Jump to content

Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
The following discussion is an archived discussion page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Opening sentence

Whoever keeps bastardizing the first sentence, stop. '"The Smashing Pumpkins is an American alternative rock band.' is correct. Usage of 'are' is not; The Smashing Pumpkins is one band (not plural). --Mentaka 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. What you're insisting on is both (a) incorrect and (b) absolutely unidiomatic. Here's an example from the New York Times. Please note the third paragraph: "the Smashing Pumpkins are a changed band." Here's an example from the All Music Guide. Please note the first sentence: "the Smashing Pumpkins were the group" (not "was" the group, as you would insist on). Take a more abstract example. Let's imagine we're members of a high school football squad and Coach wants us to express our unity. Would we shout "We is a team!!"? Only if we want to get sent back to remedial English. No, we would shout "We are a team!!" A group, like a sports team or a rock band, can grammatically take the singular or the plural verb, depending on the form of the noun or pronoun used to identify the group and where it appears in the sentence. When the noun or pronoun is plural and the subject of the sentence—as it is in the examples I provided and as it is in the first sentence of this article—it takes the plural verb. Please see American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns for more. And think twice before tossing around words like "bastardizing."—DCGeist 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Who cares if it's 'are' or 'is'? Seriously. Argue about something worth arguing over. Cuz this is lame.DMCIncubus 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If I said "English sure are lame" at this point, would ya get the joke, cuz?—DCGeist 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, you're real cute.4.181.4.55 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be a hero and corrected it back to "The Smashing Pumpkins are" - Phorque 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Now if you said "The English sure are lame", it would make sense. It'd also be quite racist... -- Reaper X 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Geist, I just remembered! How did that line in "Geek USA" go? Was it "We is an American band for you"? ;P - Phorque 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's "Cash Car Star", actually. ^_^ JuJube 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh shit, ahahahaha, my bad. I fail. Hard. ^^; - Phorque 11:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys are idiots - you're using sentences as examples where "we" is the example, and not a proper noun such as a band name. It doesn't matter if the name itself is pluralized, it is referring to a single band, meaning that "is" would be the proper word. If it were to say "the members of the smashing pumpkins" then "are" would be appropriate. Either way it doesn't matter to me, I don't care if it's changed or not, I just hate to see such an awful argument presented by so many people that clearly don't understand grammar. - Ringer7 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA. JuJube 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, before attacking people as "idiots," make a little effort to actually read what they've written. Here's your plaint: "you're using sentences as examples where 'we' is the example, and not a proper noun such as a band name." And here's how this idiot began: "Here's an example from the New York Times. Please note the third paragraph: 'the Smashing Pumpkins are a changed band.' Here's an example from the All Music Guide. Please note the first sentence: 'the Smashing Pumpkins were the group' (not 'was' the group, as you would insist on)." Thanks for playing.—DCGeist 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't we all just have a big group hug now, one filled with assumed good-faith and all that? One free of fair-use images and copyright infringement? I just want to release all my love under the GNU Free Documentation license.... - Phorque 11:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
My love's in OGG format...—DCGeist 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What you fail to realize is that just because a bunch of people, even though some of them are professional writers, make a grammatical mistake doesn't make it right. Either use is fine, as I said I don't care if it's changed or not. Here's a real example for you - try typing "the smashing pumpkins is great." in microsoft word and you'll get a grammatical correction, but try typing "the Smashing Pumpkins is great." and it will be fine. Why? Because like I said, Smashing Pumpkins is a proper noun when capitalized. You can use "are" as well and no correction will be necessary, because this is also accepted, but you really should learn grammar before you call someone out on it...—Ringer7 15:52, 24 March

2007 (UTC)

Oh...yeah...you're the "You guys are idiots" guy. As someone who evidently needs to learn (a) to behave civilly and (b) to read what people you're being uncivil to have actually written and (c) to apologize when you've failed at a or b, let alone both a and b, you should really be more humble about your instructions concerning what other people should learn.
Well, anyway, with your expertise in grammar, do recommend to us your favorite book on the subject, so that we may, indeed, learn. In particular, please specify the page where we will learn that a proper noun of plural construction identifying a group of people or similar collective takes a singular verb. Given your level of certainty on the topic, every book of American English grammar must make this clear. But we don't need you to cite every book of grammar. Just one. Lookin' forward to it!—DCGeist 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Here, just to get you in the right mood, is a little discussion from a pretty reputable online source, Capital Community College:
Generally, band names and musical groups take singular or plural verbs depending on the form of their names: "The Mamas and the Papas were one of the best groups of the 70s" and "Metallica is my favorite band." [1]
I'm sorry that doesn't support your position at all. But I know you're hitting your bookshelves, scanning your tomes of grammatical instruction, looking for that cite that'll set us right.—DCGeist 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your source seems to indicate that the "Mamas and the Papas" gets a "were" (or "are") because the name itself is plural. "Metallica" gets an "is" because of its singularity. If the name of the band is the precedent for the grammar of a sentence, then "The Smashing Pumpkins" would get an "are" by this logic. And at least The Smashing Pumpkins have always been several people unlike Nine Inch Nails... - Phorque 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Seems"? Nay, it is. I know not "seems." [2] But, hey, Ringer7 is going to set us idiots right any minute now.—DCGeist 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So uh, why are we making a separate debate about this here? I'm absolutely sure that there is some ongoing discussion about this elsewhere, and that would be the place to discuss this, seeing as there is this singular/plural band debate in many places in Wikipedia. It would be better to put your imputs there, so we can have consensus across all of english Wikipedia eh? -- Reaper X 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good question. We had peace, love, and an understanding about "are" for more than a month before Ringer7 decided to ring in again.—DCGeist 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's DCGeist, the guy who fails to recognize that i said BOTH FORMS ARE ACCEPTABLE. I made statements calling you guys idiots for correcting Mentaka and saying that he was in the wrong for his use of the singular, NOT in stating that the plural is wrong or unusable. Like I also said before I have no problem with the article remaining the way it is, because BOTH FORMS ARE ACCEPTABLE. If you really want an example from a guide to grammar, here's one: "The names of companies and other organizations [such as bands] are usually regarded as singular, regardless of their ending: "General Motors has announced its fall lineup of new vehicles." Try to avoid the inconsistency that is almost inevitable when you think of corporate entities as a group of individuals: "General Motors has announced their fall lineup of new vehicles." But note that some inconsistency is acceptable in all but the most formal writing: "Ford has announced its breakup with Firestone Tires. Their cars will no longer use tires built by Firestone." Some writers will use a plural verb when a plural construction such as "Associates" is part of the company's title or when the title consists of a series of names: "Upton, Vernon, and Gridley are moving to new law offices next week" or "Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego & Associates have won all their cases this year." Singular verbs and pronouns would be correct in those sentences, also."
If you really want the name of a book that teaches you good grammar and style, then check out the classic "The Elements of Style" by Strunk & White. Like I said, it's a classic, it's considered the original standard, and it's the book I learned from. Keep in mind that I wasn't the one trying to be the grammar police here, you were, and I was explaining that Mentaka was not at all wrong. If Wikipedia has some sort of "precedent" for this and prefers the plural, then go right ahead and adhere to it, the site has plenty of far worse problems such as where the majority can rule even when the minority is in the right. Just don't go around calling people out on things when they're not in the wrong, and don't be a pompous ass when you try to make a comeback. —Ringer7 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I was actually thinking today, "wasn't he implying that both are ok in the end?" Also, my attempt at being pompous actually made me look pretty damn stupid by crediting the wrong song earlier. I suppose we were being too sarcastic in our insistence that there is more justification for the use of "are" in the sentence. Apologies for any annoyance.
Geist makes me laugh, he seems to have that awesome rude New Yorker attitude. My excuse is that I'm from Belfast. Phorque 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

