Talk:Garbage (band)/Archive 2

GA Nomination
As the one who originally nominated the article for a GA reassessment, I was happy to see the article back up at GAN. After taking another look at the article, I'm happy to say it is much improved, though in my opinion not yet up to GA standards. Below are my suggestions to improve the article. The below list isn't necessarily an exhaustive list of issues with the article, but it's definitely a good start. That said, it seems like it might be alot of work, so I've failed the article nomination since I would imagine it might take a while. That said, I'd be happy to take another look at the article once you feel it to be up to spec. If the article gets renominated, feel free to drop me a note and I'll take another look: the GAN page can get a bit backlogged sometimes, so that might speed things up. Anyways, without further ado: That should do it for now. If you have any questions or concerns with my review, feel free to drop me a line. Also, if you feel my review is in error, you can have the review reassessed at WP:GAR. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with the article is that it is almost completely a biography of the band. That is to say, the vast majority of the article is simply historical information.  What about the band's sound?  Their live performances?  Group dynamic?  Any major controversies?  Have they ever won a Grammy?  Any other awards?  I'm not saying that all of this needs to be included, but you've really gotta give the reader more information than "X happened.  Then Y happened.  After that, Z happened."  As a good example of what I mean, check out Nine Inch Nails.  Yes, it's an FA article, but I think you might be able to see what I mean.
 * Additionally, the article goes into waaaay too much detail about the band's chart performance. That kind of raw data is much better left to the Garbage discography article.  When it comes to the band itself, does it really matter that ""Only Happy" peaked at #55 on the Hot 100"?
 * Another short-coming is that the entire article only has one image (in the infobox). Surely there's some images that would help describe each of the band's periods?  Again, I'd recommend taking a look at the NIN page.  But, be careful using copyrighted images.  Try and use free ones wherever possible, and only use copyrighted stuff where it really helps the article.
 * ✅ Ultra! 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming you take my above advice into account, I'd recommend placing all the historical/biographical stuff into subheaders of one large History section or something like that. Also, since each sub-section is basically based on each release, I'd recommend using the main template.
 * Overall, the citations are formatted very inconsistently. I'd recommend going through the code a couple times and cleaning things up a bit.  For instance, wherever possible, a publisher value should give the publisher's proper name, not website.  So for instance, use Billboard not Billboard.com).  Also any date value (but NOT accessdate) should be wikilinked like so:.
 * All of the years are generally overwikilinked. In most cases, a year should be left unlinked.
 * Also concerning dates, consider how specific you need to get, given that this is an article based on the band, not each and every release. For instance, do we really care that the band "relocated to Friday Harbor, Washington on March 1, 1997"  It's a good fact to mention, but do we care what day it happened on?  Does it have any relevance to anyone?  There's alot of too-specific dates throughout the article.  For instance: ""Push It" debuted at #52 on the May 9", "On February 23, 1993, Manson was signed as a solo artist to MCA", etc.  To solve this, I'd recommend either mentioning just the year, or if multiple things happened in quick succession mention the month as well, or, if the date doesn't have that much relevance, don't mention the date at all.  I would guess that it's would often be pretty clear what year something happened in, given the context around the fact.  Maybe it would be smart to mention the year once for the first thing that happened in that particular year, then leave it as assumed until the year changes.
 * The text overall needs a thorough copyediting. It is largely over wikilinked, unencyclopedic in tone, and full of typos.  A few examples: "with no compensation from any", "chart for four weeks from", "Lyrics were penned at a cabin", "Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Finland, as well as the top 40 in Germany, Austria, Switzerland", ""Vow" bubbled under for two weeks", "The band confirm that" (wrong tense), "nominations for Best Rock Song and Best Rock Performance By A Duo Or Group" (no period), etc.
 * Is the entire paragraph about Goodbye Mr. Mackenzie neccessary? It's important in relation to Manson, but I'm not sure what the relevance is to Garbage.
 * ✅ Ultra! 19:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, alot of the first section seems unneccessary. For instance, does it relate that much to Garbage what artists Marker has remixed music for?
 * ✅ Ultra! 19:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, keep in-line citations at the end of sentences. Try and avoid putting them in the middle of a sentence, unless the a very specific part of the fact is so unbelievable or contentious it is unavoidable.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hits" :
 * ""Hits (Stupid Girl trade ad)"" | (Retrieved - 2008-02-24)
 * ""Hits ("Special" trade ad)"" | (Retrieved - 2008-02-24)
 * ""Hits ("When I Grow Up" trade ad)"" (Retrieved - 2008-02-24)

