Jump to content

Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins/Archive 4

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

Help Tool (band) pass at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tool (band)

Hi there! I come here to ask you a favor.. I've been following this article for a bit and used it as something of a reference to get Tool (band) to the point where it can pass Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tool (band). The FAC has come to the point where copy-editing is desperately needed to gain FA status. Either grammar checking, trimming down on unimportant bits of information or polishing the prose would be greatly appreciated. I'd return the favor if I can.. Thanks and best wishes, Johnnyw talk 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Name?

If someone knows how the group got its name, would you please add that to the article? - Brian Kendig 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I've heard multiple stories, Billy used to say that he was in a band called the smashing pumpkins before even starting the band because he liked the way it sounded. Also, from an interview from Billy when questioned what it meant he said that it was gods joke. It was originally intended to mean Smashing as in "great"

Hopefully someone with some more specifics can elaborate

~ST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.14.55 (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be remotely plausible if Doom were created before 1988. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably

The Best Featured article I've seen. Definitley should be promoted to "Good Status". 68.166.253.142 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC) BurnMuffin 142

Thanks, but Featured status ranks above Good Status on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

Ha ha, keep vigilant fighting vandals guys. Gotta love the ridiculous amount of vandalism you guys get for being on the main page eh? Ha, good luck. I'd help out, but I gotta sleep. Cheers. -- Reaper X 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While this may seem insignificant, there is definitely an error at the start of your wiki article. "The Smashing Pumpkins are" is grammatically incorrect. You are assigning a predicate nominative to a singular group, not an actual plural group of pumpkins. All other groups are discussed in singular terms such as "Zero 7" and "Radiohead". The "s" in Smashing Pumpkins does not change the actual singular subject of the group to a plural subject. The group itself is not plural and as such should read "The Smashing Pumpkins is". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblovesjane (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the United Kingdom, bands are referred to in the plural rather than the singular, such as "Radiohead are." Therefore both ways would be acceptable and there is no use in arguing over something so trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reservoirdog7 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid Boblovesjane's claim is both (a) incorrect (there is certainly no "error") and (b) unidiomatic (the current usage is much better represented in good writing than the usage he prefers).
On the question of "error," here is the guidance from one of the most respected works in the relevant field, perhaps the most respected, Wilson Follett's Modern American Usage:
What is the number of an organization with a plural noun as the nucleus of its name? Shall we say The Daughters of the American Revolution is or are? Forms of reference that are extremely common, whether consistent or not, are (a) The Daughters of the American Revolution are and (b) The D.A.R. is. Theoretically, such a name can be felt as either the plural that it is in form or the singular that it is as the name of an organization.... Perhaps the most we can require is that an author be consistent with himself and stick to the singular or plural with which he begins.
On that last point—of consistency—it always amuses me when someone shows up here in emphatic mode, arguing that the first sentence absolutely must be changed to "The Smashing Pumpkins is..." Never, not on a single occasion, have any of these aggrieved cared to observe that consistency would then demand that the first sentence of the second paragraph be changed from "...the Pumpkins have a diverse, densely layered, and guitar-heavy sound..." to "...the Pumpkins has a diverse..."; that the third sentence of the third paragraph be changed from "The Smashing Pumpkins were one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands of the 1990s..." to "The Smashing Pumpkins was one of the most commercially successful..."; and so forth.
On the question of which style is more idiomatic in this case, Follett's guidance has already indicated that the current plural is. More evidence? 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 Blj would insist on).
Please see American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns for more.—DCGeist 07:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus when talking about Smashing Pumpkins, you are refering to the group of people in that band. Bands are plural, unless it's a one person band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notether (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the above? JuJube (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
nope :( Notether (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

Every FA needs a criticism section. AFAIK the criticism I've heard has been skepticism over the "authenticity" of the band, "they were crafted and manufactured as a mainstream band", that sort of thing. Whether my vague impression of this criticism is true or not, someone who's knowledgeable, please create the section. Tempshill 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if such a section is necessary; no previous featured band/musician articles have such a section that I know of. And criticism of the band is specifically addressed in the penultimate paragraph of the "Mainstream success: 1992–1994" section, as well as in other sections. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A "criticism" section is neither a requirement nor even a best practice. Consider: Can you think of any published encyclopedias--either general or topical--that routinely include "criticism" sections in their major articles?—DCGeist 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a best practice for many articles. It's crucial to point out the other side of any disputed issue, to enlighten the reader. But Brandt Luke Zork is right, there's appropriate criticism that is album-specific, and on reflection I think that for bands, criticism ought to be in sections about specific albums or maybe eras of the band; an all encompassing Criticism section would be overly general by its nature itself. Tempshill 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No, criticism is needed in properly balanced articles, but not criticism sections, which are huge POV magnets. Criticism of the band is worked in throughout the article as it is. WesleyDodds 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Every FA? We need a section about criticism of DNA? Strad 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What?

Nothing about Sharon Osbourne's period as manager of Smashing Pumpkins and how she fell out with Billy Corgan, memorably describing him in an interview in Q (magazine) a few years ago as a 'six foot baldy twat in a dress'? This article isn't a hagiography, by any chance? 86.134.10.119 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add the content, by all means, with citable sources. Nice flavorful quote to add if it's true. Tempshill 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's true alright. I hooted like a drain when I read it. Only problem is, I throw out my old copies of Q after about a year, so I have no idea which issue it was in. The quote is easily found on Google searches, but none that I've seen so far tie it to the original Q interview. The Q website doesn't seem to have an archive section. Shame. Maybe someone out there has an old stash of Qs and can come up with the goods. 86.134.10.119 07:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the quote is in Q number 162, from 2000: I found this but I guess blogs and messageboards aren't citable. It does seem to quote from the article though. There are other indirect references to the quote (ie not mentioning Q magazine) in reputable UK papers [http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2007/09/sharons_exit_factor.html a blog in the Guardian by one of its writers here, and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/05/17/boove12.xml the Daily Telegraph here. 86.134.10.119 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Further poking about suggests number 162 is the March 2000 edition of Q. No idea where to find a copy, though. It does look like the netphoria messageboard is quoting the article verbatim:

A baldy twat in a dress

Billy Corgan? A lanky goon with a grotesquely swollen ego? Oh yes, claims newly-resigned manager Sharon Osbourne.

On Tuesday January 11, Sharon Osbourne (wife of metal star Ozzy) resigned as Smashing Pumpkins' manager after only four months in the job.

"Billy Corgan's got an ego bigger than my arse," says Osbourne, who is "disgusted" by the singer's behaviour during a recent encounter with Q (see page 40 for the full Corgan performance).

"Billy behaved in a rude and aggressive way," she explains. "He thought that by trying to humiliate your writer he would earn respect. I bet him $1,000 that it wouldn't lead to a wonderful, arse-licking story." lt didn't.

Osbourne, who claims that if Corgan "says anything bad about me, my old man will chin him", announced her defection through a humorously worded press statement. “I must resign today due to medical reasons: Billy Corgan was making me sick" she wrote.

However, she points out to Q that, "the sad thing is, he's a nice person underneath all the bullshit. Unfortunately he's surrounded himself with arse-lickers and it's a long time since anyone pointed out a few home truths. I feel sorry for the other band members because he doesn't treat people well. He's also extremely competitive and that's a bit sad. I thought their last album, Adore, was a great record but as soon as it wasn't a massive commercial success, he blamed the record company, sacked his previous management and ignored the fact that it wasn't a particularly commercial record."