CIVILITY! FUCK! FUCKIN BE CIVIL! This is a civilized debate about style, not WWIII over where people stand. Fucking chill guys. -- Reaper X 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm done with this discussion anyways as I feel I've said all I can on my behalf, and provided what sources and evidence i can. —Ringer7 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I love you all. As specified above, my love's in OGG format. Are you compatible?—DCGeist 07:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
They might need a plugin. Also, it's not very fucking civil to use god-damned profanity when trying to defuse an argument! Shit a brick! Now I've added blasphemy to it! - Phorque 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Watch the language. Please. Okay. I got here late. Oh well. Now, I want to give my input. I'm on the "is" side. The Smashing Pumpkins is the name of the band. Is each individual member called a Smashing Pumpkin? No. My name is Chris? I say "Chris is a Wikipedian," not "Chris are a Wikipedian." Of course, that is a horrible example, but that does end in "s". I know, Chris isn't plural. But The Smashing Pumpkins isn't plural either. It doesn't mean that there are multiple bands called "The Smashing Pumpkin." This is crazy though. I feel like asking my grammar teacher, but then again, who says no one here isn't a grammar major? Hah, I think this is fun. And I didn't even need to curse! Chrishyman 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it is implied that each member of the band is a Smashing Pumpkin much like we have individual Red Hot Chili Peppers or Beatles. Hasn't anyone ever asked you "Who's your favourite Beatle?"
Unless someone can quote one of the members denying the plurality of "The Smashing Pumpkins" in some way, I don't find the arguments put forward compelling enough to make "The Smashing Pumpkins" more singular than collective. According at least to some folks at the SP WikiProject, the band resented the literal interpretation of "Smashing Pumpkins" being the act of brutalizing fruit with a blunt object, so that would add weight to the claim that "Smashing Pumpkins" implies a collective of people who could say "I am a Smashing Pumpkin."
I fully admit that both ways can technically work, but I feel that this is a clear-cut case in which it is simply more sensible to use "are" rather than "is". - Phorque 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Billy Corgan has used the singular "Pumpkin" when referring to individual bandmembers. I remember reading something recently where Billy said something along the lines of "James will always be a Pumpkin". WesleyDodds 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should be immediately de-listed from "Good"

Why?

Only because it's completely full of pretty, copyrighted, un-free pictures. There's obviously some double standard going on because whenever such images are added to other articles on people or bands of this fame level to create a similarly beautiful, flowing article, they are promptly removed for copy violation and replaced by scuzzy live photos where you can barely see what the image is supposed to be showing. If this is going to be the Wikipedia policy/punishment for everyone else involved in pop music, it has to happen to the Pumpkins as well.

Other than that, pretty good article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.150.161.39 (talk • contribs)

In response, I checked a few of the images and they all had good sourcing info and at least passable explanations of fair use. Are there any images you're particularly concerned with?—DCGeist 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I personally don't care and (as I'm not even a proper Wiki member anyway) I'm not especially a fan of the crackdown on images. Aesthetically I like the images in this article, it's just they are flagrantly in violation of Wikipedia policy if they came from professional photo shoots, as they mostly appear to- it doesn't matter if they are "sourced", because they still violate policy unless whoever uploaded them owns the copyrights, which seems unlikely. Unless the creator and publisher and copyright holder of the image gave you permission to upload them, they can't be here.
Basically I'm frustrated that certain other articles I've put time into on other bands are screwed over with eternally horrible images because editors crack down on the good/professional ones immediately, and that doesn't appear to be the case here, with this article breezing toward featured status on the strength of its unauthorized pictures no one seems to have noticed. 172.150.161.39 09:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But what you're saying is simply incorrect. There's no blanket rule about "professional photo shoots." There is a widely recognized guideline that promotional photographs are generally acceptable under fair use. Your statement that the article's images are, as a whole, "flagrantly in violation of Wikipedia policy" is absolutely false. The fair use rationale on the image pages may need some upgrading, but the bulk of images in the article are almost certainly allowable with proper attribution. If you are truly convinced otherwise, please cite, with a link, the specific Wikipedia policy or guideline page supporting your position.—DCGeist 09:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

