you think AllMusic is wrong?" when I, and the overwhelming consensus here, is that both/either are acceptable. Are you not familiar with WP:ENGVAR type reasoning or what? Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have mentioned this earlier and I'm sorry I didn't, but I didn't think you'd keep mis-citing it for so long. WP:ENGVAR has got nothing whatsoever to do with this. That MOS guideline is solely about varieties of English, i.e. American English vs. British English. Corgan isn't from the UK. The issue here has got nothing to do with UK vs. US English, period.

What Wikipedia sourcing policy does say is that we can't POV cherrypick a version of a formal, proper-noun name that you or I happen to prefer. No one here can do that. We have to use RS third-party citing, and among the most RS of all are the AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard databases. That takes the POV preference out of it. We cannot have "consensus" that's against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made it very clear that I'm just referring to the line of reasoning ENGVAR uses, not literally invoking it. I've already shown other non-exact ways the concept is used (STOPCHANGINGIT) and I'm not the only experienced editor here referring to it either. It's a valid approach. The rest of your argument is flawed - for every example you show of one variant of the name, someone else has shown a counter example. Yes, you've done a fine job showing that one variant of the name is used - something no one challenges - but you've completely failed to show that one variant is correct or used more than the other in a significant manner. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That argument doesn't need to be made, because everyone here agrees both are used. The question is, which should be the article title? (Both should be mentioned in the article, of course.) What determines the title isn't editors counting the number of usages, since there's no way that could ever be accurate given the tens of thousands of mentions the names have online and in print. So per Wikipedia policy, we go by what RS third-party sources say. And three of the most authoritative music databases on Earth say "Smashing Pumpkins." I'm not sure any of us is such an expert that we can go to Rolling Stone, Billboard and AllMusic.com and say, "No, you trained, professional, experienced journalists and editors are all wrong and we amateur Wikipedia editors know better than you." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
And I've shown in my difs above how sources like Rolling Stone are inconsistent in what variant they use even within singular articles they've written. MusicAnimal has shown a counterpoint for just about every example you've given. The sources simply are not taking the stances you say they do. A different editor provided a source where the band's frontman literally says that the "The" is part of the band name. And yet another source straight from a band member disproved your nonsensical verb/adjective/grammar theory. None of your argument have proven anything. All that you've done is cement our place in the history books of WP:LAME. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Saying, "The sources simply are not taking the stances you say they do" is patently false. I've said from the start I'm referring to their databases, to which I have linked. Databases are secure from the passing whim of one or another writer or editor. And I ask again that you answer a simple question: How is it that fans on Wikipedia can say they know more than the editors of Rolling Stone, Billboard and AllMusic.com databases? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you read the whole thing? ISSUE ALREADY SOLVED. ITS THE'SMASHING PUMPKINS
GG: (To Billy) Could I ask you since we always have debates over the new names of new teams, you know like should they be the Panthers or the Heat or the Thunder and the Lightning, who thought of Smashing Pumpkins? And is it The Smashing Pumpkins?
Billy: It's The Smashing Pumpkins. That was my stupid idea.
GG: Did you used to smash pumpkins as a kid?
Billy: (shakes head)
GG: Not even on Halloween?
Billy: No. Believe me, it was one of those kind of fickle choices one makes in your life,and you have no idea of the effect it's going to make.
Transcript: http://www.starla.org/articles/sports.htm
Bomberswarm2 (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that we can't cite a fan site, which may or may not have transcribed correctly or honestly, Corgan's official site for the band calls it simply "Smashing Pumpkins". So something he may or may not have said in 1997 does not appear to be true on the official site. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Like usual, there are issues with your argument as well. A band's website is not necessarily the end authority on the name. For example, the band Third Eye Blind operated out of "3eb.com" for a time, but we didn't rename the band article 3eb. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Like the deliberately false WP:ENG claim — misstating a guideline that is solely about varieties of English such as UK vs. US and has nothing to do with anything here — that is a bad-faith, obfuscating argument. A URL has nothing to do with a name. The New York Times website is "nytimes.com", but nobody would ever argue that this means the newspaper is saying its name is NYTimes. Please.