Manson's solo album
I've removed the lines "Manson is reluctant to talk about her album, preferring to wait until it is released in early 2008. Manson was scheduled to finish recording the album in September 2007." Clearly, this information is out of date: if anyone has any references about a new release date (or any pertinent information at all about the album), the article would benefit from this information being added Dom Kaos (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong info in the article?
In the article it says: Manson has worked with a number of people on the project including Scottish songwriter Paul Buchanan, US rock musicians Jack White, Billy Corgan, Beck, Greg Kurstin and David Arnold. Yet on her facebook page Shirley Manson writes: '' I never said that I wrote music with Jack White, Billy Corgan OR the very lovely and talented Beck. Someone else did and so it got written up that I did in the press but it never happened.At least not in the real world. Maybe in my head.'' Source: So I remove the sentence from the article, because I think there's no better source for this as Shirley Manson herself. ;) --84.142.240.140 (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Album Info - Too Much??
It seems to me that the sections on each album are far too detailed for this piece on the band & much of the information would be more appropriately placed under the individual albums. Gwladys24 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Garbage (band)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Garbage (band)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "PR": From Blood for Poppies:  From Not Your Kind of People tour:  From Scottish Parliament:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Genres
Genres/styles should be cited in the article not necessarily in the info box. Also, indie rock, darkwave and downtempo should be included, the latter in place of trip hop, and "electronic" should be eliminated as electronic rock is already included. Post punk should also be included since is it particularly incorporated in albums Bleed Like Me and Not Your Kind of People. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have sources for these genres, add them. If you don't, don't add them. Per WP:RS. If you want it added as prose, go ahead, but you need to find sources first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources you had made using the beautiful garbage article are not strong, the source here state "They consciously picked up elements from shoegazing, trip-hop, and indie rock -- anything sonically interesting in the underground, crafting them together with skill and a keen commercial eye.". Having elements of a genre, does not place the group within the genre. Before reverting my edit, please discuss this further here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, before playing alpha editor (e.g., OWN) and automatically reverting contributions you disagree with, as always and expected, YOU should voice your concern in the talk page first. ALL sites, reviews, etc will state them as incorporating elements of multiple genres, do you understand that? You've cited yourself, for your "pop" inclusion in Garbage (album) infobox, a review - by the way, from the same reviewer I cited here - that does the same thing. Using the logic you employ, your source isn't strong as the reviewer, after describing significant, encapsulating elements of alt rock, merely notes it "comes off as pop". Again, your agenda is transparent. This is a credible source, which you yourself championed, and notes particular genres blatantly incorporated, and that had been included here before. Don't revert it again, otherwise you're again engaging in disruptive editing, and in danger of violating three-revert rule. It should be removed if multiple editors here object and a consensus to remove it is reached. COLLAB --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right. User:Andrzejbanas may (or may not?) need to start a discussion to remove the genres. However, similarly, you also need to have a discussion before adding the genres. (Especially when you don't have any sources to support it.) Also note that consciously picked up elements does not necessarily mean that they're a shoegaze band. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted. I started this discussion suggesting the inclusion of the aforementioned as-yet uncited genres, and to promote discussion of the inclusion and sourcing of genres/styles in the article, as Walter Görlitz too noted below. My subsequent back and forth with Andrzejbana here is over a particular citation used for genres I included, in case that wasn't evident. And no, genres are generally listed in the order in which they might encapsulate the band best/most. This band is an alternative/rock band first, it's the most prevalent genre noted in the web, and what they're generally first classified as; the inclusion of genres after that does not necessarily translate to the band being strictly pegged by such genres (especially since all their albums are sonically very different), but that they've delved into them; as is the same principle for any and every artist/band on Wikipedia. The electronic, trip hop, industrial, indie, grunge, etc, genres you might see listed here after alt/rock are not denoting they are purely an electronica band or an industrial band or a trip hop band or a grunge band but that their records incorporate such genres. That should be understood. Your conclusion in this statement: "'consciously picked up elements' does not necessarily mean that they're a shoe gaze band" is incorrect. That quoted phrase is essentially another way of saying "incorporates", which is sufficient for the inclusion of other genres musically present, outside the core of alternative rock. If other editors object in some way to this in particular and/or my edit, please voice your concern here, a consensus is reached and a revision is made. Until then my cited contribution can stay there. --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Andrzejbanas does need to start a discussion to remove properly cited genres, as he's not owner of the article or the cited material, as none of us are; he needs to post his personal objections in here before making his automatic reverts of other editors' formal contributions, especially since it's evident, contrary to why he's said he's here, he doesn't or hasn't constructively contributed. --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion of genres should