Osbourne says she decided to resign after a trip to Scandinavia, where Corgan insisted the media sign contracts giving him control and copyright over their work. "The journalists were unionised; it was illegal for them to agree to a deal like that," reveals Osbourne. "Billy's reaction was, "Fuck them, the unions mean nothing to me. I'm Billy Corgan." He won't accept anyone else's opinion. He's got no problems in his life except that he's a six foot baldy twat in a dress." Smashing Pumpkins' spokesperson declined to comment.

but obviously we need to see the real thing to verify. 86.134.10.119 07:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I found the sources a long time ago, but in the greater scheme of things it seemed relatively unimportant, so I left it out. WesleyDodds 08:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned it in the first place was the line in the intro section of the article: However, internal fighting, drug use, and diminishing sales hampered the band and led to a 2000 break-up. which then isn't referenced at all in the detailed section Adore, Machina, and breakup: 1998–2000. It merely states that Corgan announced the band's breakup in May. Given that Osbourne managed them for just four months and quit in February 2000 and that her comments at the time show that clearly all was not well in the band and more particularly with Billy Corgan - that's why I mentioned 'hagiography'. The article reads like a PR/whitewash in places. I would say that in the scheme of things this is pretty important. Why did Wretzky leave in Sept 1999? Why did Sharon quit as manager? Why did the band split up in May 2000? These things aren't addressed at all. 86.134.10.119 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hagiography"? That's a bit much. It's not like this article makes the band out to be angels. Conflicting accounts have been given for why D'arcy left (she either "left to start an acting career" or "quit because she was fucked up"). The band split up because . . . Billy said they should. Really, thats all that's given aside from the back and forth detailed in the "post-breakup section". And like I said, Sharon Osbourne's tenure as manager is unimportant in the greater scheme of things. They had other managers as well, after all, and none of them warrant a mention. WesleyDodds 08:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"She's a bitch" answers all three questions (in particular, D'arcy didn't like that Chamberlin was let back in the band), but unfortunately that's OR. JuJube 08:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sharon also said she needed to leave as their manager because of "health problems" and those problems were that Billy was making her sick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.14.55 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discography

Wasn't Siamese Dream the Smashing Pumpkins' third album, not second? I thought tat Pisces Iscariot was their second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.144.130 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, and you'll see where Pisces Iscariot fits in.—DCGeist 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

Are they really the 'Smashmouth Pumpkin Eaters'?

71.126.100.249 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that was vandalism. IPchangesthe box 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought their name was just Smashing Pumpkins. did they have to add "The" so d'arcey and james wouldn't sue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.64.155 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

They added the article to make it clear "Smashing" was an adjective and not a verb. And they made the change during Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness so getting sued was not an issue. JuJube (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS punctuation

Our MOS might be a guideline but our FA criteria specifically note that it should be adhered to. American English punctuation is not correct over and above our own style guide and the continued reversions are inappropriate. There is simply no reason to revert to the punctuation our own MOS says we should not use. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, they are over two dozen primary topic sections in our Manual of Style. The FA criteria identify three elements of the MOS as crucial; Wikipedia's peculiar house punctuation style ain't one of them. I support the retention of American punctuation in this article on an American subject written in American English.—DCGeist 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to MOS changing go and argue it there, and if you want the FA criteria changing then discuss it elsewhere. You simply haven't got a decent enough reason to ignore it. The FA criteria states "It follows the style guidelines", it goes on to give specific examples but the articles should still meet all the MOS unless there is a good reason not to. violet/riga (t) 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what edits are specifically in contention here? Girolamo Savonarola 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In American English the punctuation is placed inside quotation marks, while our MOS states that we shouldn't use that form even in articles that use American English spellings. That is "this", is preferred to "this," in all articles. violet/riga (t) 15:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Violetriga, featured articles must adhere to the MOS. If you have a problem with the punctuation standards of the manual, I suggest you try and build a consensus to change the manual (perhaps to have WP:ENGVAR apply to punctuation as well) rather than trying to make this article an exception. WjBscribe 15:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Point: Those who support this article's existing punctuation style are not trying to "make" it an exception--it has had this punctuation style for a long, long time, and passed through FAR with it earlier this year.
  • Point: Those who support this article's existing punctuation style are not advocating for a peculiar exception to standard practice. In fact, many, many FAs follow American punctuation. For instance, simply looking at the first five FAs in the Wikipedia listing that treat American topics and have quotations, a majority use American English punctuation: 7 World Trade Center, Michigan State Capitol, and Point Park Civic Center (Campbell's Soup Cans and Sylvanus Morley use MOS style). I believe this essentially random sample is representative of practice across the board.
  • As a practical matter then, it seems clear that the community does not find adherence to the MOS quotation punctuation guideline an important matter for FAs. As you have seen, those editors who focus on maintaining the quality of this particular FA agree with that general sentiment. Given these facts, I suggest that your energies would be more productively turned elsewhere...perhaps by leading a revision of the MOS that would embrace different quotation punctuation styles, so long as they are applied consistently within given articles.—DCGeist 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I still see no reason to revert the change to directly violate the MOS. Why should this article use the unfavoured style? violet/riga (t) 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I suppose Violetiga and I could nominate this article for featured status review so we can find out if the community really does accept the variant punctuation, or merely overlooked it. But that seems rather a waste of time when you could simply accept the changes that were made in accordance with Wikipedia's own style guide... WjBscribe 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Violet and WJB here. FAC/FAR are not infallible - mistakes, once recognized, should be corrected, especially when implementation is so easy. No one's asking for new sources or extra sections of material. Girolamo Savonarola 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC) I had not bothered to read the policy in depth at ENGVAR, but Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar [emphasis mine] are avoided by using four simple guidelines seems pretty clear cut. Girolamo Savonarola 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
By grammar it refers to wording (ie. British "write to me" vs. American "write me") and not punctuation. WP:PUNC (which resides on the same page as ENGVAR) details the form we use. violet/riga (t) 20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Grammar: Grammar is the study of rules governing the use of language. Girolamo Savonarola 20:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I know the definition. Yes it's ambiguous on that page, so I will attempt a fix there. violet/riga (t) 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this on (I hate lame edit wars - no reflection on the contributors, but merely the content...), but grammar encompasses orthography, which encompasses punctuation. Do what you will, but if we're gonna split hairs... Girolamo Savonarola 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that the MOS says "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without some reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." No one in FAC had a problem with the formatting, and SandyGeorgia, who knows an awful lot of about MOS and did quite a bit of formatting, had no problem with it. I agree with DCGeist; we don't need to strictly adhere to the MOS. WesleyDodds 19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Addressing the issue from a different, though similar, angle: As a practical matter, on relatively minor points like this, I believe the consensus of those editors actively engaged in maintaining the quality of the specific article takes precedence over the general guideline, in part because consistency of style takes precedence over choice of style. Wesley Dodds and I deal with the article on a regular basis, assuring that all additions and emendations are integrated in a manner that maintains the substantive quality and stylistic consistency of the article. Our ability to maintain the article at a high-quality level is facilitated by retaining the long-standing style, which as I have demonstrated, has passed FAR (infallible or not, that's our primary relevant vetting process) and is common practice among FAs. Imposing what would be, for this article, a new style would make maintenance of quality and consistency more difficult for us while benefitting the encyclopedia's mission infinitesimally, if at all.—DCGeist 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In reply to WesleyDodds: Sorry but you are quoting an irrelevant part of the MOS - that deals with spelling and not punctuation, where the MOS clearly states which form it should take.
In reply to DCGeist: WP:OWN details why you are incorrect in your assumption here. You state that "consistency of style takes precedence..." well I very much agree, and what you have done here (ie. gone against the accepted style) destroys said consistency. violet/riga (t) 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
See my above revision of my comment. Girolamo Savonarola 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"I believe the consensus of those editors actively engaged in maintaining the quality of the specific article takes precedence over the general guideline" - sounds to me like a complete contradiction of WP:OWN. I'm sure there are regular editors of some articles who would like to not have to comply with WP:OR or WP:NPOV - their wish does not trump community-agreed guidelines. WP:ENGVAR applies to spelling variations, whereas the MOS has adopted a particular style for quotations not because it is US or British, but because it is the prefered style. While that remains the case, articles (and especially FAs) should adhere to that. WjBscribe 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what WP:OWN has to do with the issue. Anyone is free to edit the article; it is in Wikipedia's best interests that its highest-quality articles be maintained at high-quality; this requires, as a practical matter, individual Wikipedians specifically dedicating themselves to such maintenance. Some guideline-driven edits facilitate such maintenance, others obstruct--again, as a practical matter. This case is one of the latter, and the positive ideological side effect (adherence to MOS quotation punctuation guideline) is so minor as to be clearly outweighed on a practical basis.
On your second point, Violetriga, I'm afraid you've indulged in hyperbole. As I have amply demonstrated, maintaining the long-standing style of this article does not "destroy" any supposed "consistency." There simply is no consistency of punctuation style across Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia Featured Articles, just as there is no consistency of spelling style across Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia Featured Articles. What is paramount is maintaining consistency within articles. You will facilitate that if you do not disrupt the stable, well-established style of this article.—DCGeist 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As Wikipedia develops, more and more articles adhere to WP:PUNC. By forcing your own preference you are causing problems and causing consistency problems across Wikipedia. Please tell me how this article benefits from not adhering to the MOS. You say it makes maintaining this article more difficult but that's just rubbish. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Will you pledge to place this article on your watchlist (or keep it if you've recently placed it there) and vet every single addition and emendation to ensure that it agrees with the MOS quotation punctuation style you wish to impose on the article? If you make that pledge, I will accept your comment about "rubbish" with good grace.—DCGeist 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's on my watchlist along with 7352 other pages, so it'll get occasional attention. I'm sure that, having done so much work on this article and getting it through FA processes you possess the intelligence to read through WP:PUNC and adapt your style to that which has been chosen by the community. If American English were the accepted spelling variation I would adapt and use such language, no matter how foreign it appears. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The accusation that Violetriga's correction of this article's punctuation to conform to the MOS "disrupts the stable, well-established style of this article" is absurd. Your refusal to adopt a community agreed guideline (conforming with which is a criterion for FA status) is what has drawn this out unnecessarily. Just accept her helpful improvements, thank her and move on... WjBscribe 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that honestly the level to which you want to take this debate? OK...
No. Just accept the judgment of the editors who brought this article through FAR and have maintained its high level of quality over the succeeding months, thank us, and move on.—DCGeist 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Good work, well done. Now please answer my question about why this article should be an exception to a community-accepted style. violet/riga (t) 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I know. You're welcome.
I have already explained that as a practical matter, it is true of this article--as, I believe, of many others on Wikipedia--that it will facilitate the maintenance of its quality and consistency if the stable, long-standing, and reasonable style preferred by the engaged editors is retained. You have described this position as "rubbish." Once again, will you pledge to become an engaged editor on the article and maintain its consistent adherence to the style you wish to impose on it?—DCGeist 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your preference doesn't trump community consensus. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
DCGeist, your argument rests on the idea that new additions to this article will follow your prefered style and will need alteration if this article's punctuation followed WP:PUNC. Surely its just as probable that someone adding material to this article would assume it follows the widely agreed style guideline? WjBscribe 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The contributors to this page have done wonderful work, but that gives them little, if any, editorial control over it. The idea that people should not change the English dialect used in an article applies when no other MoS guidelines apply. For example, changing color to colour in the Color article would be inappropriate, but changing it to colour in a UK-related article would be helpful since the MoS specifically prefers British English in UK-related articles. Here, the MoS clearly prefers using the quotation marks before punctuation. 17Drew 01:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel there are "onwership" issues here, but I assure my own frustration pretty much emerges from some confusing details about the Wikipedia MOS, as detailed below. WesleyDodds 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Sorry, there's no doubt, whatever spin some people are putting on this, that MOS punctuation has to be followed in FAs. Period. Tony (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit off-topic, but I wonder about a slight descrepancy if we are bound to follow the MOS guidelines exactly: If we can use either British or American (or Canadian, etc.) English in an article as mandated by the article's nation of origin (or on some cases with what was used by the major contributors), why must punctuation follow the British model specifically? In the US, the Chicago manual of style is the primary guideline for punctuation, and that maintains that punctuation goes inside the quotation marks in virtually all cases. This is standard in news and print media, and thus is consistently used in American sources I cited. For example, in the sources used, commas always go inside song titles, and the Chicago Manual of Style seems to back this up. This does go into a much larger issue, but given your familiarity with the Wiki MOS Tony, I hope you can explain this to me (especially because it could mean I'd have to change the punctuation used in numerous articles I've worked on). WesleyDodds 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "variety of English" issue, in most cases. For example, we take the US preference for double rather than single quotes. On the inside/outside question, Chicago might well huff and puff about it (many Americans wish it would change and move on). Here at WP, the sanctity of not meddling with quoted material is more important than it is for Chicago, it seems. That is the primary reason for the decision, which I believe is long-standing. I would advise American writers to ignore Chicago on this point in all of their writing (many do), since it's illogical in terms of the structure of the text, and seems to have no advantages. The debate has been well fleshed out at MOS talk (see the archives). Tony (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Stressed out with clients right now; sorry, I can't deal with this until later today. Tony (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to note that this "American vs. British" business is a complete and total red herring. There are British who prefer typesetters' quotation (punctuation inside the quotations marks), and it is even favored by one major British newspaper, while many Americans prefer logical quotation (puctuation inside), logical quotation is the only style used in scientific and technical publications including in the US, and the Chicago Manual of Style is actually neutral on the matter, recommending typesetters' for American general prose, like a newspaper article or school paper, but noting that logical should be used where precision is required (and an encyclopedia is, by definition, a work in which precision is required). CMOS rather ridiculously exaggerates the care one must take in using logical quotation (just one of several places where CMOS is rather histrionic and hyperbolic); but the fact of the matter is that it's quite easy, or it would not be the preferred style in most of the entire world! Of all the things that people working on raising an article to featured status need to worry about this should be the very, very bottom item. I can't believe people are actually fighting in here about whether to adhere to one tiny point int he MOS. Just get over it and move on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost as much a red herring as this misquotation of the CMOS. What it actually says is:
According to what is sometimes called the British style (set forth in The Oxford Guide to Style [the successor to Hart’s Rules; see bibliog. 1.1]), a style also followed in other English-speaking countries, only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system, which requires extreme authorial precision and occasional decisions by the editor or typesetter, works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.) Chapter 6 §10. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Delinking Virgin Records