MACHINA

Cyrus XIII has gone around to most of the SP articles and changed MACHINA to Machina, as per WP:NC and WP:MUSTARD. I have reverted it on this page and the band template, with the rationale that MACHINA is an album, and therefore a proper noun, which makes MACHINA in all caps the proper naming convention. Before I go reverting the change on other pages, I want concensus. So may I ask if you guys agree on this point? -- Reaper X 16:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This change has nothing to do with Machina being a proper noun or not. It is, but Wikipedia's music and capitalization related guidelines either give the use of title case clear preference over stylized typography or at least discourage writing anything but acronyms in all caps.
See also:
- Cyrus XIII 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cyrus on this one. Girolamo Savonarola 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that there appear to be several guidelines and two editors in favor of the change, I will re-implement it. - Cyrus XIII 21:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume the same for SPIN > Spin magazine?—DCGeist 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe so. The trademarks related bit from the Manual of Style would apply. - Cyrus XIII 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Breakup section

I tried to restructure the "Post-breakup" section like the one over at Pixies. I hope this version flows better. WesleyDodds 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what you did to it is fantastic. It reads much better, and looks far better. I think those images would have held it back from FA in the future, I don't think that much "fair use" would hold up to the FA scrutiny. - Phorque 12:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bands influenced by SP

Let's see if we can find citations for more bands that like and/or are influenced by the Smashing Pumpkins. Phorque has mentioned Mogwai, but he's having trouble finding anything more concrete. I've heard Kill Hannah and Muse are influenced by them, but I haven't seen a direct comment by either band. I've found this, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. WesleyDodds 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the allmusicguide page on the Pumpkins, bands like Placebo, Muse, My Chemical Romance, Silverchair, Kill Hannah, Travis and more are said to be influenced by the Pumpkins link. Would that count as a reliable source? Aljohnston 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really, could just be allmusic making things up. The "more concrete" kinda things we're looking for would be interviews with the bands themselves saying "SP influenced us". - Phorque 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Allmusic is pretty right on when it comes to listing what a band was influenced by, but are pretty spotty when it comes to bands they in turn influenced. An example is that Husker Du heavily influenced Green Day, but the pages don't acknowledge this. I've sent in citations to Allmusic but they haven't changed either page yet. WesleyDodds 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
From looking around into interviews, the only one i can find is in fact Nelly Furtado link. Aljohnston 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? (tour)

So are we going to update the article every time the Pumpkins add a tour date? I know it's big news now, but these individual dates are going to swiftly lose relevance. I'm not sure, do we add a "current events" tag above there? Do we keep the first reunion gigs as being significant and then just say "and later they added more" or what? We're not gonna keep tacking on "and THEN in April 2008, the pumpkins added *gasp* another gig!!1!!".... are we? It's an encyclopedia article, not a blow-by-blow account of their tour dates, right? - Phorque 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we either list all the confirmed tours in one sentence, or say something along the lines of 'The Smashing Pumpkisn will be performing at several European festivals this summer" backed by the citations. WesleyDodds 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The latter is far less ugly, more inclusive, and less likely to require extensive re-editing. Probably also worth adding that more dates are expected to be confirmed in the coming months as well, to be fully inclusive but non-specific? Girolamo Savonarola 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. WesleyDodds 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

We need a fair use rational for the infobox image, at least until we find out who exactly is in the band right now and if we can get a free picture of them. WesleyDodds 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Corgan.jpg this could be the infobox image. It's free, but it only shows Billy (and from his solo tour, at that). WesleyDodds 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers

Since when are album covers not fairuse?

The Number 7

It would be interesting to add a section about the number 7 and its relevance to the Smashing Pumpkins (or maybe it would be more appropriate to for the Billy Corgan article). Including:

  • Age at which Billy began listening to music
  • Length of the hiatus
  • Number of Grammy nominations in 1996
  • Number of VMA nominations in 1996
  • Day, month and year of the release of the band's 7th album
  • Billy quoted as saying his life can be broken down into phases of 7 years.
  • Line from "Settle Down" by Zwan: "7 years, 7 days and 7 hours"
  • Time at which new album's title and release date were posted by Billy (7:07am). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.209.206.1 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
It's trivial, and no one else has made an explicit point about it. WesleyDodds 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And, you gave eight bullet points. What were you thinking, dude?—DCGeist 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
ICK. -- Reaper X 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And it's actually the sixth album. Oh noes. - Phorque 14:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you mean its the sixth "official" album. Gish, Siamese, Mellon Collie, Adore, Machina, Machina II, Zeitgeist. I definately count seven there. It might be a good idea to comment on the significance of seven (probably under Music style and influences), but I think it hardly warrents its own section. Nihirist 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh god, too many people are actually being influenced by The Number 23 or something. -- Reaper X 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
7 = (2x3)+1; (1x3x7)+2 = OH GOOD LORD!!! = 23!!!!!!! You are grim, Reaper.—DCGeist 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Music videos

After having listened to the commentary on the music videso DVD all over again and with the addition of the "Today" screencap, I had an epiphany and decided we should have a section talking about their music videos. I've sandboxed a basic structure here. Tell me what you think and what I should add (it would be especially helpful if you could give me citations) and when we're done I'll edit the article accordingly. WesleyDodds 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this idea.