The three most significant music databases, those of Rolling Stone, Billboard and AllMusic, give simply Smashing Pumpkins. Saying we should ignore these encyclopedic reliable sources in favor of Wikipedia quirkiness does no good for Wikipedia's credibility. Yes, both names are used. But it's clear from these largely impeccable, encyclopedic sources, as well as the band's website, that Smashing Pumpkins is preferred and should be the article's title. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You're still just cherry-picking examples that suit your argument. Pitchfork, certainly an authority on music, uses the "The" in the name. There's also that Rolling Stone isn't consistent about it. As I've said, for every example you give, someone else point out a counter example. You've only proved that your preferred variant is used, not that predominantly used, nor is it what the band claims it is. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're purposefully obfuscating and I can't help beginning to feel it's because your argument can't stand on its merits. I've established already that I'm speaking only the databases — not the changing whims of writers in the publication who, as we both agree, can and do use both names. To keep acting as if I'm speaking of anything other than databases is acting falsely and in bad faith.
Pitchfork has hardly been around as long as the AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard databases. The latter two in particular have been the gold standard for more than two decades online, plus numerous decades as music-journalism institutions.
And Smashing Pumpkins is what the band claims, as anyone can see on its website. Let's keep this discussion honest, please.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No, its more that I just find it puzzling how your argument somehow hinges on database entries, as there's no particular reason to weigh databases entries over anything else. I don't recall seeing that in WP:COMMONNAME or anything else regarding article titling. And again, we've got a direct quote from the band's frontman saying there is a "The" in the name, which holds a lot more weight than your observations regarding their website. Everything you've said, even down to the ironic bad faith assumptions about bad faith assumptions, just doesn't hold water. And it shows - there's no way the consensus in this RFC is moving towards a rename for this article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
So rock solid information appears that disagrees with Tenebrae's proven to be incorrect beliefs, so stupidly starts claiming that its fake. You're accusing a fansite of deliberately transcribing an interview incorrectly? In the legal system, there's something called motive. You need a movie to prove a crime. What motive does a Smashing Pumpkins fan site have to deliberately have the name of the band changed? Their only purpose is to collect sourced information. They gain nothing by manipulating information. And as to your second, even stupider point, that it was accidently recorded incorrectly, how do we know the three sources that you continuously quote aren't also incorrect? Every page on wikipedia better be shut down, as its information could be wrong. Could, not is. So you're claiming a third party with nothing to gain deliberately manipulated information, while sources that have a vested interest, such as making font on a magazine cover bigger so it is more attractive to other buyers, and can do so by leaving off a word of the title, and can save publication costs by removing a word from the band's name, are not manipulating information? That's the stupidest idea that anyone has ever put forward. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but you misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines and journalism. Wikipedia doesn't allow fan sites as reference sources. Why? Because they're not journalistically reliable. Maybe the information was transcribed correctly. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it's fan fiction — a long-shot, obviously, but Wikipedia got hoaxed in such ways early in its life. If we start accepting fan sites as reliable sources, that's a fundamental change to Wikipedia and this is not the forum to argue that.
I'm not going to respond to your reductio ad absurdum claim that because you don't accept the AllMusic, Rolling Stone and Billboard databases as three of the most reliable and authoritative in the world that "Every page on wikipedia better be shut down, as its information could be wrong." That type of hyperbole isn't constructive.
As for your third argument, the band itself doesn't use "The" on its own website, where "space" isn't a problem. It's not a problem on those databases, either.
I just don't understand the fannish vehemence here. We all agree both terms are used. No one is banning the word "The." The only issue is the title of this article. And when the most reliable music databases in the world spell it without "The" — as does the official site — it simply follows Wikipedia guidelines to use the more reliably sourced title. Those three databases are the most reliable there are. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, no part of WP:COMMONNAME or any other naming guideline says anything about picking some longterm database entries and randomly weighing that stronger than anything else. Its a bizarre and unused approach to this. And your vehemence to change it, by those standards, would be equally ridiculous. Outside of a passerby IP address about once a year asking if the "The" is part of the name, there has been little confusion or issue regarding this, until you barged in and about quadrupled the length of the talk page with this meaningless debate. All over a problem no one was even happening. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no vehemence to change it: I hold no opinion one way or another about the band, so I'm completely neutral about the issue.

First, though: I am asking you respectfully not to use the bad-faith argument that because you personally disagree then a debate is meaningless. You've been using that ad hominen attack from the start, and anytime anyone does that, it immediately suggests their own argument must be on shaky ground.