As consensus has been reached on this subject and due to the length of the discussion it has been moved to the following sub page:

/Table Linking

Duplicate entries of Virgin Records will remain unlinked in this table due to consensus on this subject. Dbiel (Talk) 12:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Band photo

The photo provided is great, except for the fact that you can't see Jimmy Chamberlin. Any decent Pumpkins fan would know that Jimmy plays a big role despite criticism that Billy does all the work.

While it's of very high quality and is a fantastic shot, I think it's very necessary that it is replaced with a band photo including Jimmy Chamberlin. I can't be the only one thinking this way. User918 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that it's not the best shot, especially given the lack of detail in the thumbnail, but it may be a fair guess that there are no better alternatives available right now which could also survive a fair-use purge. Girolamo Savonarola 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but hopefully someone with a better photo that can survive a fair-use purge sees this and provides it to us. User918 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Walker... again

I was just reading about Matt Walker separate to this article, and was wondering why we have no reference to him in the article whatsoever. All we have in the article is "The Pumpkins chose to finish the [Mellon Collie] tour with another drummer and keyboardist, a decision that Corgan later said was the worst the band had ever made, damaging both their music and their reputation." This seems odd because the band and Billy Corgan as a solo artist have still collaborated with Matt Walker several times. That line seems to shed a bad light on Walker when he seems to have been a positive collaborator with the band according to several sources referenced in his article.

Previous debate in the talk page archives mentions him but it's mostly saying: "but was he ever officially called a member of the band?" From what I can gather from his article he could easily be considered a former member since he toured with the band, appeared on "The End is the Beginning is the End", helped recording demos for Adore and was asked to tour with the band again but turned it down (which is arguably just as much if not more participation than Melissa Auf der Maur).

A Rolling Stone article says (for instance) "The Smashing Pumpkins announced this weekend that drummer Matt Walker (formerly of Filter) will leave the band" and "In a statement released by Smashing Pumpkins publicist Gayle Fine, the group stated: 'Matt is a tremendous talent and we wish him all the best and much success with his band. We are very grateful that he has helped us so much.'"

