Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Featured articleThe Smashing Pumpkins is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 11, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 15, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
October 11, 2007Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article
Close

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Smashing Pumpkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Today's edit

I restored the consensus version per the admin close at Talk:The_Smashing_Pumpkins/Archive_5#Request for Comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think someone changed it months ago, and no one really noticed or cared. Not contesting its restoration, just saying it continues to clarify a question (virtually) no one asked. Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Newer sources

Sources for band membership

Do we have sources for Chanberlain/Iha being members again? Because I've come across a number of sources that basically go "Iha is back" in the headline and then the body basically says "according to is looking at this photo of him sitting in a studio with Corgan", which isn't actual confirmation at all... Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears all of it's speculation. It's very likely correct speculation, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a single actual report that the reformation is happening.RF23 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I hadn't gone in and done any updating myself. A lot if the recent events of the last few years could use some re-writing and streamlining. I was about to start it, but then realized how much was not really confirmed, but rather the music press speculating on photos and cryptic social media comments. Which is fine to include, but it needs to have the right context - i.e. "According to Billboards speculation". Considering how tedious it would be to articulate that, only to revise it again when Corgan assumeably announces it officially, I figured I'd just wait. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The band has a countdown going that expires on Thursday too, so maybe they'll clarify some things then. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Billboard article here basically paraphrases our concerns discussed here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

New York Times Interview - March 2018

2018 EPs

Has there been any update on the 2 EPs? The first one was set to come out May 2018, and yet its August and there's been no word on it. I find myself wanting to update the article, but I haven't seen any coverage or reaction to this at all. Am I missing something? Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Corgan has been doing these Q&A "stories" on Instagram. Maybe two days ago someone asked if there were going to be new EPs or a full-fledged album, and he suggested the latter. I have been trying to find an actual source to support this to no avail. So anyway, I would probably go with what we can confirm, which is that he said they are planning to release two new EPs, and leave it at that. — MusikAnimal talk 20:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't really use Instagram, so I missed that one. With writing the Solara (song) article, I noticed that the band still gets pretty good coverage in the music industry, even outside the rock websites, so I was just surprised I couldn't find anything on this. I'm all for leaving it as is for now too, but it sure would make more sense to do a full album instead of a 2 EPs, (if you've already got 8 songs in the works already anyways) so I'll be on the lookout for more confirmation on that too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how an LP doesn't constitute an album, but here ya go (sorry to send you to Imgur, didn't want to upload this on Commons). That one is from today — MusikAnimal talk 02:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping me updated on this, though, much like you, I'm confused by his comment as well. Hopefully he'll clarify soon. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Zeitgeist - stoner rock?

The current version of the Zeitgeist states stoner rock as a genre in the infobox. This is "cited" by a single review (Pitchfork), which states "Songs like "Doomsday Clock" and "Tarantula" wave the flag of stoner rock like Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult..." I don't think this is enough for this genre to be included here. What do others think? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless explicitly describing the album as a whole, the genre should not be included. Robvanvee 18:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. People are weirdly obsessive with trying to shoehorn genre like that or “shoegaze” into articles where they don’t belong. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of an RfC about including the word "The" in song/album article titles

Hello there! I started a discussion on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on 7 July, and it hasn't received any responses. This RfC concerns the use of the word "The" in band names in parentheses in the titles of articles about songs and albums. Further elaboration can be found on that discussion page. I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who may be interested in the discussion. Thank you. –Matthew - (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This topic reached consensus at an Rfc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Smashing_Pumpkins/Archive_5#Request_for_Comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe the RFC is in reference to all bands, not specifically SP. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s fine. I only noticed because it’s all over my watchlist. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Smashing pumpkins vs. Smashing Pumpkins

Hi. First talk post here. The name/title of the page should really be "Smashing Pumpkins." Not only do most of their album covers and spine labels only say "Smashing pumpkins" the band's own website does not contain "the." The band members also say that the band was originally called "Smashing Pumpkins" as a joke. There is also a myth that the frontman Billy Corgan called it that because he would smash pumpkins after a girlfriend broke up with him. iTunes, Tidal, and Apple Music has them listed as "Smashing Pumpkins." --Warmallis0n (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

See the talk page archives, this has been discussed at length, and it doesn’t really matter, as both names are covered in the opening sentence and both Smashing Pumpkins and The Smashing Pumpkins link to the same place. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
See , from Billy's Instagram Q&A this past June (not that Instagram is a suitable source). The two variants are simply interchangeable. — MusikAnimal talk 05:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What does that guy mean it "doesn't matter"? Does it matter if you call a former president Richard Nixon or Richard Nickson? Is fact suddenly irrelevant on Wikipedia? 184.147.211.109 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it's just that you've given a terrible, low-effort analogy. It's not like that at all. It's not like we're discussing whether it's "Corgan" or "Corrigan" or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I never decided for myself if it was "the Smashing Pumpkins", or "The Smashing Pumpkins", with Smashing Pumpkins without "the" prefix being a common shorthand. Not here to suggest any changes, nor argue either way, just pointing out how something so simple can get so confusing. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's part of the problem - doesn't feel like the band ever decided either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
They didn’t. Older work has “The Smashing Pumpkins”, some newer and some of the oldest has “Smashing Pumpkins” as the artist. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 23:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pisces Iscariot, Aeroplane Flies High, and Judas O under Discography Section

Although it seems the general rule is that only "studio albums" are included on the main page for musicians, the "compilation albums" by the Smashing Pumpkins Pisces Iscariot, Aeroplane Flies High, and Judas O include some original, previously unreleased material. I think they merit inclusion on the main page, not just on the separate discography page.