Today video image

Can someone upload a screenshot from the actual video? Like, do it yourself? That would definitely fit under fair use and be more usuable than the current picture (which is great, but apparently the copyright on it is murky). WesleyDodds 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey wes, I'm giving it a go but I hate taking screenshots, I'm rarely happy with what I decide on. Can you give me an idea of what you think would be good? Today video? Maybe Bullet with Butterfly wings? A shot of the whole band? or just a striking image? Getting this right is hella hard with this greatest hits DVD, lots of captures just come out blurry. - Phorque 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Something with at least two members of the band. In terms of notable videoes, we could use "Today", "1979", or (probaboly best) "Tonight, Tonight". With that last one as long as its an awesome image it doesn't matter, because the video's been praised so much. WesleyDodds 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Right-o, I'll give Tonight Tonight a shot, but I'll upload all the ones I did think came out ok onto photobucket for you to see. Another irritating point I feel I must raise is that the free image I found of the band performing in 1991 is CC'ed with the "non-commercial" condition, which, under the new fair-use reign of terror is not suitable, because GFDL wants things to be re-distributable for commercial purposes. *cries* Let's just wait until someone gets pissed and tries to contest it. - Phorque 08:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Take your pick. Although, I get the feeling that using one of these is going to invite more criticism, even if it is better than the previous image. - Phorque 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the first three came out really good. In terms of usage, the first or second "Tonight, TOnight" images are the best. We can talk about how the video won several awards and was inspired by Georges Méliès' A Trip to the Moon. WesleyDodds 10:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a Machina II song instead?

Hmm, I've been mulling over the samples and wondered if we couldn't include something from Machina II instead of Machina? The tough point is that the album is freely distributed in mp3 format, and decoding a song to WAV and then recompressing to OGG might sound really ass. But if somebody can advise me on this, it would cut down the amount of "fair use" in the article by a bit. - Phorque 09:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea man, that sounds like a great idea. Anything more free = less critisicm. I'm not very savvy on converting sound formats, but if you can do it so it sounds decent go for it. If "recompressing to OGG might sound really ass", maybe go for something like "Slow Dawn", but my suggestion would have to be going for "Satur9" if it is feasable. -- Reaper X 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I remembered I had this audio converter on ym comp, and so I went and coverted a 320kbps CBR MP3 version of "Let Me Give the World to You" straight to OGG format, and uploaded it. You can find it as Image:Smashing Pumpkins - CR-04 - 06 - Let Me Give the World to You.ogg. I chose Let Me Give the World to You" because apparently "Had the album been crystallized as an "official" pressed release, the song was considered as a single". It does not "sound really ass" to me, so lemme know what you think about it, if I have the correct licence for it, etc. -- Reaper X 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that's the thing, I don't want to do anything until I'm sure that it's the kind we can put on wikipedia, and whether it should be a sample or a full song. Actually, it should be a sample, because those tracks are definitely not allowed to be commercially redistributed under the GFDL. That's the issue with most of the fair use images too. As for what song, I was considering "Cash Car Star" or "Glass' Theme", just because those could demonstrate the "return to guitar-heavy sound" that the Everlasting Gaze clip I uploaded was showing. - Phorque 11:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Actually, the more I think about this, the worse it becomes... Machina II tracks might be "more free" but I think the fair-use snag remains. Might as well keep the Machina clip. I get the feeling if FA is the "goal" behind all of this, we going to have to sacrifice a lot of the media content of this article. - Phorque 11:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want it, here it is anyway... -- Reaper X 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You should really mark the file for deletion, with the GFDL commercial re-distribution concerns and all. - Phorque 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Song samples vs FA

Seeing as there have been complaints about "too many" fair use samples and this comment wasn't gaining much attention...

What do you guys think about the Rhinoceros sample? I don't know if it is serving much purpose other than acting as a milestone for their sound at that time. I would suggest we either drop it altogether or replace it with something that has more to be said about it. - Phorque 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Take it out for now. Make sure it's on the "Rhinoceros" page, though. If I think of more to add to its sound sample box description, I'll add it back later. WesleyDodds 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gothic" during Adore period?

The picture in the article associated with Adore is hardly emblematic of a "dark Gothic persona". I will go further to defy anyone to produce a single picture from 1998 in which the band evinces a Goth look. You'll find pictures of Corgan in a straw hat, but you won't find one picture of him in makeup. In my opinion, that line should be flat-out struck -- but I know that it's a common misperception, so I thought it was best to come here and talk about it before doing it. Jjb 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. JuJube 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I'll say that the image on the page associated with Adore does not really show the band's change in style, but they have defintely taken a more gothic look since Adore and beyond. By the way, one doesn't need to wear makeup to look gothic.
    • If we want to argue that they looked Goth-ish during the Machina era, I will be more sympathetic - but that is not what the article says. I mean, I will grant the Ava Adore video, but one video does not an image make (what would be their image from the Mellon Collie era? Mud people? Travelers from the moon? Weird people who stare unnervingly straight into the camera?). What did they look like on tour, in press photos, etc.? (And when we do talk about the Machina era, it should be noted that the band was deliberately putting on an over-the-top look, as faux-TSP band "The Machines of God", to mock their image in the press.) Jjb 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Desperation sets in