be added to the musical style section. They should be what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the band, not what the band thinks they are or what sound they're trying to create. I would start with http://www.allmusic.com/artist/garbage-mn0000194246 ("rock group") and the prose in www.allmusic.com/artist/garbage-mn0000194246/biography—never use the genre cloud. Then add reviews over the length of the band's career from places like Rolling Stone, Spin, and other music-specific sources. Also, look at the categories in which their songs and albums have won awards. Once you have referenced sources on genre, move it to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you Walter. That has yet to be implemented here. Can you give your input on the above discussion? --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I'd suggest immediate semi-protection for Garbage (band) and all Garbage-related articles (Shirley Manson, all Garbage album articles - Garbage (album), Version 2.0, Beautiful Garbage, Bleed Like Me, Absolute Garbage, Not Your Kind of People, etc.), since some supposedly "random" IP has started messing around with the genres on all Garbage-related articles since this discussions' inception. I'd also request a WP:CheckUser to see if any member who has participated in this discussion has been responsible for any of the recent vandalism and edit warring. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. --Lpdte77 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone disagree that the "electronic" umbrella genre should not be there since electronic rock is already included and fits best? thoughts? --Lpdte77 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it as we don't know what the original sources had said. I'm assuming WP:GOODFAITH. BTW, I don't need to have a discussion to remove uncited material. If you want to add stuff, find a good strong source first. I'd also note that I'm not lording over an article as I'm encouraging discussion which is what you are supposed to do. Assume good faith with me as I promise I'm just making articles better. If you found strong sources for what you enter, instead of making bizarre claims like what you write doesn't need sources, than I'd be totally down with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "as we don't know what the original sources had said" can you elaborate on this reason with respect to the electronic redundancy?
 * No, you removed cited material you disagreed with, as evidenced in your second reply here and in the diffs. Misleading and cherry picking again. I'm not assuming anything, I call it as I see it, which is, again, evident in your actions as editor in Garbage articles and talk pages. That's all.
 * "bizarre claims like what you write doesn't need sources" more lies and cherry picking. I'm not even surprised. Link to where I said that. Walter Görlitz echoed what I'd said initially (with respect to the genres), that the info in the info box is not meant to be cited per se but to summarize the content cited in the article page. And you obviously ignored that as you continued what you were doing. That is all I have to say to you with respect to this. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lapadite77, take a chill pill. Andrzejbanas has not given anyone a reason to not assume good faith. Either start discussing this issue [Genres!] decently [ie, not resorting to this sort of POV nonsense], or this could very easily spiral into ANI territory. I have suspicions you wouldn't want that. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He and I were largely referring to a discussion/edits from another Garbage article. He'd given me plenty of reason to doubt it there. You calling me out is no surprise, by the way. I also responded to a false accusation he made of me, in case that's not evident.
 * I'm sorry, I know you don't like me, but are you accusing me of being that "random ip"? Cause that can easily involve administrators. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Lpdte77: This Homeostasis07 is like a crybaby. He has 2 main bad habits: complaining at admins for every nonsense and accusing of "random ip" edits (without any evidence) of those who disagree with him. You can hardly find a more annoying user on this site...178.138.33.49 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, well. Hi to the Romanian IP talking nonsense about me on a Garbage page. It's been such a long time. Nice to see you can still hold a grudge after more than 2 and half years. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, on the electronic rock issue, these are the sources that describe the band as such:, , , , , , , . I think electronic rock is more relevant here. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. So, support for keeping only electronic rock, and, more to the point, the sources all state electronic rock (so I assume no one will object). I shall remove "electronic" from the info box. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Garbage reigned in the late-period glory days of alternative-rock radio, probably because their sound was a hectic amalgamation of almost everything that mingled on the format's airwaves: electronica, punk, industrial rock, grunge, and the occasional trip-hop": http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16606-not-your-kind-of-people/ --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Indie rock (first few come across): http://host.madison.com/entertainment/music/madison-rockers-garbage-releasing-first-new-album-since/article_f395f7ca-edd4-11e0-8795-001cc4c002e0.html http://www.addictradio.net/en/artist/garbage http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=3020547&style=music&fulldesc=T http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/madison-rockers-garbage-working-on-first-album-since-2005-131044763.html http://www.last.fm/music/Garbage http://www.allmusic.com/artist/garbage-mn0000194246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Discography section
Shouldn't the Discography section be above Concert tours?--Lpdte77 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Garbage (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.cafemomo.com/news/9905news.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150120022918/http://www.billboard.com:80/charts/1996-02-10/radio-songs to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1996-02-10/radio-songs
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for fmrecords.com.au/viewartist.cfm?ArtistId=250