Just thought I'd throw this out there for debate before I dive in there and edit things (especially seeing as I don't have the guitar world article to better understand the context of Corgan saying that finishing the tour with Walker and a replacement keyboardist was a bad decision) - Phorque 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Was he ever considered a member of the band by the band, or just a touring drummer? That's the question. Another relevant point to bring up is that Jonathan Melovin was in the "Zero" video, but he sure as hell wasn't a member of the band. WesleyDodds 22:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well here's how I see it according to sources in his article:
  • He toured with the band for the last leg of the Mellon Collie tour, also performed with them in a television appearance.
  • He recorded The End is the Beginning is the End with the band.
  • He was asked to tour with the band for the entire Adore tour (but declined to focus on another band).
  • He was portrayed in the media as a band member (that Rolling Stone article being an example)
I think for those points above he could easily be considered a former member, especially seeing as Auf der Maur is considered a member purely on the basis that she toured with the band for one tour and appeared in promotional material.
At the very least, I feel he should be mentioned as "Matt Walker" with a reference rather than "another drummer blah blah blah worst decision band ever made blah blah damaging music and reputation" in the Mellon Collie tour section. Clearly he isn't some kind of dark part of the Pumpkins' past. - Phorque 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you at least that he deserves his share of text in the article, but consider that MAdM has been listed as part of the band (not a recording musician) on at least one album's liner notes. Ultimately, the membership is at the discretion of the band, not our perceptions, so regardless of press coverage, if he was not considered a full member by the band, he wasn't. Simple as that. Girolamo Savonarola 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I hate to shout, but the preceding comment by Girolamo Savonrola is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. Melissa auf der Maur does NOT appear as part of the band in the liner notes of any album -- how could she when she recorded on ONE TRACK ("Rock On") in the band's entire history?! Furthermore, there is no such thing and never has been any such thing as "official membership" in the Smashing Pumpkins. There has never been an "official" list of members. Any claim to the contrary is fantasy. The only facts of relevance are what Matt and Melissa did. In terms of the amount of recorded material with the Pumpkins, Matt has far more. In terms of the number of shows played with the band, they are roughly equivalent. As far as their influence on the band's sound, the drums have always been more important to the Pumpkins than is the bass. By applying these criteria I personally conclude that when we write Pumpkins history, Walker deserves at least as much attention as MadM. Jjb (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
See the statement below. The band said in interviews during Adore that they were a three-piece. However, statements are a little unclear about Auf der Maur's role in the band (see this MTV article announcing her addition to the band). I'll research it in the next few days. Regardless, your statment "As far as their influence on the band's sound, the drums have always been more important to the Pumpkins than is the bass. By applying these criteria I personally conclude that when we write Pumpkins history, Walker deserves at least as much attention as MadM." is not a suitable criteria to determine the importance of the musicians who played with the band. They do issue press releases announcing who's hired and who's fired, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This press release idea is yet another fantasy, as there was no press release regarding Jeff, Ginger, and Lisa. There is no silver bullet here, and the sooner we all stop pretending that there is, the sooner we can start making better decisions. Jjb 18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I distinctly remember there being a press release, which is how we verified the new members. WesleyDodds 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So what? Does the (supposed) Schroeder/Reyes/Harriton press release call them "official members"?! Since I can't find it, I'll just have to assert what we both know: of course not. And, check this out, from the old Smashing Pumpkins FAQ: "Private/closed auditions were held a while later to find a replacement drummer for the remainder of the tour. Matt Walker, former touring drummer for Filter, took over. While auditioning for Filter, he reportedly dropped a drumstick and finished with one- he was hired immediately. Dennis Flemion, founding member and drummer/keyboardist of The Frogs, was chosen to be the replacement keyboardist. A press release was issued on August 8th. The band played a surprise warmup show at the Metro on August 23rd with the two new touring members, and resumed the MCIS tour after that." Look, a press release mentioned Matt Walker! And it doesn't mean a thing, and there is still no such thing as an "official member."
By the way, the best way out of this debate is simply to reduce MadM to the level of "additional musician". She played bass on one cover song and was the live bassist for 11 months. It's really her presence at the same level as James Iha and D'arcy that is driving this whole pro-Matt Walker thing. There is simply no way she was more important than Matt -- but there's REALLY no way she's even 1/50th as important as James or D'Arcy. Jjb (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


OK, further investigation finds more references to him being a "touring drummer" despite having recorded a track with them. Can't really find anything from the band themselves about what they considered him to be. I'm going to reword the Mellon Collie section to include reference to him and Dennis Flemion who was the replacement keyboardist for the tour. - Phorque 09:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, during the Adore era, SP officially did not have a drummer. Walker recorded TEITBITE and some tracks on Adore (I'm not sure how many, it might have even been just one), but really as a guest. He did tour with them, and was featured in videos, but as with Melvoin, it didn't make him part of the band. Melvoin probably wouldn't even be mentioned if it wasn't for his overdose. That's kind of my take on it. JuJube 13:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That's kind of your take on it, all right. I don't mean to be snippy, but the statement "AFAIK, during the Adore era, SP officially did not have a drummer," is not a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Again, the whole concept that there ever is or was a certified list of "official" members is a fantasy; all we have to go on is what people did. Please stop making unsupported assertions to the contrary. Jjb 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal

Do you think they should be classed as alternative metal? They are too heavy to be alternative rock in some songs, and go in the metal direction. Thundermaster367 11:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins have never been popularly considered as alternative metal. We would need a large amount of sources calling them alternative metal to back such a statement up. And really, they aren't alternative metal: alt-metal implies bands like Ministry, Alice in Chains, and Limp Bizkit, all of which are very unlike The Smashing Pumpkins. Also, it is already stated in the lead and throughout the article that The Smashing Pumpkins were influenced by many heavy metal performers. --Brandt Luke Zorn 14:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
None of the sources that discuss alternative metal list the Smashing Pumpkins. -- WesleyDodds (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say they are definitely an alternative metal band, but until a "credible" source mentions it, we have to stick with alt rock. VolvonDoom (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Grunge?

All music guide lists them as grunge on their website. Do you think they should be classified as so here?Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see past discussed about the band's genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not post-grunge? It's part of the heavy styling. --86.155.162.127 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Because the band is never referred to in the press as post-grunge. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the press may not know them as post-grunge, and that's because they known as GRUNGE! Anyway, what do the press know. I think we should list them as post-grunge. Thundermaster367 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. For one, they existed before grunge broke through. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Meaning they were part of the break through... every genre has bands that define it the pumpkins helped define grunge. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true but they are more likely to have created post-grunge not grunge. Thundermaster367 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
They did not help define grunge. Grunge was already well-defined by the later 1980's. At that time the Pumpkins sounded like a cross between The Cure and New Order with heavy guitars. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Grunge is nowhere near a major genre of the Pumpkins. Among the plethora of styles they've spanned, you could argue that grunge is one of them—you may not be right, but you could argue it. According to the opening paragraph (and this is true), the Pumpkins use elements of gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, progressive rock, electronica... They even use elements of classical music (i.e. (Tonight Tonight"). Nobody thinks the pumpkins are classical. Should that be listed in the genre box? Should any of these? Should they all be? And that's not even the main issue here. The Pumpkins aren't grunge. During the grunge movement of the '90s, the Pumpkins made a huge effort to separate themselves from it. It just isn't possible to be a grunge band unknowingly or against your will. In addition to being a style of music, grunge is a mentality. Every grunge band in existence were and are actively and mindfully grunge. That's just part of the criteria. So not only are the Pumpkins no more a grunge band than they are a heavy metal or classical band, they are actually less of a grunge band because they went out of their way not to embrace it. If this doesn't persuade you, then please provide some sources from the band themselves verifying your viewpoint. Grim (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because they don't want to be classed as grunge and stay away from grunge, doesn't mean they aren't grunge. I mean, Hadouken! don't want to be a nu rave band, but it doesn't mean they aren't one does it? Just because a band tries not to be a genre, it doesn't stop them being that genre. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a valid point, but sources that detail the history of grunge never mention the Pumpkins. That's really the deciding factor in not labeling them grunge. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean they can't be classified as grunge. Grunge is a genre, and early on a movement developed off of it, but that doesn't mean only the bands associated with the movement can be considered grunge. For example, Green Day wasn't one of punk's pioneers, but they are still widely considered a punk rock band, even if that's disputed. Where is the line drawn? Tezkag72 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
If they weren't associated with grunge, then they aren't grunge. Same points still apply. They weren't consistently called grunge, they had nothing to do with the grunge scene aside from putting out the "Tristesssa" single on Sub Pop, and reliable sources on the genre either don't mention the band at all, or if they do they state that they weren't a grunge band. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Grunge notice

Do you think we should stop people starting debates about grunge using this? ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's bit too antagonistic for my tastes. Generally we've been able to just say "Look at the talk page archives". WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
How about this? It seems more friendly and doesn't put people off. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
hahahahahaha. I think our comments are pretentious enough when someone comes along making wild edits to the article. Stop making silly templates and go improve some articles you rapscallion. - Phorque (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but but but... Damn. Fine. I won't. You know, it isn't a silly template and it might work. But if you ignore me, fine. I'll just go back to alt. metal... ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Roesing