Check here in case somebody answers my pitiful cry for help in our battle against copyrighted images. - Phorque 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it's obviously not free, that "Thirty-Three" one is funny. WesleyDodds 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Could we do away with the (fair use) Geek USA and "the band's touring lineup in 2000" images? I feel that will reduce the number of fair use images to an acceptable level with regards to the article's FAC nomination. I'm sure we can find free images to replace these fair use images anyhow. CloudNine 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you "feel" that? As Phorque keeps pointing out, the Wikilawyers who have a problem with the fair use images never state what would be an acceptable level. I, for one, don't think we should be kowtowing simply in hope that our sacrifice will be deemed "acceptable." Also, as you're "sure we can find free images to replace these fair use images anyhow," then simply find them. There's no need to cut the fair use images right now at all. You find the free images and then we can substitute, one-for-one, without ever detracting from the article's presentation quality.—DCGeist 10:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I haven't heard one rationale as to why any of the images would not be needed. The problem is simply that it is "too much" justified fair use. And wikipedia has a very central policy that not many people know about: if the rules stop you from making an article better, ignore them. If this stops this otherwise great article being featured, who cares? Maybe when we find these elusive free images we can nominate it again. Under the new rules, this clearly isn't wikipedia's finest work. Another FA I worked on (Elliott Smith) would probably be delisted if it were FAR'ed right now. - Phorque 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Interesting points raised. It is strange how we can't find any free images of the Smashing Pumpkins; I'll go and trawl Flickr. CloudNine 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a set I posted a link to in the FAC, but I thought I'd leave it to someone more familiar with Wiki media guidelines to deal with. There's three good photos of Corgan from the Mellon Collie tour. WesleyDodds 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I sent that guy a message asking him if we could use his photos via FlickrMail. Awaiting response. I particularly like this imageand this image, I think we could caption it with something like "Corgan's 'Zero' t-shirt was an iconic image of the time" or something like that. ...that's if the author is cool with releasing the photos under the Creative Commons license. - Phorque 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it was as a result of one of you contacting them, but the latter image [3] has a free license. With that license, it can be uploaded to the Commons. I would do it, but as I said, you all may be already aware and it may have already been uploaded. I say upload it to the Commons because the Commons has a bot that verifies images uploaded from Flickr. (edit: Nevermind, I see Phorque's note to him in the comments. Well done.)↔NMajdan•talk 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible idea: were cameras allowed into the final show at the Metro? That's a notable event and if there were fan shots made that could possibly be a great addition to the article. WesleyDodds 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an image I just found we might want to ask about: [4] WesleyDodds 15:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what that image would add to the article, only showing James and Billy. :/ I'm also not sure about the Metro gig, there was certainly a film crew recording the show, so chances are we won't get a fan shot of the band from that show. - Phorque 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Cameras were not allowed at the final show. My disposable was confiscated in the middle of "Act I." I don't think very many people made it out with pictures. Cjosefy 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing we can expect. Even that dude we got the photo from mentioned that he was given special allowance (for something or other) to photograph Billy during the first three songs of the set with no flash. Not exactly promising for finding other photos! ps. I am super jealous that you saw that show - Phorque 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No listing of Catherine?

Catherine was a big influence in Billy's song writting post-gish era accoring to his blogs posted on his myspace page. And if you listen to Catherine's album, Hot Sake and Bed Time Stories, you'll here Siamese Dream sounds coming out on the album. Billy Corgan does give them credit for finding creative sounds through the use of a distortion pedals and sound effects. Who's going to write this one up?--Prequarius 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks more like Catherine were influenced by the Pumpkins according to allmusic. Also, the Hot Saki and Bedtime Stories album was released three years after Siamese Dream. Can you say where exactly he mentioned them on his myspace? - Phorque 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
On top of that, Corgan produced one of their records. WesleyDodds 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As taken from Billy's blog from April 25, 2005

Bring The Fuzz

Before I started living at the rehearsal space, I had stayed for a short time with D’arcy and her future husband Kerry (who is Catherine’s erstwhile drummer and my good friend) in their basement apartment on the north side…because Kerry used to date one of my old girlfriends, we share a sort of “hey, we went out with the same girl but it’s no big deal” bond…on top of that, the fact that he and D’arcy have fallen so completely in love brings us even closer together as he is often around bumming with her…I was homeless for a time, having recently broken up with my longtime girlfriend (whom I had lived with on and off and leaving behind my last apartment), and was so totally devastated that I couldn’t function for a time because of crying jags and panic attacks…taking pity on me, they graciously invited me to stay at their home so I wouldn’t have to be alone…I slept on their living room floor on a too small blow-up mattress, because they only had one bedroom in the place…crashing on the floor didn’t bother me much, because it was easier than being by myself…that is until they buy a ferret, which D’arcy promptly dyes pink for some reason known only to her…at first, the ferret is good fun…”look at the ferret! look at him eat that box! ha ha”…as his confidence grows, the ferret quickly becomes more like a terrorist than a furry little buddy…he destroys nearly everything in his path, chewing and shredding…he goes in their room, climbs under their covers and proceeds to bite Kerry on his penis while he is sleeping…paper money is hacked up, coins and shiny objects vaporize, nothing is sacred to this monster…plus he totally stinks like shit…the ferret and I develop a love/hate relationship (he loves me, I hate him)…adding to my psychic overload is the fact that Kerry and D’arcy’s romantic interludes (with not so gentle abandon) occur almost every night, with both of them doing very little to mask the fact that this is what they are up to in the next room (the walls were pretty thin)…I of course can’t, in good conscience complain, because it is not my place to…I really appreciated them letting me stay, but when you feel truly lonely and brokenhearted, and happen to be sleeping on a cold tile floor, anything that reminds you of the happiness that takes place between 2 people in love is painful and bitter…this is initially why I decided it would be better to live tucked away in the rehearsal space, because I figure it will be quiet and isolating and allow me the corner to grieve alone…not to mention, if I didn’t leave soon, I was going to strangle the stupid ferret…

Having received what was at that time the largest publishing deal of any of the early 90’s alternative bands (after our first record), I fell rapidly from pride at my early accomplishments to shame that I didn’t deserve them…so confident in my talent was my music publisher that he essentially gave me the equivalent of a gold record (which is 500,000 units) times 4 records, or to put it in plain English, S1,000,000.00 or $250,000 per record (money is credited to the songwriter per disc sold times a certain number of songs)…going from earning $12,000 dollars a year working at a used record store to having one million bucks in the bank freaked me out…it made me paranoid because now I had something to lose, where before I had had nothing…I had the pressure of earning it all back, and all the delusions of mounting expectations around me…the urgent sense, however unreal, that I would have to make the record of my life or that I was going to end up on the junk pile of humanity made me fearful to spend even one penny…I felt compelled that I would have to prove to myself that I had earned this money, as opposed to someone placing their faith in me…plus, getting this kind of money from an outside source created tension within the group towards me, which was fairly uncomfortable…in my logic, if the band blew up (which always seemed possible), I wouldn’t have to go back to working a normal job ever again…so I retreated into my safe world of work, work, work, where it wasn’t about meeting expectations but destroying them…