Regarding your point RE WP:COMMONNAME: Clearly, both versions are used. We're all in agreement there. Neither is preferred over the other, judging from media mentions, album covers, and past and present statements by Corgan and the band's website. So when all else is equal, something objective has to tip the scales one way or the other. The most objective thing in this case is the weight of the highly respected databases. That is the only reason I mention them: They're neutral. The editors and maintainers of the databases don't care personally one way or another about the name. If there's any other source as objective and neutral to tip the scales one way or the other, then cool. But what else is there? That's a reasonable question to ask.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What else is there to break the tie? I, and a few others, have already said it. The "if both are okay, don't change it anymore" approach taken across many other "either way is acceptable" type scenarios that arise on the project. And the same goes to you - please keep your comments on content, not editors. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That is an uncalled-for comment: Your saying from the start that the debate is "meaningless" was an ad hominen attack on an other editor. That and other labels you threw do not take the place of reasoned argument.
And the reason to use an objective source to break a tie is that otherwise, the choice of one or the other is a POV WP:ILIKEIT. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, make no mistake, this discussion has been a massive waste of time for everyone involved. But that's not an attack on an editor, that's merely a complaint upon the usefulness of a particular discussion/RFC. Which is obviously acceptable on Wikipedia, and as a long-term editor, you know that, so I'll move on from that bit of misdirection.
Regarding the rest, I have never cited anything remotely close to WP:ILIKEIT. I have no personal preference. I've cited the mindset of WP:ENGVAR, WP:STOPCHANGINGIT, and WP:TITLECHANGES (specifically If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. - of which, of course, the article has been stable at this title since at least since its peer review in 2006, not to mention through its FA status that dates to the present.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorta neutral It's difficult to tell the sense in which the name was originally meant. Was it meant in the sense of names like Asking Alexandria, or in the sense of names like the Beatles? From what I've heard the band have given multiple explanations as to what the name actually means, not unlike Chumbawamba. It seems that they just DGAF, which makes it hard to tell how Wikipedia should care. Certainly we should care somehow; after all, we need a name for their article! I'm inclined to go with "The Smashing Pumpkins", but I don't have much to offer in the way of backing that up (at least, nothing that has not been presented to that end so far). That could just be my personal preference. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Band name capitalization

This was settled in the RFC that ran in early 2016. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that the band's name should be the Smashing Pumpkins instead of The Smashing Pumpkins. The name is also spelled like that in every official release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.231.81 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What releases are you referring to? It's very clearly not like that on the cover of MCIS, for example. Regardless, that would look silly in an encyclopedia like this even if they did... Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually it seems to come and go. I was curious about this so I plotted it out in Excel with releases (albums, singles, EPs, DVDs) sorted chronologically. It seems they were "Smashing Pumpkins" from I Am One in May 1990 till Pisces Iscariot on Oct 4 1994, then they were "The Smashing Pumpkins" from MCIS and BWBW on Oct 24 1995 until the end of the band and the subsequent releases (Untitled, Rotten Apples/Judas O, Video DVD, Earphoria/Vieuphoria, and Rarities). Then when Billy started bastardizing the band name, it switched back to just "Smashing Pumpkins" from May 21 2007 (Tarantula) up until the end of that new period (American Gothic, Superchrist). And since the Teargarden stuff has started, they're back to being called "The Smashing Pumpkins" on artwork. So to me it seems they're pretty much interchangeable, and thus a renaming of the article isn't necessary. DigiFluid (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, I've seen much arguments over whether or not the band name includes the "The". I thought the IP meant that "the" was part of the name, but wasn't capitalized. That's the part I thought would look silly... Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the pumpkins are a grunge band, I also should say that I think we should also add that they are psychedelic rock band(Gish). SmashingPumkinsFan (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh did you mean to write this here? This is a 3 year old old conversation not related to genre at all. Not sure I see who you are "agreeing with" here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The topic needs to be revisited. The band's official website refers to it simply as Smashing Pumpkins and not "The" Smashing Pumpkins. See prose text at http://www.smashingpumpkinsnexus.com/: "Twenty-five years ago this month, Smashing Pumpkins released their second single, Tristessa, on Sub Pop Records. … This limited release by Smashing Pumpkins…" So does AllMusic.com (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/smashing-pumpkins-mn0000036521/biography). Which makes sense: Like Counting Crows and Breaking Benjamin, the band name uses a gerund (an "-ing" verb). We wouldn't say "The Counting Crows". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smashing Pumpkins NOT The Smashing Pumpkins

See "Request for Comment" section below. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel very compelled to change "The Smashing Pumpkins" to its actualy name which is "Smashing Pumpkins". The name comes from Billy Corgan's favourite holiday prank... Smashing Pumpkins...