The first Pumpkins release, Nothing Ever Changes, was attributed to Corgan, Iha, and Ron Roesing on drums. Should he be categorized as a former member? Or at least acknowledged in this article? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of it, Roesing was just hired to drum on a few songs on the tape. Corgan and Iha have said the band initially was just the two of them playing with a drum machine, and that they didn't have a real drummer in the band until Chamberlin joined. By the way, demo recordings aren't considered notable enough for articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt Roesing himself is all that notable, so something should probably be done about those pages. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right about Roesing's notability. As for the demos, WP:NOTABILITY states, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." So yeah, youre probably right, but if we get rid of that page, we should go all the way and purge Mashed Potatoes, Still Becoming Apart, 1991-1998, and perhaps even others. A purge of that magnitude should be discussed widely first. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the original point - he was not "hired" to do a few songs, he was the drummer of Billy's previous two bands and according to a BC interview dated 1995/10/08, Roesing apparently impregnated a girl after seducing her with the claim of being a former Pumpkins member. An amusing anecdote, but I think it sheds light that his presence in the infant, 1987 incarnation of the band was at least somewhat legitimate. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"Roesing apparently impregnated a girl after seducing her with the claim of being a former Pumpkins member." I think that says it all right there, so to speak. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, yeah. He's a character, apparently. I'll listen to that interview again and see how Billy characterizes Ron's role in the band. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I found an interview with Ron Roesing where he discusses the early history of the Pumpkins. An important bit - "Roesing remembers it this way, "It was Billy and I, then we added Dale Meiners, which alot of people seem to forget. Dale then quit at the end of '86. We then changed it [the name] to The Smashing Pumpkins in '87. There is a demo, The Nothing Ever Changes demo, which has James Iha, myself and Billy Corgan on it."" I think this is indisputable that the Smashing Pumpkins, at least an early incarnation of them, consisted of James Iha, Billy Corgan and Ron Roesing. This is the lineup on that demo. Maybe Roesing was just "hired" for that demo, which is inconsistent with reports I've read. If so, why is he listed next to James and Billy on the Nothing Ever Changes credits? I think the only issue remaining is a lack of much press about that era of the band. We have reports from Roesing, and the liner notes, but not really any third party sources. So we should find some. But it seems to me that the transition from the Marked to Smashing Pumpkins was a little sludgier and more gradual than most people believe. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's important to consider what James and Billy have said. We can't just take Roesing's word for it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This is something I have acknowledged, and I am striving to find more sources about this. But it's not just Roesing's words - Nothing Ever Changes lists the Smashing Pumpkins as Billy, James, and Ron Roesing, and this cannot be ignored because Billy later implied that he and James were the sole members. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
More concrete proof is needed, especially given in every interview I've read they say it was just Billy and James at the beginning. The credits for the demo aren't enough to back up Roesing's claims. Try and find definitive statements by both Corgan and Iha that Roesing was in the band. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Holmes

Since Flemion, Garson, Melvoin, and Harriton are all considered band members and are listed in the template, why no mention anywhere of Chris Holmes, who played keyboards on the 2000 tours? He doesn't even have a wikipedia article, although some of his solo work has been released on Atlantic Records and reviewed by Rolling Stone. Read more about him here - scroll down to number 2. Thoughts? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have an objection to me adding him to the template? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Catchphrases

I've noticed many times that Billy has said something to the effect of, "In the Smashing Pumpkins we have a saying..." Off the top of my head, these "band catchphrases" include "To the toppermost of the poppermost," "By hook or by crook," "Short money." I highly doubt theres precedent for including stuff like that in an article. But I thought it was a phenomenon worth mentioning somewhere. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I plan to use the "hook or by crook" bit in Siamese Dream down the line. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you down with the mighty SP? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Band Members section

It occurs to me that this article lacks a lineup section. I think this would be especially helpful given the large number of touring musicians included in the template. A newcomer to the band will wonder who all those people are and what they did. Something like:
(Official members)

(Other musicians)

something like that. I realize that the question of whether Lisa is an "official member", as well as Jeff and Ginger, is still somewhat disputed, given Billy and Jimmy being the sole performers on Zeitgeist and apparently recording new material alone, as well as their fondness for giving interviews alone and introducing themselves as "the Smashing Pumpkins." Does anyone agree that something like this would be helpful? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I would list Lisa, Jeff and Ginger as other musicians, though. Also, do you think that the way that this is listed looks fine, or should we go for a fancy Wilco-style timeline? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article needs a band members section, and if it did, it certainly wouldn't include touring musicians. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact, we removed the Band Members section before taking the article to FAC. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well, why don't you think it needs a band members section? Why would an encyclopedia article about a band not tell you what band members play what? Is it a specific criterion for Featured articles to not list band members? As for the touring musician point, firstly, that's complicated by what I've already noted about the otehr three current band members. Second, the template already has all the touring members... should they be excised from that? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and speaking of the template, I really dont think the Adore guest drummers should be listed. Walker and Aronoff both toured with the band, but Cameron and Waronker just did session drumming for like 2 songs each... arent they more "featured guests" than anything else? Like, the Frogs guest in several Pumpkins album songs but are definitely not in the template. Definitely. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it is, it's redundant. The very first paragraph of the article lists the band members most commonly known to have been "The Smashing Pumpkins" as well as their instrumental roles. Reading through the rest of the article, you certainly get a feel of who was playing what and who was calling the shots. The details about musicians who played on tours for certain albums at certain times is listed in the albums' individual articles as well as in the musicians' own articles (at least in Matt Walker's case to my knowledge). So why go into great detail about musicians who played here and there with the Pumpkins when it isn't especially relevant to them in the context of their entire career for this article? - Phorque (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, every member and what they play is discussed in the lead, including the new members. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. In that case, we should take out all those really minor contributors of the template, which is getting crowded. I also think that the producers are possibly not very relevant. It'd be nice if the SP template just had Billy, Jimmy, Ginger, Jeff, and Lisa, and then James, D'arcy and Melissa below that. Maybe Matt Walker - I realize that's a touchy area. If you ask me though, Billy and Jimmy would be in the first row, then Ginger Jeff and Lisa below that because I'm pretty sure the actual band is really just Billy and Jimmy. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been wondering why the template doesn't have headers like "former members" and "additional musicians". WesleyDodds (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Headers added. Great idea! -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As I argued quite thoroughly in the "Matt Walker" section, Melissa auf der Maur should be lumped in with Walker/Garson/Aronoff/others instead of being grouped with James and D'Arcy. It's crazy to group founding members who were in the band for 10+ years with someone who played bass on one tour, particularly when there have been several people with contributions comparable to Melissa's and none of them are listed. Melissa is great and all, but she needs to be taken off the members list -- and so I am doing it. Jjb (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Reverted until there's consensus to support your edit. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it comes down to Melissa being treated as a full-fledged replacement, while Walker was offered a slot but declined. Melissa's presence in promotional photos is enough for me. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I give up on the MadM vs. Walker thing; I don't really agree with this, but to move past it, let's stipulate that she's slightly more important than him. Fine. But look at the problem now: It's been decided that there is going to be just one distinction drawn, that between "people who aren't even worth mentioning" and "former members". On one side of the line have been placed Walker, Garson and Aronoff. On the other side, James Iha and D'Arcy. My claim is that MadM clearly belongs in the first group...and it's not even close, is it? There's been a war over whether she can be significantly distinguished from Walker, while no one would ever suggest she's near to James or D'Arcy. Look at the article itself: who's mentioned in the first paragraph? The Smashing Pumpkins. Everyone knows that's the four. Should be the same on the sidebar and in the template. Jjb (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

The "Smashing Pumpkins template" discussion area doesnt seem to get much notice, so I'll discuss it here too. I think this template is far more cluttered than it needs to be. The template should just be a way to organize only the most important articles related to the band - it need not be comprehensive. I think the "Additional musicians", "recording studios," "Producers," and perhaps even "Rare and specialty" and "related bands" fields should be reduced or excised entirely. These articles are already discussed in the band page, discography page, or album articles and do not really need to be listed in the template. If we remove the "additional musicians" we can also take away the "former members" header. I hope to gather a lot of discussion about this, as I think the larger community should decide what belongs in the template and what is really not that related to the larger topic of the band. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Rare and Specialty" items shold be removed entirely. Many of them would not even satistfy notability guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion was picked up at Template talk:Smashing Pumpkins#Template Cleanup in case anyone has input. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Machina Diagram