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed link makes no mention of the band, the other two are dead. Section needs better citations and a rewrite. Karst (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Garbage (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.cafemomo.com/inprint/9411volume.shtml
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.cafemomo.com/news/9611news.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

was their first album really a "sleeper hit"?
Page has the following text in the opening: "Garbage's debut album, Garbage, was critically acclaimed and an unexpected smash". The words "unexpected smash" are linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_hit. The later page includes in its definition "despite having relatively little promotion or lacking a successful opening". In this light, the statement about Garbage's debut album being a sleeper hit is certainly false as the Garbage page also notes: "The album debuted on the UK album chart at No. 12.[36]", so it certainly had a successful opening. I also doubt that the album had relatively little promotion, though I don't know. As to whether the album's success was expected or not, it's hard to imagine that nobody expected success from Vig's first studio album after he produced Nirvana's Nevermind. I suggest reword to "Garbage's debut album, Garbage, was critically acclaimed, sold over 4 million copies, and was certified double platinum..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.28.133 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Garbage (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210010426/http://www.garbage.com:80/news/news.php?uid=320 to http://www.garbage.com/news/news.php?uid=320
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926103557/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/mar97/butchvig.html to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/mar97/butchvig.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ianfleming.org/007news/articles/garbage-official.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040411020642/http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/Music/International/Special/Garbage/ to http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/Music/International/Special/Garbage/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160910/http://www.geffen.com/garbage to http://www.geffen.com/garbage
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050508004119/http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?uid=157 to http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?uid=157
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202040125/http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?id=20031017 to http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?id=20031017
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202044201/http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?uid=152 to http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?uid=152
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112005045/http://www.garbage.com:80/news/news.php?uid=315 to http://www.garbage.com/news/news.php?uid=315
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garbage.com/news/news.php?uid=336

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garbage (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021002156/http://www.newrock1019.com/garbage-to-release-live-dvd-one-mile-highlive-in-may/ to http://www.newrock1019.com/garbage-to-release-live-dvd-one-mile-highlive-in-may/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garbage (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001190109/http://www.citypages.com/1995-11-01/arts/taking-out-the-garbage/1/ to http://www.citypages.com/1995-11-01/arts/taking-out-the-garbage/1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016065148/http://www.garbage-discography.co.uk/news/?p=88 to http://www.garbage-discography.co.uk/news/?p=88
 * Added tag to http://absolutegarbage.net/band/trivia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Years Active
I'm not going to do it myself, but 1993–present, that's not exactly correct is it? 86.41.149.167 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your point that they have had spells on hiatus during that period ? RGCorris (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Touring line-up 2019
Saw them at Kew the Music on July 13th and I'm pretty sure the drummer wasn't Butch Vig. Anyone know the name of the drummer (I think Shirley mentioned it but I didn't catch what she said) and whether this is a permanent change or whether Butch will be back ? RGCorris (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Band Description
I see that the description of the band as American/Scottish-American has flipped a number of times over the article's lifespan, but there has never been any discussion regarding it and both descriptions have persisted for some time. Can we establish a consensus?

I think the argument that "they were formed in America, and that's what matters" to be unconvincing and at odds with other articles in Wikipedia.
 * If three Americans formed a band in England, would that make the band English?
 * How about if two English men and American meeting in America, is that an American band?
 * Does one American forming a band in London with two Englishmen make it an English band?
 * Or one American meeting three English? Are they English?
 * What about three Australians and one English, formed in England, is that an English band?
 * How an English band that picked up some Americans along the way, is that an English band because of where it was formed?