anyway the error bothers me and its very common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.202.138 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. It's been listed as both on various albums. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"The Smashing Pumpkins" comes from the English saying using "Smashing" as an adjective". Billy Corgan has stated this many times. Example "Oh, you looks smashing darling" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.168.31 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Corgan was aware of both meanings of the name "Smashing Pumpkins" has, and using "Smashing" as an adjective could be applied to either version of the name though, whether there is a "The" in ir or not... Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, in the name "Smashing Pumpkins", "Smashing" is not an adjective--it's a gerund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.115.225 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure hard grammar was something Corgan was thinking about when naming his band 20+ years ago... Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this topic is being discussed in two places on this talk page, I'm placing my comment from above here, additionally. The band's official website refers to it simply as Smashing Pumpkins and not "The" Smashing Pumpkins. See prose text at http://www.smashingpumpkinsnexus.com/: "Twenty-five years ago this month, Smashing Pumpkins released their second single, Tristessa, on Sub Pop Records. … This limited release by Smashing Pumpkins…" So does AllMusic.com (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/smashing-pumpkins-mn0000036521/biography). Which makes sense: Like Counting Crows and Breaking Benjamin, the band name uses a gerund (an "-ing" verb). We wouldn't say "The Counting Crows". Whatever Billy C. thought 20 years ago, he's saying today there's no "The." And frankly, without a reliable source giving "The" as part of the official name, we can't use it as part of the article title. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an enormous wealth of reliable sources using both forms, including the album covers. It goes back and forth album to album, E.g. Mellon Collie and Machina use "The", but Zeitgeist does not. Five years later, we are back to "The" with Oceania, and also with the singles released in 2014. Clearly they are used interchangeably. Both are correct. For this reason, it's not worth removing "The", because if you do, people will come back and argue it should be there. This dispute should be treated much like we do with using various forms of English (e.g. British vs American, assuming the subject is not directly related to one form), where we stick to what's already in the article instead of going back and forth, engaging in lengthy pointless discussion, when we could be spending our time making meaningful contributions to the article. — MusikAnimal talk 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This was pretty much what I was going prior to being pulled away earlier. A simple look at the bands album covers show that even the band is inconsistent. Both/either are correct, the argument is no different than the common "color/color" arguments that arise. Either are acceptable, so I see no need to switch. Is there any reason that Tenebrae is aggressively charging into a year+ old discussion like this? He says this is being discussed somewhere else? Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
It's being discussed, as I said, in two places on this talk page: Here, and under "Band name capitalization". I think it's disingenuous to call a discussion pointless simply because one disagrees with it. I'm a journalist, and when I write about a band I want the name to be accurate. I think a sensible argument can be made that if the albums use both versions and the band's official site gives only one of those versions, then why are we going against what the band itself prefers?
This doesn't even get into the notion that "The Smashing Pumpkins" makes no more sense than "The Counting Crows" — both verbs are being used as gerunds. More significantly, the band itself doesn't call itself The Smashing Pumpkins on its official site, so why are we going against the band? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Both names are used by the band. Both names are equally recognizable and attributable to the band - they're the same thing, only one has a "the" at the beginning. Redirects cover either as a search term. I'm sorry if the word "pointless" somehow upsets you, but I have a hard time labeling it any other way. Please don't waste the communities time on this. Either is fine, and switching it is just going to lead to adjusting it every time the band release a new album/EP/tour/press release that differs from the prior one. (Which history shows, has happened many times.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, just because you personally disagree doesn't mean anyone with a different opinion is wasting anyone's time. No one's forcing anyone to comment. Let's address the fact that the band does not call itself "The" Smashing Pumpkins. You say the band has gone back and forth, but the website indicates otherwise. What the record company's graphic designer may do is a separate thing. But according to the band's own website it does not use "The". It just seems that if the albums go back and forth, and the band prefers one, then we respect the one the band prefers. Does that really make no sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
To argue that how the band spells their name on album covers is irrelevant is ludicrous, especially for this band, where it's well documented that the band - especially Corgan- is very involved in the album art/packaging creation process. Beyond that, please do some research on this beyond the bands current website. Just because their current website displays it as such, doesn't mean it's the preference for all time. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. Where has the band specifically, in its official statements, shown a preference for "The" Smashing Pumpkins? I'd also note that third-party reference sources such all AllMusic.com have no "The", and the reference sources must have gotten that from something official. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
For example, here is Corgan's blog copy of the bands official PR statement in 2011, where "The Smashing Pumpkins" is emphasized and repeated over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 03:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