I already posted this on the two Machina talk pages, to no avail. Billy Corgan hand-drew a diagram with a bunch of the Machina and Machina II songs that explains how they are thematically connected. It was somehow released on the Internet and I have it on my computer - I think many of the more hardcore fans know what I'm talking about. I think it would be very helpful in both articles to demonstrate their "concept album" aspect and to better explain the flow of the songs and the creative genesis of the project. I'd like to upload it but am unsure as to what licensing it is. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, and, if so, what license? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely it would be copyright. But an image like that, which would be discussed in some detail (one would hope) in the article would surely meet fair use rationale. - Shudde talk 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming Corgan hasn't explicitly stated a license, free or otherwise, the best license would be {{Non-free fair use in}}. You'll have to indicate in the template which article it's going to be used in. You could also replicate it by drawing it yourself (preferably using a computer program, so that it looks something like, for example, this) and then releasing it under a free license, which would be vastly preferred. BTW, is this the diagram? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You got it, BLZ. That's the one. I dont think a license was stated - I don't even know how it got released, but it's pretty widespread. Do you folks agree that it would be a very helpful addition to the Machina articles? I'd rather not re-draw it because that would be a bit strange and would probably require a reference to the original one just for verifiability, wouldn't it? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Definitely add it to the Machina articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quick mockup of a computerized version, color-coded and using the final songs rather than working versions (ie "Virex" and "Disco King"): view it here. I think the real diagram would make much more sense, given that its slight lack of coherence makes more sense if you see its hand-drawn by Corgan himself. Any final advice on the licensing? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside: Looking at that chart makes me want to shake my head and say, "Dude, Billy . . ." WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha. Yeah, and I don't get why only like 4 songs from Machina II are on there. I've always wondered how it would have worked as a double album... Oh well. I'll ask on Netphoria, but I would like to know if anyone knows how exactly that picture got out, and why. Was it leaked, or did Corgan post it somewhere, and if so, where and when? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the file is uploaded here. Please, please, feel free to beef up that fair use rationale and licensing explanation! I will add this to both Machina articles in a little while. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's all done. Thanks to all who helped with the licensing question and such. View the articles: Machina/The Machines of God and Machina II. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

superchrist?

does anyone know what this actually is? i notice it doesn't give any more information in the reference. seems a bit pointless to include it if no one knows what it is. Stanlavisbad (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was scratching my head about it too... perhaps its vandalism?IDISLIKEcaugette (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's from the official site, but it's not explained what it is. Possibly a new album or ep? anyway, i'm going to edit it to make it clear that it's unknown what it is.Stanlavisbad (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Superchrist is one of residency songs and has been played quite a bit live as of lately. It's an "epic" song like United States and Silverfuck.--Zahveed (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Total album sales

The following source states that TSP sold roughly 20 million albums before the reunion. Would someone like to interate that in?

  • "The Art Of The Reunion Part 1". The Ongoing History of New Music. 2007-09-23. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); External link in |episodelink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)

-- Reaper X 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust that sources. Besides, sales figures from the RIAA are already included. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely plausible (especially if it's worldwide figures), but I agree, the source is probably not widely considered reliable enough. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins is Singular

I have changed the intro from the 'Smashing Pumpkins are' to the 'Smashing Pumpkins is'. The Smashing Pumpkins is singular in the same way that the 'United States is', the 'European Union is'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.145.31 (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The proper usage is "The Smashing Pumpkins are". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, see /Archive 1#"The Smashing Pumpkins were" vs. "The Smashing Pumpkins was". -- Reaper X 17:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have changed it back to is - I am a university professor in linguistics and can tell you that the us of "are" in this context is a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.154.220 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As a linguistics professor, you should know the difference between count and mass nouns, and particularly how definition changes between AmEng and other varieties of English...

Either is appropriate in this case. Ringer7 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're here, does the band's name take the definite article? I always thought it didn't/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.115.55 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Per note 1 in the article, "Although frequently referred to as simply 'Smashing Pumpkins', and credited as such on the covers of Gish, Siamese Dream, and Zeitgeist (and related singles), the band's name has more often been presented as 'The Smashing Pumpkins', dating back to their first demo tape, and exclusively so between Mellon Collie (1995) and Earphoria (2002)."—DCGeist (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New images

Please be aware that there are numerous new pictures of the Pumpkins on flickr.com. These are tour pictures that are of excellent quality and are under free licences. I'm in the process of uploading some, but there's too many to look through, so do a search. I'm only bringing this up because I think the article could use one more besides the one in the infobox. -- Reaper X 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I only see additional images necessary if they can replace existing ones. I don't think we need to increase the number of images any further. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I'd still recommend taking a look anyway, there may be an image where you can clearly identify all 5 of the members. -- Reaper X 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UK Tour controversy section

I question the notability of this section. Corgan has a history of antagonizing audiences, and I don't see why the article should give so much weight to two individual incidents. JuJube (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point, however I believe I'm right in saying this is the first time such an occurance has happened since the reunion. Oh My Gawd!!! (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This particular incident does not imply any motive behind these brief endings, and therefore has very little notability. IF there is any motive, I believe it should be briefly mentioned, and inserted into the 'Reunion: 2005–present' section. -- Reaper X 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The band plays their last UK show tonight, in London. I think it should be left at least until tonight's show is over - if it happens again (3 times in a row) I'd imagine a clear motive should emerge. Oh My Gawd!!! (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not notable at all. I was at the first show at the Fillmore, and they didn't come back on for an encore. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me then, though if any rationale should appear as to why they stopped playing after 1979 in the Nottingham Arena (just over halfway through their usual set) then I feel this would be a notable event. Do you agree? Oh My Gawd!!! (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Some bands don't give encores at every single show they play. It's possible Billy was/is pissed at something going on in his personal life or just angry in general. There's always bound to be several bad shows regardless of the act. NSR77 TC 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"In a February 2008 radio interview, Corgan said the band has tired of playing arenas and on upcoming tours will play smaller venues with shows dedicated to particular eras of the band's music."

I guess this is the reason for it anyway. Oh My Gawd!!! (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Band Members

I know there's need for something concrete. But the lead (and certainly the infobox) imply that Ginger, Jeff and Lisa are band members. This is clearly not the case. Not only have Billy and Jimmy recorded and released a new EP without them, they continue to give interviews as a pair without the other dudes. I think the fact that Billy continues to play all bass and guitar on record clarifies this. Nonetheless, I'll wait for "SuperChrist" to push this further. This was a song that was really shaped by the five-piece touring band. If Corgan still records it only as a duo, I think we have an answer as to whether GJL are just touring members or not. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"SuperChrist" has been released - indeed it is another Billy/Jimmy release, in fact, they are the only band members in the video. I think this settles it. Anyone willing to make the argument that the band is NOT just Billy and Jimmy, given their continued practices? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, they still are definitely just the BC/JC combo. As of right now, the others are just touring musicians. Ringer7 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then why were all five members in this video? -Rickvaughn 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Appearing in a music video meanings nothing. Touring members have appear in music videos for bands before. Matt Walker appeared in some Pumpkins videos. The sources present in this article indicate that these three are simply touring musicians. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Art Rock

I was wondering if the genre of Art Rock could be applied to the Pumpkins. I have often wondered what other genre they could be placed in rather than just the umbrella "Alternative," and it occurred to me that Art Rock might be appropriate. I know they may not be as "out-there" as some progressive acts like Pink Floyd and Emerson, Lake & Palmer or even Radiohead, but they cannot be considered far off from the title if bands such as The Who are considered to define the term.