The music industry is an international business where established musicians get about. Bands formed by those individuals are often international by nature, and the location where they happen to meet largely irrelevant. What distinguishes the band far more is the origins or nationalities of the individuals. So to suggest that Manson is in an American band is misleading the reader. The band is mainly American, but not solely American. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going by your logic:
 * Arcade Fire has two American members – described as a Canadian band
 * The Police had an American member and a French member – described as a British band
 * The Velvet Underground had a Welsh member – described as an American band
 * Gogol Bordello currently has members from several different countries – described as an American band
 * U2 has two English-born members (they both grew up in Ireland, but still) – described as an Irish band
 * Deep Purple has had an American member since 1994 – described as an English band
 * Evanescence has had a German member since 2005 – described as an American band
 * The bottom line is, you can't apply the same logic to every single band. Comparing Garbage's case to that of all those other bands sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Plus, stating that the place where members formed a given band is "largely irrelevant" and that "what distinguishes the band far more is the origins or nationalities of the individuals" is your own personal opinion. My opinion is that, in many cases, a band's place of origin is far more relevant than the individuals' nationalities – the article is, after all, about the band as a whole, not the individual band members. Aside from the fact that Shirley was born in Scotland, what other ties does the band have to Scotland? Garbage as a collective is American, as they formed and established themselves in the United States.  snap snap  (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, SnapSnap, that’s your own personal opinion as well. I (and clearly so do others) find it misleading to ignore the nationality of band members, particularly that of the lead. I’m just curious why you haven’t rushed over to the pages of the original examples mentioned to change those if this is your logic. You say “what other ties does the band have to Scotland?” Surely that’s a pretty large one? I have better things to do than get into an editing war about it, but I don’t get your reasoning here. 2A00:23C6:4205:7B00:4853:9DA3:FD5:6F68 (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Chronology
I'm not much of an expert on Garbage or even really a fan, but when browsing through the article, something struck me as a bit odd - under the "Formation (1993-94)" section, mention is made of Xfm, which wasn't even created until 1997. Also, on several occasions times months are mentioned, but it is not clear to which year they refer. Any ideas?

Opticrom (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the same question: How could "Vow" be played on XFM in December 1994 if XFM didn't exist until 1997? Also that section is titled 1993-1994, yet the story starts in 1983 when Vig and Marker founded Smart Studios, then Manson was singing in 1984 and they contacted her to sing lead vocals. It all sounds like it happened in 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.55.115 (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They could be talking about the pirate radio station that was stationed in a ship off-shore. They, XFM, were not the only ones doing that at that time to avoid scrutiny of the authorites. EnveeNV (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

NHL2000
I thinks it would be nice trivia to include that Garbage - Push It was the main theme for NHL2000 icehockey game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.3.25 (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While we are on the subject of games. We could include As Heaven Is Wide and Only Happy When It Rains since both were on the first edition of the Playstion One console game called Gran Turismo.
 * Even on Gran Turismo's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(1997_video_game) there is no mention of the music in that game.
 * As a player of that game i can say that it added to the replayability of that game. Garbage were not the only ones who were featured in that game either. I even added a section on the talk page asking why there is no section on music.
 * I do small edits for wiki, mainly dead link removals or links that resolve to porn, small grammar corrections or make sentences written by people whose main language is not english more readable to english speakers. Starting a whole new header and all that is beyond my capabilitites since i forgot the syntax. I dont want to screw up a page. EnveeNV (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Influence/Legacy section
There should be one created. Both Garbage and Shirley Manson have influenced a myriad of artists and pop music/culture (musically, image-wise, attitude, etc), during their time and today. Many artists have mentioned their influence (along with Shirley Manson's), especially current artists. I feel this section should be created, with citations from particular artists themselves and publications that have written about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In Garbage's style/influences section, it should also note their film and director influences, on their videos. I can recall them and Manson talking about being major film fans and being influenced by and giving nods to some French directors and surrealists filmmakers and artists. Their surrealism influences are most noted in the videos for Push It and Blood for Poppies.
 * Publications have also over time noted Garbage's own visual style and ambitions and the influences on other artists' visual approach and output, something that could also be included in the proposed section for their own influences in the modern pop/music landscape. --Lapadite77 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Had recently come across a Vanity Fair interview with the band, wherein the journalist proposed their music/approach too been an influenced on bands like Sleigh Bells. --Lapadite77 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw their ambitions to be involved in films as well, during the charlie rose interview which was supposedly in 99. This interview was just before the release of The World Is Not Enough in 99. EnveeNV (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)