If we're going to cite official sites, then the band's official site says Smashing Pumpkins, no "The." Cherrypicking something here and there really isn't the way to go. We need to do a methodical roundup of third-party journalistic/academic and database sources. Which I promise to help do in the next few days, so it won't just be one person shouldering the weight. Other editors, please help and weigh in.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That seems superfluous, @Tenebrae:. All we'd need to do is compare album cover to album cover. Trying to decipher between "Smashing Pumpkins" and "The Smashing Pumpkins" through twenty-six years worth of third party sources would be endless and cause a massive headache for all involved. Here's an easier solution: their album covers and/or CD inlay spines:
  • Smashing Pumpkins releases:
  1. Lull
  2. Gish
  3. Siamese Dream
  4. Zeitgeist
  5. American Gothic

versus

  • The Smashing Pumpkins releases:
  1. Earphoria
  2. Pisces Iscariot
  3. Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
  4. The Aeroplane Flies High
  5. Adore
  6. Machina/The Machines of God
  7. Rotten Apples
  8. Teargarden by Kaleidyscope volumes 1 and 2
  9. Oceania
  10. Monuments to an Elegy
Take your pick. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree it'd be some work, but not that much — there really are only a handful of widely acknowledged journalistic/academic databases and reference books for these sorts of things. AllMusic, Billboard Boards, Rolling Stone Press, etc. The thing about the album covers is that they're primary sources, which means we can use them as sources of what's on the album itself, but we're supposed to use "reliable, published secondary sources" such as books and databases. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, primary sources are fine for determining basic facts, like names. It's not the type of thing that needs an outside, third party viewpoint for objectivity. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
An album can serve as primary source for the contents of the album and not for anything else. And, clearly, the albums use two different names and so are not a definitive source in any case. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
But the band's name is part of the content of the album, so we're fine. Or are you claiming that the logic of "Well, this is the name on the album, so its also the name the band uses" relies too much in "original research"? Because, if so, then unless your third party sources are literally saying "The band is called "Smashing Pumpkins", NOT "The Smashing Pumpkins", then your argument would be equally based in original research. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the record, my argument is less about one being used more than the others, and more that they're both equally usable, and as such, there's no reason to make a switch. Its an argument adapted from WP:ENGVAR, and WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. If either are acceptable, just keep it where its at. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, clearly, I'm not being fanatic about it. My point is that if one name is more correct than the other, based on reputable journalistic/academic third-party reference books and databases, that maybe we shouldn't ignore the rest of the world and keep some idiosyncratic Wikipedia thing out of inertia. I mean, I haven't even looked beyond AllMusic.com yet, so maybe Billboard Books and Rolling Stone Press do have "The". (Incidentally, I'm not sure there's been any frequent moving of this article, if any at all, so WP:STOPCHANGINGIT wouldn't really apply — it doesn't say we can't or shouldn't make a change.)
By the way, I like that we're having a calm and collegial discussion. Thank you for that.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
STOPCHANGINGIT is basically saying don't switch amongst cover art of different regions when either variant is fine. I'm mostly talking about the If a suitable English language cover art already exists on the subject page, then do not waste time in replacing it with a different version part of the guideline. This situation may not have to do with regional differences, but it's still pretty much where I find myself with our two choices here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want reliable sources, here you go. Notice some use "The" capitalized, as part of the name, and some do not. Some use both variations within the same article. They are synonymous. This is even less trivial than WP:ENGVAR, in my opinion. It's disputes like this that give the Wikipedia community a bad name [40], e.g. Should Star Trek Into Darkness have a capital "I"? Are U2 an Irish band, or merely a band from Ireland? Sorry for the rhetoric, but I hope I'm getting my point across — MusikAnimal talk 20:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I agree, this conversation has WP:LAME stamped all over it. I've made my point clear, and there's clearly no consensus to support a move, so I'll stop. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. So polite and collegial is "lame." Fine. You're entitled to your opinion, however dismissive and premature it is. But you can't unilaterally say if there is or is not a consensus. "The Smashing Pumpkins" is ridiculous, and makes no more sense than "The Counting Crows" or "The Driving Miss Daisies." So, clearly, we're going to need an RfC in order to get editors from the larger Wikipedia culture involved and not just fans who can't see the larger encyclopedic value of having the article titled correctly — i.e., how the band itself has it on its official web page and how at least one major third-party source has it. I'll get on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: See my link above... there are tons of reliable, third-party sources using both variations. Have you taken a moment to look for yourself? Opening up an RfC is exactly the issue. You are taxing the system over something so trivial. This is what the BBC was talking about. By all means, go for it if you really want to, just know with either result, "The" or no "The", you're still going to have the same featured article with the same encyclopedic value to the reader. Removing "The" is not an improvement, so I'm not sure how you'd find this rewarding. Perhaps instead we could together work on expanding the Music videos section to go into more details about the newer releases? — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not taking sides. I wouldn't oppose removing "The", except that there's an enormous cleanup effort involved, and that we're going to have people arguing it should be there at some point moving forward (maybe