I don't know what you all might think of this, but I figured I'd suggest it. The Smashing Pumpkins have always struck me as a very "artsy" group, which is reflected in their blending of countless genres throughout their career (and some of their early music videos). I know that the term "Art Rock" is almost as vague as "Alternative Rock," but I think it serves to more specifically define them. I don't think I need to cite particular songs here as evidence, but I suppose "Starla" would be a good example of why they should be considered a part of this movement. Siamese Dream may serve as the best testament as an overall work. Ringer7 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No. They're very arty, but that comes about from the fact that that's just how Corgan is (undoubtedly influenced by all the goth and Queen he listened to growing up). Jane's Addiction (who Gish-era Pumpkins sounded a lot like) were a very arty alternative rock band, but that didn't make them "art rock". It's just their aesthetic. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suing Virgin records

Shouldn't there be a section about this? I've read a whole bunch of topics about it here at this website http://www.thepumpkins.net/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,150/func,showcat/catid,1/ there's some topics there about the incident, with links to the appropriate sites. 125.238.129.188 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem all that notable. There's no need for a separate section at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It might be worthwhile to mention somewhere that the band has a long-standing conflict with Virgin and major labels in general, but this specific incident is not notable. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Live Music Archive artists

I want to add this to a category of artists participating in the Live Music Archive. They explicitly grant permission here. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like one of those categories that will be deleted sooner or later. What makes Live Music Archive notable? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Notable as it hit the newspapers for the dispute with Grateful Dead, has a lot of bands signed up. I converted it to a page Live Music Archive. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This band was already in the more general category for open taping artists, and that was apparently deleted. I'm thinking this category will be gone very shortly as it is WAY too specific. The open taping one was valid - too bad it seems to be gone now. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

too long intro?

I think this article deserves an {{intro-toolong}}. Anyone agree?58.6.178.206 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's of an appropriate length for an article of this size. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock walk

Why isn't there even a mention of the Pumpkins being inducted into the Rock Walk?Pasta of Muppets (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that important. Plus it's not really an award of merit; you have to file an application and pay a fee to get a star. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"You have to file an application and pay a fee to get a star"?!!! You are completely (and arrogantly) wrong about that, Wesley. And this is (at least) instance #2 of you just making stuff up to shut down opposition (instance #1 being when you introduced that "press release" nonsense to ignore my arguments regarding MadM and Matt Walker). Jjb (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Lead

I think the last sentence of the lead should be revised. This is what it reads now:

In April 2006, the band officially announced that it was reuniting and recording a new album. Returning members Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlin were joined by musicians Jeff Schroeder (guitar/vocals), Ginger Reyes (bass/vocals), and Lisa Harriton (keyboard/vocals) in 2007 to tour in support of their new release, Zeitgeist (2007).

It needs to be updated to reflect the reality of the current band. I was thinking something along these lines:

In 2006, returning members Billy Corgan and Jimmy Chamberlin revived the band and recorded a new album. In the absence of the other two founding members, Corgan described the new band as "a duo with a collective".[1]

I think something like that would be more accurate. Schroeder, Reyes, and Harriton are not only mere touring members, they might not even be in the band anymore. In that video, BC also says the lineup will vary on a "project to project" basis.

Any thoughts? I'd like to get a consensus formed beyond just WesleyDodds shutting me down. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a wise change, and I'd offer a friendly amendment to make the phrasing "Corgan has described", to make it clear that the comments were not made in 2006. Jjb (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead is fine the way it is, I believe. No need to get into specific in the lead (I'm also wary about making drastic changes since we have the spoken version of the article available, and I don't want that to be too out-of-sync). I also don't see this recurring obsession with changing "reunion" to "reviving the band" or "renewal". It's just bad English. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New single news

Twice now editors have attempted to add the news of the new single coming in September, only to have their changes reverted by WesleyDodds. Wesley claims that the news lacks "notability", but I say that news of a forthcoming Smashing Pumpkins single is already more notable than much of what's in this article (e.g., James Iha's "involvement" with Team Sleep; how is that Pumpkins-related, and who cares anyway?).

Furthermore, this sort of revert is completely heavy-handed. Reverting deflates enthusiasm for editing. WP suggests that one should revert only when necessary. These edits were not vandalism. No, Wesley, we don't have to be right up to the minute, but nor should an iron fist come down when someone makes a defensible, timely, and factual update. I support reinstatement of the edit. Jjb (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the name of the single? What will it be released on? At this stage it's not notable, and given that this article needs to cover the entire history of the band, it's not that important to include at the moment. We have all the time in the world to wait until its importance is established. We're not a news site reporting everything as it happens. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I challenge you to, using that standard, defend the inclusion of the following sentences - for I have little doubt that, if I were to delete them on the basis that they lack "notability", you would revert me:
1. "Though Corgan and Chamberlin have continued to record as a duo, Jeff Schroeder indicated that he might be contributing to future recordings." Gee, Jeff, what recordings? When?
2. "Chamberlin contended that the band will release songs in blocks that will 'all flow up to a larger body of work'." A plan to release "songs in blocks" is notable, but a plan to release "a single in September" is not notable?
But the more fundamental issue is your use of revert, rather than open discussion. In the issue at hand, by my count, we have three people (the two editors and me) in favor of making this edit and one (you) against. If you were humble enough to Talk about things here, rather than treating these editors like vandals, the edit would be on the page right now. Jjb (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually . . .
  • 1. I don't think that really belongs myself, but it does incidate possible future plans as detailed in a secondary source.
  • 2. This one I definitely don't think needs to be in the article and I removed it a few times, but other editors objected, so it stayed. I think it's pointless and really doesn't tell the reader anything. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Avril Lavigne Troll"

For some reason, that's what appears to me whenever I go on this web page. Am I the only one seeing this?

--Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Band members

I contend that touring members are still current members of the band, and have provided a source (Spin Magazine) as citation. If they do not stick around after they are done touring, then they can go the way of Matt Walker in the article, but I believe they should be included until such time it is determined by the band that they are no longer members. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See the discussions above. The only official members are Corgan and Chamberlin. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss this more and I don't believe you have consensus. You need to provide a source that contradicts the source I provided which says they are band members. I've provided a reliable source to back up adding them as members through the the spin magazine article, but I'd like to see some sources that back up the "consensus" that they should not be listed, because that's not what I'm getting out of the talk page or through sources available to me. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That link shows a "Page not found". indopug (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the link, it should work now Justinm1978 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That article is from when the band first started performing again, back when we didn't know too much. Check out the "Band members" discussion earlier in this page, where someone provided a video that establishes Corgan and Chamberlin as the only proper members of the band right now. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Wesley - simply having a source is not enough: we go on the basis of which sources are the most reliable with regards to the current situation. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reunion" vs. "Revival"/"Reformation"/"Return"

I removed references to a "reunion" in favor of terms like "revival" or "reformation" or "return". WesleyDodds reverted me. We are now in the "discuss" phase of the BRD cycle; there is at present no consensus.[1] Hopefully we will now proceed to reach one!

As I mentioned in my reason for the edit: Billy has never (to my knowledge) called the return of the band a "reunion" or said the band was "reuniting". In his most prominent statement, the newspaper ad, his words are "renew and revive", not "reunite". Many commentators have pointed out that this is not a reunion because D'Arcy and James are not involved and that Billy and Jimmy were essentially never apart given their participation in Zwan; I agree with these commentators. I do not believe that the term "reunion" should be used just because a few mainstream news outlets happen to use that term in a knee-jerk fashion any time any broken-up band returns in some way. The facts are that this band has neither reunited nor claimed that it has reunited, and therefore I believe that this article should not say that the band reunited. Jjb (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting too semantical here - the commonly accepted phrase for what has occurred when a band that has broken up gets back together - even with a paucity of original members - is reunion. Obsessing over what terminology the band itself has used is neither here nor there. Consider it a music-centric version of my grandfather's axe. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Year of Formation

It says 1988 at the start of the article, which is reasonable because that's when Jimmy, the final member, joined. However, the Smashing Pumpkins already existed in 1987, but it was only partially a band (Billy, then James, then D'Arcy, then Jimmy). I'm unaware of what year D'Arcy joined, but I think Billy already had the idea and James was already a part of the band in 1987, so technically, they formed in 1987.