Nursing my wounds and losing my breath, I flip into overdrive, pushing myself and the band harder and harder to play at a higher level…I talk constantly about how we are going to make this insanely complicated record, one that is going to distinguish and separate us from all the (suddenly) heavy bands…we will top them with songwriting, arranging, heart and discipline…we are galvanized, transformed into something idealistic and unreal, and there is no one around to tell us, or more specifically me, that we couldn’t make it happen…tunes wind out into space, becoming longer and more obtuse…we are going farther and farther out, and there is no going back…

As I am good friends with our space mates (the local band) Catherine, I often stick around for their rehearsals to check out what they are working on and offer unsolicited advice…I notice that in this tight room, they sound very like some kind of jet taking off when they play…the feeling is very exciting, and being the sound whore that I am, I not so slyly interrogate them about how they create this dizzying effect…they all point sheepishly to these little silver boxes on the ground, and tell me that’s about it…their vintage pedal, invented by The Electro Harmonix Company, is a simple old school distortion/fuzz device called ‘The Big Muff Pi’…manufactured back in the 60’s and 70’s, it comes in a brushed metal frame, with cheap black knobs (the later models are more easily recognized by the big red Pi symbol stamped on the faceplate)…they sell used for about $75-100, and there are only three critical settings: volume, tone, and sustain (the volume sends the amount of signal to the amp, the tone the amount of bass vs. treble, and the sustain basically means how much fuzz overload you are going to get)…I notice that when the boys play the space hums with an electrical energy that shoots thru my bones and rattles my teeth…it’s as if this room is made for this sound…they tell me that the reason they like using the pedal is the deep booming sludge it makes, as the sound within collapses from the intensified pressure, creating a bigger presence when they rock hard (and also managing to hide a few inconsistencies in their playing)…the affect is immediate, as they suddenly appear to me to be a much more dangerous combo than I last remember…somehow the alchemy of the concrete walls, the cool air, and this dumb little pedal make the band sound like God himself is coming down from the heavens…which of course means I have to go get one for myself…

It is almost impossible to describe the intensity of the practice space when the Pumpkins are playing at full tilt with The Big Muffs cranked…the basic dimensions of the room are around 25ft x 15ft, with the basic band circle smack in the middle of the shoebox…when you have possibly the loudest drummer in the world playing with passion and power (not to mention about 10 crash cymbals slicing the air) vs. 2 100watt Marshall half-stacks and one 400watt SVT bass amp, you’ve got your basic dull roar fully in hand…add this to that the fact that we are playing in a stone bunker with little or no soundproofing and you’ve got yourself a decent headache blast…but what really puts these tunes over the top, what makes the whole thing ring, and what discreetly pours our liquid brew from sonic anecdote into our own rock and roll riot, is switching to this almost forgotten device…

Occasionally, we take (in various combos, sometimes 2, sometimes all 4 of us) LSD and try to practice…this seems like a good idea for about the first hour, until either the strychnine or the acid itself creep into your brain and melt all your senses and prog-metal suddenly seems way too hard…this drugging loosens the uptight barriers between us, and seem to clear the air without anyone saying anything…somebody starts laughing, and we are kids again, forgetting all this nonsense about topping the charts and changing the world…

We are obsessed with technical precision, for it is obvious to us that the tighter we play the heavier we sound…adding the Big Muff pedal into our charge makes us appear wider and meaner than we truly are, but all this beefed up bludgeoning comes at a hidden cost…because the sound is so grossly overblown (the amps sound like they are going to explode at any second), the band sadly doesn’t sound tight at all…at first, we figure the sound of the fuzz is going to take some time for us to get used to, and because we are having so much fun playing along with them anyway that it doesn’t seem like a big deal…but after only a few days, it becomes obvious that certain aspects of what we do, little things that we take for granted (namely our focused attack), disappear in a haze once we light ‘em up…we discuss ditching the pedals for good, naively talking ourselves into thinking that we can just go back to our normal sound and compensate in some other way...we only last a couple of minutes using our old equipment before we fall to a halt, puzzled because we now sound to our confused ears boring!…we are at a crossroads, as we have made a deal with the devil (of demon fuzz) and can’t seem to go back…it is a Faustian deal for this most exciting sound that makes us deliver invincibility, but by taking away our detailed intensity, also degenerates us to a common pub band…after some discussion, we unanimously decide the fuzz pedals will have stay, and we will just discover a way, as yet unseen, to make them work…we will just have to practice all the harder…

--Prequarius 12:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That basically boils down to "Catherine showed me what a Big Muff pedal is". If anything, that's mroe applicable to Corgan's page than the Pumpkins one. WesleyDodds 13:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but D'arcy was on atleast one song on that CD, so shouldn't it atleast be under associated acts? Now that I think of it, did James Iha play in the Cure cover "Lets Go To Bed" by Ivy or was he just in the video for the fun of it?--Prequarius 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like one song is significant enough to be under associated acts. Besides, if we did that, some band infoboxes would be filled to the brim (if there is one) with associated acts. -- Reaper X 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, since Billy Corgan has been associated with many other groups like Depeche Mode, Ric Ocasek, and many others. Though, if this were true... what of Last Hard Men? This would be under Jimmy Chamberlins page, not under The Smashing Pumpkins page. Please forgive me, I'm in no means to make this a heated debate. I'm just giving valid examples. I don't want this discussion to turn into a netphoria flame thread.--Prequarius 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