when the band starts using it again?). Also noticed the band was billed with "The" during the most recent tour [41][42]. The band's official tour poster went with "The" [43] (notice how Rolling Stone does not use "The" in the title, but does use it at the bottom as a tag for the article), meanwhile the official VIP laminate for the tour did not use "The" [44]. Since you pointed out AllMusic as a reference, see their review on Mellon Collie [45] where they did use "The", capitalized, or on Machina [46] where "The" is not capitalized. Hopefully by now you have realized the variations are one and the same, used interchangeably by reliable sources and the band itself — MusikAnimal talk 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, when I say consensus, I mean in this discussion, where you managed to sway zero participants of a need to change the article title. Also, say what you will about my sharp responses, but you pretty aggressively stormed into these (year old) discussions yourself. You set the tone with your first comment or two - things were not tense until you arrived. Anyways, as I was saying, I'll stop now, other to !vote in your RFC. Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I respect and appreciate your collegial response. And I agree that the bulk of the article is well-written and useful. With all respect, I do need to say about the link that if one does a search specifically for "The Smashing Pumpkins," one will get results for "The Smashing Pumpkins" — both RS and non. Conversely, if one does a search for "Smashing Pumpkins," one may find, as I did, that Rolling Stone, Billboard and AllMusic, among other major reliable sources, give simply "Smashing Pumpkins" — a name that if you think about it makes more sense. Again, we don't say "The Counting Crows".
As a journalist, I know it's important to be precise. The difference between "Smashing Pumpkins" and "The Smashing Pumpkins" might not seem important to the average person, but to a good, responsible journalist — and presumably to editors of an encyclopedia, which should have even higher standards than journalism — it's like the difference between the names of the medical shows ER and E/R ... to give just one of countless examples of why precision is important, so I hope we don't quibble over the first one that came to mind.
It can't hurt to have this discussion. At the very least, it addresses the issue in a formal way so that, hopefully, we can put it to rest — and if anyone says that the choice, whichever it is, is wrong, we can point to an RfC and say, "Well, here's how the community decided on this and why." Isn't that better than an ad hoc process that might or might not have titled an encyclopedia article accurately? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: The link I provided was compiled from reliable sources as established by the community, see WP:WRS (this tool is linked to in many of the find sources templates). You may try the search without "The" and you will get just as inconclusive of results. The folks at AllMusic are sensible journalists, no? What about Rolling Stone? Why do they use both variations? Why does the band use both variations? Why are we still discussing this? Does that make sense? — MusikAnimal talk 22:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did give an example of why it made sense from the standpoint of encyclopedic standards. And actually, AllMusic and Rolling Stone's databases have just "Smashing Pumpkins" (see links in RfC below). Yes, they are sensible journalists — and both give the band's name without "The".
The band clearly uses both names on its albums, and its verified Facebook page has "The" while its official site and verified Twitter page have no "The." The opening sentence should certainly note, whichever title ultimately is used, that the band has an alternate name. See Iron Man 3, The Dakota and Die Hard 2 for three examples of this common practice. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I.p address guy you're completely wrong. Billy Corgan says so - "It's The Smashing Pumpkins." - Corgan, William. Interview. Chicago Sports Channel. April 1997 Bomberswarm2 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An edit

Accepting the RfC about the title, as is right and proper, I do believe we should add one phrase in the article to state something both sides agreed on, which is that the band is alternately known as simply Smashing Pumpkins. It's truthful and accurate, and I will add that single phrase with citing. This is similar to The Dakota, Die Hard 2 and other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are the type of notes that strike me as ridiculous, so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated to the reader, but if it will make you stop, whatever. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Melissa Auf der Maur member status

Touring member Auf der Maur (who substituted Wretkzy during Machina tour; as several musicians substituted Chamberlin on tour) is unsourced as an official member of the Pumpkins. Discussion initiated at Talk:List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members. Lapadite (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a ton of sources in favor of it if you were to look through the archives. It's been argued at length in the past. I thought the last consensus had been that she was a member considering her placement in the member article, but looking through the archives, it's a little less clear. I was also thinking that the member list was a FL, but that's actually the Nine Inch Nails one. That one editor never ended up bringing that far along like he had intended it seems. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

She's referenced on the template and not in the main text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.107.91 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