The band and secondary sources agree on the 1988 date. I have it on a t-shirt, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New genre

On the smashing pumpkins blog (more specifically here ) Billy corgan quoted his music as "American Gothic" music. The article said to discuss changing/adding to the genre here, so what does everyone think of adding American Gothic to their genre? Legiøń (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

American Gothic is not a genre and Corgan is a bit on the looney side. This is the same as a bunch of fans calling Mastodon "whalecore". It just doesn't happen. —Vanishdoom (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
By and large on Wikipedia we disregard what a band classifies itself as. It's fine when they agree with what people generally regard them as (Billy Corgan has been one of the few major musicians not reluctant to call his band an alternative rock band), but when they loudly insist on somehting else, it's best to ignore them. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

I believe that band is called just 'Smashing Pumpkins' not ' The Smashing Pumpkins' Zazaban (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. We settled on the current name of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As much as I know it would be annoying to start a discussion, it definitely should be discussed again. I'm not sure when the prior debate was, but I'm going to guess it was before the reunion. Since the reunion, everything has been Smashing Pumpkins, not The Smashing Pumpkins. No big deal. NSR77 TC 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There's some discussion about the name still visible on this version of the page. One of the main reasons for keep it with "The" at the beginning (aside from the obvious hassle of having to go through hundreds of pages and fixing the name if we moved the page) is that Corgan has used both forms of the name throughout the band's history, but according to him the point of adding "The" has been to indicate that "Smashing" is an adjective, not a noun. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually the 'the' first appeared on the cover of the Rocket Single that was only released in Australia in 1994, everything prior to that was without, there's no info available on whether it was a conscious change or otherwise but consequently they have ususally been known as 'The Smashing Pumpkins' where previously they were exclusively simply 'Smashing Pumpkins' (this can clearly be seen on covers). It's quite interesting that as the band became more famous a 'Smashing Pumpkin' became a noun in itself, referring to a member of the group whereas originally only 'pumpkin' was a noun and 'smashing' a verb or adjective. I'm not sure it's needed but we could put a previous known as in the article seen as most reliable sources seem pretty ambiguous about it. Whereas Allmusic refers to them with 'the'. Rolling Stone never uses it and Mtv uses both. --neon white talk 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=996704482
This explains everything to do with the name. 125.238.109.66 (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

4 New Members as of 2008

Can someone please mention something about the four new touring members that are now a part of the band. I put an article up but someone erased it. Here's a list of the four new members. Gingger Shankar, Kristopher Pooley, Gabrial McNair, Stephen Bradley. Here's a link to an article about them you can check it out for yourselves. New members article, on Smashingpumpkins.com link

If anything, that article disproves the point you were trying to make. It says "Who's who on this tour" and mentions new artists only for the band's "live incarnation". Until they're actually touring and recording albums, I'd say leave the article as-is. 122.102.236.251 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use concerns

I hate to play fair-use police but I count 12 non-free pictures in this article, which is something like twice or thrice the number that are generally allowed in FAs nowadays. While I see that most have good reason to be included, a few are rather superfluous—those two images of videos can definitely go, and the number of band-photos and audio samples can be reduced. Thoughts? indopug (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been planning to remove the 1994 screencap for a bit. Everything else is still valid under fair use (the proper amount of fair use media in the article was a big deal during the FAC, and this is what we settled on). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit With James And D'arcy & Template Problem

Should you mention the lawsuit somewhere in this artical, even if they're former members bill still signed the deal with virgin.

I'm having trouble with the template, I'm trying to add one to D'arcy's page but it isnt working can someone please put one up for her.

Singing

How do we have a page this long on Smashing Pumpkins with absolutely no mention of Corgan's singing style? Some guy (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smashing Pumpkins demo albums

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smashing Pumpkins demo albums travb (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds's ownership of this article

Anyone who doubts it need only read this talk page or flip through the article history. (I think WP:OWN should be taken seriously, not just paid lip service as it is at the top of this page.) Repeatedly over the last year I've observed WesleyDodds reverting virtually every edit that doesn't meet his fancy (such as is discussed here), and over the last couple weeks I can't even get him to allow a conservative edit that clears up an obvious error Wesley has made in reading the Chicago Tribune interview with Corgan.

It would be one thing if Wesley's ownership were benign, but it's not. For instance, Wesley has a tendency to invent "facts" to aid in shutting others down, such as in these cases:

Wesley also tends to pick and choose what constitutes evidence for claims. For instance, in these cases, band-generated material wasn't good enough:

When it helps his chosen cause, however, Wesley has relied on MTV articles or half-remembered press releases as his evidence.

I don't think there's much to be done about it unless he chills out a bit, so...I'm just saying, I guess. I certainly am not on here every day like he is, so I expect he will continue to dominate the proceedings. Jjb (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, he did bring the article to FA status. That's not a blanket defense, but much of what you've mentioned above can be easily viewed as either trivial information, may be read ambiguously, may contain poor sourcing, and sometimes tends towards speculation; therefore, it is a natural reaction for an FA editor to try to maintain the article quality which so much time was spent working towards.
In the case of the reunion/reformation issue, my views are above on this talk page; the future recordings issue is a matter of reading into the quote, so neutrally presenting the quote in its full context without commentary or speculation is probably the best solution to that issue.
As for Roesing, no one seriously contests that he appeared on NEC (IIRC...), but being credited on a release is just that - crediting those involved. It does not automatically constitute membership. I could continue enumerating each of your points, but I won't, because while I am sympathetic towards some of these arguments, many of them are not rigorous enough for the site or are based on specious reasoning. However, I would encourage both editors to continue to seek further comment from third parties, preferably through an RfC or some similar mechanism, if for nothing more than to bring much of this to definitive and clear resolution. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the bit about "no more albums" form the Chicago Tribune: if Corgan says "no more albums", then we say "no more albums". We don't say "maybe no more albums" because Corgan didn't say that and we can't tell the future. See WP:CRYSTAL. Also, if you have concerns about my editing behavior, please comment on my talk page and don't use the article talk page for such comments. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Corgan was very adamant about there being no more albums. He was not beating around the bush. Furthermore, I wrote that part of the text regarding future output (Wesley did not) so if you have issues with it then take it up with me. I ask you remain civil during this discussion; your edit summaries could be considered a personal attack. NSR77 T 22:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
First, nothing I said about Wesley is even close to a "personal" attack, there is nothing about his life per se -- it's all relevant and on-point given that the issue is WP:OWN and that Wesley is the owner in question. Second, the main point of my edit was to remove the phrase "In response to the lackluster reaction to Zeitgeist" because that is simply nowhere in the Tribune interview. Third, considering that Corgan told EQ Magazine in September about his plans for a new record, "may not" is IMO at least as justifiable as "will not". Or I suppose we could have dueling sentences, like, "Corgan is planning a psychedelic new record. Corgan also says he will make no more records." That said, even if others disagree with me on the will/may issue, they could have edited that part while leaving intact the appropriate part of my edit -- that is, they could have offered an edit of their own rather than a revert.
Fourth, this is not going further to arbitration or anything like that; I don't have the time. It's nice that Wesley works a lot on the article, but I believe that he very often reverts when it is not necessary. The "New single news" is a classic case but there are others. A lot of times it's just Wesley going toe-to-toe with one other editor and Wesley exerting his will just because he looks at this page five times a day, i.e., because he owns it. The Ron Roesing change is a perfect example because it could easily have been allowed -- as pretty much everyone acknowledges, it could go either way. But in the end it was Wesley's way; Werideatdusk gave up. I gave up on the Matt Walker vs. MadM thing under similar circumstances. Time and again Wesley wins not on the merits but just because he persists. That has discouraged good editors and it continues to do so. Jjb (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I, too, am against the blunt inclusion of there being "no more" studio albums. Corgan has stated on more than one occasion that the band is considering alternative methods of bringing the music to the public; just because he's had a raunchy attitude in one interview doesn't mean that that's the final word. Anyone with common sense should learn to take the words of a music artist with a grain of salt, because time and time again they've proven to change their mind and go off with an entirely different plan. Remember when Corgan hyped that acoustic performance DVD in 2005, recorded it after an extensive amount of work, and then never spoke of it again afterwards because of his idea to reunite the band? Seriously! Now, I'm not sure if this interview is as recent as it states (January 13, 2009) but if it is, then what Corgan has said completely backs up the alternative method I spoke of, and also doesn't neccessarily mean that the Smashing Pumpkins are now and forever will be a "singles band." I don't doubt that there will be more releases like G.L.O.W. but I also don't believe everything Corgan says when he's pissed at his fanbase. Not after this many years. —Vanishdoom (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl commercial song

FYI: (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2009/0004961540&EDATE=) StevePrutz (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let it be noted that, today, without deigning to provide an edit summary explaining his action (and with no discussion on the talk page supporting his action), article owner WesleyDodds reverted an editor who had attempted to add information about "FOL" to the article. I undid Wesley's revert and then improved the information about "FOL". Jjb (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOcsPmAtUjQ
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Smashing_Pumpkins/Archive_4&oldid=1136228218"