...and billy corgan was in turn associated with Emilie Autumn and so it would spiral off into the six degrees of separation and everyone from your neighbour's garage band to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan would be in the infobox! Thankfully we can navigate this exciting endless chain through the magic of MediaWiki =P Although I do think that you're right about the Last Hard Men. Let's keep it to "acts that involved 2 or more member of the Pumpkins" - Phorque 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Chamberlin Complex, A Perfect Circle, Starchildren, Zwan. That seems reasonable to me. -- Reaper X 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

as of recently, the band's website is sporting a new logo, and a slightly altered version of the flag. should the logo be used in the infobox? does it deserve any mention? --Flvg94 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's not like Led Zeppelin where the band name is consistently written in an instantly-identifiable font. The SP heart symbol is more of a logo. WesleyDodds 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Wesley, the heart logo is more recognizable (at least to me)... and it would also just be another fair-use image in an article that is getting slammed for too much fair use. :/
Just another point, I did think of including a logo for this article to emulate Megadeth or Deftones (which I just added the logo to). I think those nifty transparent pngs look great in the infoboxes. The problem with SP is that while the heart logo is the "most recognizable" it also doesn't spell out their name like the other two examples, not to mention that the Pumpkins have had a myriad of other logos across albums to confuse the issue even further. Too bad for this article I suppose! - Phorque 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Another idea has struck me! What would you guys think of using one of the fonts at Netphoria? I can make a transparent PNG quite easily with any of these. I think it would make sense to use one of the typefaces from the height of their popularity (Siamese Dream or Mellon Collie) and use that as a logo. I know that I said it's just another fair use image, but what do you think? - Phorque 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The plot thickens! We can't really claim the band name in those fonts as a logo (as far as i know) because they are free fonts. I'm not sure how this works, but the two fonts I suggested ("Lansbury" and "Burton's Nightmare" respectively) were notably also used for Murder She Wrote as well as The Nightmare Before Christmas. I suppose this would mean that we could put a "logo" up which wouldn't be fair use... it would just be the band's name in a free typeface that they are well known to have used. I suppose we'd just need to find a reference for the image description page to certify that it is a free font the band are known to have used. I'll shut up now, somebody tell me what you think. - Phorque 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The NME also used the MCIS font for their compilation of Goth articles from two years ago. Which i'm sure would tickle Corgan. WesleyDodds 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Band template

Please guys, never forget the {{Smashing Pumpkins}} template. If you have the article on your watchlist, please make sure you have the template on there as well if you dont already. I want to point out there are a couple open topics on the talk page, and more are welcome on things like format. -- Reaper X 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Search brackets

Why do the search brackets for "The Cure" in musical style and influences keep being removed. Fill me in please.

Because they constitute a redundant Wikilink. Did you notice that New Order is also not Wikilinked in that same sentence? It's because both bands are Wikilinked in the Early years: 1988-1991 section.—DCGeist 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) states: "note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate ... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." In the case of The Cure and New Order, both links originally occur at the very beginning of the article, while the names reappear at the end of the article. I think this is more than enough space to justify a re-link. If someone jumped straight to the influences section of the article, they would be faced with a few seemingly inexplicable non-links among a group of linked bands. I understand not wanting to over-link, but I think this is under-linking to the point of making the article less user friendly. Cjosefy 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding Queen to the list too based on my previous rationale. It is sufficiently important to link them under the influences section and not force readers to dig through the reunion section to find a comment about a producer who worked on their albums. Cjosefy 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm amenable to it either way. Just be aware that some reviewers may argue against the repeated links not on the grounds of distance (clearly sufficient, as you describe) but on the grounds of importance, or lack thereof. But it's a small point, and hopefully reviewers will respect your argument on behalf of user-friendliness.—DCGeist 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, again the search brackets have been removed. I put them back in. Come on people is two links really too many?

To do list

In my opinion there's no need to mention bands the Pumpkins influenced. The section will always be a source of dispute, and, as a Pumpkins fan, I don't think it'd be a very interesting read, seeing as how, at most, they influenced, like, 3 bands. -- -ThrowingStick/Talk 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bands that an artist has influenced are necessary to include per our notability guidelines. It helps illustrates a band's legacy. Obviously we wouldn't list ever single band (image doing that for The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or the Ramones), just the notable ones. WesleyDodds 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's also been mentioned several times on FAC, right? Girolamo Savonarola 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I really dont see what the point of that is.. i mean WHO CARES!!!! that would be like listing bands that Faith No More influenced.. it doesnt matter. who sais its needed? needed for what? for bands to praise themselves for being "influenced by" another band? thats ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HDS (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Like I said, listing the bands they influenced helps convey their legacy, their importance, and thus, their notability. WesleyDodds 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Listing garbage bands like My Chemical Romance not once but TWICE does NOT help convey their legacy in the least bit. Can we please get rid of those sections or what because honestly it's ridiculous. MCR is a terrible band that isn't even in the same league as SP.

I don't like My Chemical Romance either, but I think you're missing the point. They admit they've been influenced by the Pumpkins, and that is as relevant as how many records they've sold. WesleyDodds 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Like Wesley has said, whether you like the bands or not, the fact that anyone models themselves after the Pumpkins is testament to their importance in the history of alternative music. It's neither here nor there as to whether the people that do mention the pumpkins are "cool" or not. And like I mentioned on the SP WikiProject page, we're not here to worship this band, we're writing a good, objective account of their career and influence. - Phorque 11:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we've established that mentioning the influenced bands is necessary. Now, there's the matter of including them. As per the to do list and main article, there are only three thus far: My Chemical Romance, which I think should be included more subtly than it currently is, Mogwai, and "The Superjesus", God knows who the hell they are. So why not just include them, cross the task off the to-do list and be done with? --ThrowingStick/Talk 11:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We're just looking for good sources/references on those. - Phorque 14:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ask whoever suggested them. You already have one for MCR, don't you? User:Mutley suggested The Superjesus, and YOU, Phorque, mentioned Mogwai. --ThrowingStick/Talk 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That's true but I also mentioned in two places that my only source was allmusic and one critic's opinion, and I'd rather have something from the members themselves rather than somebody else's opinion as a reference. I even dropped a message asking if there was any truth to it at the contact section of Mogwai's website, but I don't really expect a response. Someone did, however, find that Nelly Furtado cited them as an influence. I just can't think of a way to put that in the paragraph without it looking awkward. It's not a critical section, just one worth having once we have the references. Don't stress. ;) - Phorque 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Iha not joining reunion

According to MTV.com[5], James Iha is not participating in the reunion, and the odds for D'arcy showing up are unlikely. Is there additional verification available on this before we add it to the article? WesleyDodds 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of what I've read has been like this, with vague wording like their manager "seemed to indicate" that Iha and D'arcy won't be joining them. It seems to be a given that they aren't a part of it. But maybe that's what we're supposed to think(?).--piper108 02:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Trust no one. - Phorque 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on- this conspiracy theory is going nowhere. D'arcy and Iha have both made it pretty clear that neither one is exactly longing for the good ol' days. I'd say it's pretty safe to go with what pretty much every press outlet is saying, that this is a Corgan/Chamberlain reunion.--Atomicskier 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Albums vs Compilations

In the "Selected discography" section, I would like to argue that Machina II does not belong on the list. It is a compilation. Just as Pisces Iscariot took songs from the Gish and Siamese Dream outtakes, Machina II is just a collection of Adore and Machina outtakes and b-sides. Billy Corgan himself has called Zeitgeist their 6th album.