From the archives: (Archive 4) Phorque said, "Auf der Maur is considered a member purely on the basis that she toured with the band for one tour and appeared in promotional material". Jjb said, "Melissa auf der Maur does NOT appear as part of the band in the liner notes of any album" and "Melissa auf der Maur should be lumped in with Walker/Garson/Aronoff/others instead of being grouped with James and D'Arcy. It's crazy to group founding members who were in the band for 10+ years with someone who played bass on one tour". (Archive 5) Fezmar9 said, "Melissa Auf der Maur was only a live fill in for D'arcy Wretzky...". Vanishdoom said, "I just think it's weird that Auf der Maur was considered a part of the band when she technically never was". Sergecross73, you also raised objections there. I brought up objections here. It is clear that Auf der Maur was never an official member, only a musician substituting an official member during a tour. She did not play with the band on a studio album. As I and others have said, If substituting an official member on tour makes her one then all Chamberlin's touring substitutes were official members. Lapadite (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a major over-simplification to say "it's clear she wasn't a member" - the whole problem is that they weren't clear on it - it all happened during a time where "official membership" wasnt really discussed because there hadn't been many lineup changes yet. If it were "clear", we'd have an exact statement from Billy Corgan stating "Melissa was/wasn't a member." Anyways, I object to your summarization a lot more than the actual stance at hand - If you feel strongly about it one way or another , great, get ready to maintain it into oblivion, because passerby editors tinker with it all the time. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean a number of editors had already raised objections to Auf der Maur being included as official. Corgan spoke about her joining the tour here. As far as I've read, the only public statement from Corgan regarding Auf der Maur's time with the band is that he thought her playing didn't fit their sound [47]. I say it's clear she wasn't more than a temporary, touring member precisely because her role that of a touring substitute for an official member, because the band had already decided they would call it quits, and she didn't play on a studio album. If her member status is (at best) ambiguous and there isn't a RS or a Pumpkins member stating she was an official member then per WP:V, WP:ONUS, WP:OR the article shouldn't say she was. She should be listed as a touring member, like Chamberlin's touring subs are. The point is that including her as a official member along with Corgan, Iha, Wretzky, and Chamberlin misleads readers. Lapadite (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Melissa Auf der Marr contributed bass to Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music, which, by all accounts, is a Smashing Pumpkins studio album. Some random comments from the archives does not negate that fact. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Melissa's article says Corgan played the pass parts in the studio for Machina I/II. I think looking back on this now, she definitely fits into the "touring member" category, like it says here. In 2016's context, she's definitely a lot less significant than she used to seem. - Phorque (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Formed by Corgan

As per interviews, Corgan conceived the idea of the band and enlisted the others to join (Iha, Wretzky, and then Chamberlin), so why exactly does the intro state it was formed by Corgan and Iha? Lapadite (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Any objections? Lapadite (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's just worded this way because Iha was the first recruited. Your wording is probably more accurate though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
What interviews are you referring to? Because the Early years section states that while Billy came up with the band name before he met Iha, it wasn't until he met Iha that they began writing songs together and performing live. There's a difference between "conceived" and "formed". One suggests sitting alone in your bedroom, thinking "I want to be in a band called The Smashing Pumpkins"; the other implies that the band exists and is active as an entity. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Corgan had conceived, named and formed the band himself, enlisting the other original members starting with Iha. E.g., [48], [49]. He started performing and writing with Iha because he met Iha first. My issue is with the wording here; It may be misleading. I've come across RS's (such as Time) that regard Corgan, Iha and Wretzy as Pumpkins founders for instance. For accuracy/unambiguity It should just state "Formed by frontman Billy Corgan (lead vocals, guitar), the band included James Iha (guitar), D'arcy Wretzky (bass guitar) and Jimmy Chamberlin (drums) in its original incarnation." So any objections here to that change? Lapadite (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion on the founding year, this article states 1988. But the Corgan article 1987. Also, in the 'early years' section, it says the band began with Corgan meeting Iha, with and Wretzy and Chamberlain joining shortly after. background info Jonpatterns (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The correct year is '87; Spin Nov 1993. Lapadite (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Corgan goes back and forth on the year. Just an FYI, I don't care which one we use, either way, it's well before they we actually releasing albums... Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but Corgan has said more than once the Pumpkins was founded and also played their first show (earliest incarnation, Corgan & Iha) in '87 (e.g. Corgan told the crowd was one of the songs he played at the first Pumpkins gig back in 1987. Most RS's state '87 anyway so I think '87 is the best bet. Lapadite (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The AllMusic source actually states the opposite of what you're trying to cite with it: "Working at a record store, Corgan began putting the pieces together for his next band, which would be the Smashing Pumpkins. He befriended guitarist James Iha and bassist D'Arcy, and the three started to play in bars and clubs around Chicago with a drum machine in place of a real drummer." - which is what this article currently states. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussions is about the intro in the lead, not the Early years section though. What does that have to do with who formed the band? The sources I linked support the fact the band was formed by Billy Corgan and included James Iha (guitar), D'arcy Wretzky (bass guitar) and Jimmy Chamberlin (drums) in its original incarnation. - not formed by Billy Corgan and James Iha; again, regardless of when each member joined Corgan, or who Corgan jammed with first. Corgan clearly started the band, therefore the intro, as it stands, is misleading. Lapadite (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There are 280+ editors watching this article, more input is needed for a consensus. Lapadite (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The early years section mentions the formation of the band in more detail and should be consistent with the lede.