As I understand it, Machina II consists of (a) three EPs containing B-sides, outtakes, and alternate versions. If that's all it was, it would certainly be proper to list it with the compilations. But Machina II also includes (b) a full-length LP of original songs. Right? That qualifies it as an original album.—DCGeist 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FA

I want to say congratu-fucking-lations on making this featured guys. You worked hard on it, and now you have this to show for it. Good job.
One of the issues that came to light though is the images, as you know. So keep your eyes peeled for free shit, that way we can avoid the hassle if an FA review ever comes around.
Once again, good job. I applaud you all. -- Reaper X 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My congratulations as well. I've only fixed the odd spelling mistake here and there. Congratulations to those who spent all the time and effort getting the article to it's current standard. Looks great. - Shudda talk 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

omgz guiz it's feechured

wel dun guyz i rly thnk we writ a gd artikle here & teh pix r teh r0xx0r 2.

But seriously now... ;)

Huzzah! We have fought off the beast of copyright paranoia and gotten this fine piece of collaborative writing featured. Give all of yourselves a pat on the back, you know who you are. =) - Phorque 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This has so far made my day, as yesterday I found out my SP book proposal got rejected. I want to say "In your face!" to someone but I have no idea whom, and it probably wouldn't be too polite anyway.
Anyway, thanks for all the help working on the article, everyone. When I first started working on it, it was already a Good Article but had no inline citations. Without a doubt it has been vastly improved by our collaborative efforts. WesleyDodds 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job folksmaxcap 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work fellas! I nominated this article to be the "Today's Featured Article" for July 7, 2007 (the release date of Zeitgeist). See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#The Smashing Pumpkins (July 7) for more information or to leave comments. Teemu08 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

smashingpumpkins.com spike

So I was tinkering around on Alexa Internet, and I decided to look up smashingpumpkins.com. I put the scope over a year, and noticed about the time the site was updated to say "It's official" on April 20th, there was a huge spike. This wouldn't be notable enough to mention would it? -- Reaper X 03:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. After all, the site was inactive for a while and only recently was active again. WesleyDodds 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this kind of thing is more relevant to internet phenomena. - Phorque 16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, didn't think so. Sure sounded trivial. Just thought I'd ask. -- Reaper X 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mellon Collie....

The following statement is no longer true/outdated because "Speaker Box/The Love Below" by Outkast was certified diamond, and has gone 11-times platinum in 2006.


"Even more successful than Siamese Dream, it was certified nine times platinum in the United States[28] and became the best-selling double album of the decade to date.[29]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.174.21.57 (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

(~~anonymous...~~)

Best-selling of the decade, meaning the 1990s. Speakerboxxx/The Love Below came out in 2003. WesleyDodds 07:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
does this anonymous man even have a source for speakerboxx? --ThrowingStick/Talk 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --ThrowingStick/Talk 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if it's the bestselling non-compilation double album of the 90s, and until speakerboxx came out it was the bestselling of all time, doesn't it make it the best-selling of the 20th century? --ThrowingStick/Talk 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. Mellon Collie was merely the best-selling double-set released in the 1990s (9 million US sales). The best-selling double album of all time is Pink Floyd's The Wall (about 22 million US sales). WesleyDodds 11:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Aw jeez. I've been convinced that MC was bestselling of all time. Does wiki have a list of double albums listed by sales figures? What place would MC have then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThrowingStick (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

If I'm not mistaken, The Notorious B.I.G.'s Life After Death (released in 1997) may have superceded Mellon Collie as well. Pumpkingrrl 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

bullshit

Four months before the release of their seventh album, “Zeitgeist”, the Smashing Pumpkins have broken up for the second time. Citing “irreconcilable differences”, the band will not release their latest record and have cancelled their world tour. Sources close to the band say that tension was felt in the studio almost immediately. Not having all members of the world-famous rock group back for a reunion put strain on the remaining two members, forcing them into over-extending their musical abilities and thereby burning out the musicians in a matter of months. Adding to the disagreements was Billy Corgan’s decision to keep his head bald, a decision that was met with harsh criticism from fellow band mates and producers. Sources state that a guitar technician gave the ultimatum, “The hair comes back, or I don’t come back.” Needless to say, Corgan has stayed bald and broken up one of the greatest Chicago bands. Gee, thanks. The split was announced this Monday during a press conference, during which several journalists for “Rolling Stone” and other pop culture magazines were witnessed to have jumped out the 19th story window, landing somewhere on 79th street. In addition to disbanding, the non-group has asked that all recordings of their music be destroyed and that all fans “move on.”

REVERTED --ThrowingStick/Talk 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the guy provided this source. I reverted it because it doesn't seem like a reliable source? Can others look this over and confirm? -- Reaper X 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's from an April Fools issue: Check out [6] under the link "aprilfools: The Smashing Pumpkins Reuniite, then break up…again " Cjosefy 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap, and I thought we were in the clear from the fallout of April 1. -- Reaper X 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
the minute i saw it i knew it was a prank. pretty obvious, considering lines such as "the non-group has asked that all recordings of their music be destroyed and that all fans “move on.”" --ThrowingStick/Talk 19:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is an archived discussion page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Smashing_Pumpkins/Archive_2&oldid=1136228233"