It seems the band started when Corgan met Iha, using some material Corgan had already written, with Wretzky and Chamberlain joining shortly after.
Regarding, the exact wording, it depend on how 'band' is conceptualised. Does it come into existence when one person creates music and they see how other people could join in. Or is a band created when two or more people come together to create music.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Returning to this now, sorry. Jonpatterns, essentially the band started when all original members were recruited. Or when the first three were recruited, seeing as they rehearsed together and played their first shows as a trio (after which "Joe Shanahan agreed to book the band on the condition that they replace the drum machine with a live drummer.[15]"). So the matter is who started the band? And that would Corgan, who, per sources, conceptualized it, named it before anyone else was involved, and recruited the other members, no? Lapadite (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess there a two ways in which bands are created, either two or more people come together and spontaneously decide to work together, or one or more people have a concept for a band then go about getting people to fill the roles. I guess SP are the later. Maybe the lede could say something like, The SP was the brain child of Billy Corgan, he founded the band with James Iha and shortly after Darcy Wretzky? (the Early Years section says Corgan and Iha played as a duo first)Jonpatterns (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a bit wordy for the lead? Yeah, a band is either created/formed by one person or by two or more people at the same time, e.g. stemming from "lets start a band together and recruit others". Corgan himself instigated the whole thing, had already written music, and then recruited the others one by one. He said he had other band members in Florida, I believe, in a prior incarnation, but it didn't work out. He's the brainchild of the band, not he and Iha, so it was created by him. I think the simplest way of putting it is: "Formed by frontman Billy Corgan (lead vocals, guitar), the band included James Iha (guitar), D'arcy Wretzky (bass guitar) and Jimmy Chamberlin (drums) in its original incarnation." The order of the individuals reflects the order in which they joined the band; and body of the article elaborates on this of course. Pinging other editors who've commented here or have recently edited the article for more input, and hopefully arrive at a consensus: @Sergecross73, TheOnlyOne12, MusikAnimal, Frosty, and Koavf: Lapadite (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever consensus dictates, I'm fine with. I still think this is all splitting hairs on something that Corgan isn't real consistent about to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, well if most editors agree or don't object to the proposed phrasing in the lead then I'll go ahead and change it in a few days. In the articles and interviews I've read/seen, Corgan's given the same story about the formation of the band, at least with respect to what's being discussed here. What has Corgan said that contradicts it? Lapadite (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how a single other editor has agreed with what you're saying. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Per what Jonpatterns has just stated: WP:LEAD should only contain things that are sourced later in the article. The evidence you've provided doesn't corroborate what you're suggesting; in fact, some of the sources you yourself have provided have in fact contradicted what you're trying to do here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm honestly surprised we've had as much input as we have already, it really feels like I've been the only one actively consistently maintains the article. I wouldn't expect a whole lot more unless you asked for outside input from people outside like a RFC or something... Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Since all but one editor here didn't object, and reasonable arguments and sources have been provided corroborating that the band was conceived and formed by its frontman and primary songwriter, Corgan (who recruited the other three original members), I will change the lead intro to the suggested sentence above - "Formed by frontman Billy Corgan (lead vocals, guitar), the band included James Iha (guitar), D'arcy Wretzky (bass guitar) and Jimmy Chamberlin (drums) in its original incarnation.". Or if editors suggest instead stating that the band was founded by Corgan, Iha and Wretzy per the Time source. Other editors watching this article feel free to give more input. Lapadite (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You have not provided a single reliable source for the change you're trying to make. And, I repeat, I don't see a single other editor here agreeing with what you're trying to do. In fact, you've just provided a source for why the article should remain the way it is. D'oh! Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Smashing_Pumpkins/Archive_5&oldid=1075958862"