For example, on the Beatles main page, the album Magical Mystery Tour is included in the discography section - not merely on the separate discography page. However, Magical Mystery tour is classified as double EP that includes some songs that were previously released and some songs that were part of a different album's studio recording work.

No, this is why we have Smashing Pumpkins discography. And the template at the bottom of the article. And they are linked throughout the body of the article. There are no shortages of links to these articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No shortage of links, perhaps. But certainly a shortage of politeness. For your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_rude
And here’s some for you - WP:BRD and WP:EW. You’re violating both. Beyond your basic conduct failures, compilation albums don’t belong here, no matter how much original material they may have. Fight all you want, it’s basic mishandling of the guidelines, and editors are going to continually remove it whether I revert you or not. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ginger Pooley Membership

I recently put Ginger Pooley as a member of the band, as she was for 3 years, but she was removed. While she did not record anything with the band, neither did Melissa Auf der Maur, who was a member for barely 1 year, and she is included. Billy Corgan has also made comments suggesting he (or Melissa) didn't consider Melissa a full member either (https://www.nme.com/news/music/billy-corgan-reveals-melissa-auf-der-maur-isnt-part-smashing-pumpkins-reunion-2403945) while Ginger's own membership status has never been stated clearly for one way or the other, as far as I can find. If I am wrong in my thinking, feel free to let me know why, but if Melissa is included, Ginger should be as well surely. --Uhminecraftgang (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

1) Yes, Ginger was considered a full member back in '07. It was in press at the time. (note - Lisa Harriton was a touring member at the time). 2) BC said Melissa was a FULL MEMBER back in early 2000 in a radio interview. He said something like: "She's a fully fledged Pumpkin, which is basically like saying you're a member of the Communist Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.52.244 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It was discussed a lot many years back, when there were more regular editors maintaining this page. If it’s not in this articke’s talk page archives here, it may be at the spinout article List of the Smashing Pumpkins band members and it’s talk page articles. Basically, I believe it boiled down to comments Corgan made - he considered Melissa a member but Pooley just a touring member. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

3) Well considering the conflicting comments on both Melissa and Ginger being members or not being members, I still think it is worth reconsidering putting Ginger in the members section, as she was bassist for over two years, just not on the sole album put out during that timeframe.--Uhminecraftgang (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know of the exact timeframes, but that “2 years” is more it less just the Zeitgeist touring cycle, considering she didn’t record anything on Zeitgeist, and then didn’t record anything for TBK in 2009... Sergecross73 msg me 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
By that logic though, Melissa should not be in the list either. She toured for a single year, less than Ginger did, and also recorded nothing with the band (minus 1 live track on Judas O, and if we are going off live recordings, Ginger was featured much more in If All Goes Wrong than Melissa was on Judas O)Uhminecraftgang (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I was just indulging your reasoning for a moment, that’s not really how we should handle it. It should really come down to what reliable sources most commonly say on the matter. Looking through the talk page archives in one of the peer reviews, it was mentioned that no one could find a source explicitly calling Pooley an official member, and that’s why they relegated her to just touring member. The best route would probably be to dig up sources on the matter and see where things fall. If we’ve got a WP: CONSENSUS after that, we’re all set. If there’s still disagreement, it’d be best to set up a neutrally worded WP:RFC. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Teargarden by Kaleidyscope status

TBK is NOT a 'studio album'. It's an album project. Also, BC abandoned the idea after MTAE, which notably doesn't sound at all like the TBK internet songs (1-10). Why should this be classified as a studio album? I see no reason to, because it's NOT.

How about we put it into 'Related articles - albums'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.52.244 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re kind of splitting hairs when you’re using terms like “studio album” and “album project” that was recorded in a studio... Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Notably, it's already not listed on this page's 'discography' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.57.47 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ginger Pooley as official member of the band

This applies to both this article and List of the Smashing Pumpkins band members. Does anyone know why we're not including Ginger Pooley (née Reyes) as an official former member? I found this similar discussion for the main band members list, which at the time did not have Melissa Auf der Maur listed as an official member, either. I haven't figured out when that changed, but I don't see any discussion around it. My guess is the justification was the existence of reliable sources which considered her an official member, as well as her being included in music videos, etc. – rather than her studio contributions – as her only contribution on a release (Judas O) was a live recording from rehearsals. Following this logic, the same is true for Ginger Pooley and thus she should be included. She was featured in several music videos, was included in promo shoots, and widely considered the replacement for Wretzky and Auf der Maur in the reformed band. See the Chicago Tribune, VWMusic, Buddyhead, etc. She was also credited on a major release, the If All Goes Wrong documentary.

If the rule is "few or no studio contributions" means you can't be an official member, Auf der Maur should arguably also be removed. But I think from the eyes of the band and many of the fans, Pooley was unquestionably a core member and would have likely remained to participate in the studio recordings to come, had she not left herself in 2010.

Thoughts? — MusikAnimal talk 04:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging editors from the older discussion about Melissa: @Lapadite, @Sergecross73 — MusikAnimal talk 04:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Atum and Teargarden

Now that the Pumpkins have announced yet another overarching project, should we change the Discography list to reflect it? In my opinion, it should look something like this (note, I'm aware of the red links, as they get released I assume new pages will be made due to the different chart positions and reception):

Main article: The Smashing Pumpkins discography

Studio albums

Notes
† Contains the albums Oceania (2012) and Monuments to an Elegy (2014), an overarching project abandoned before completion.
° Contains the albums Atum: Act One (2022), Atum: Act Two (2023), and Atum: Act Three (2023), an overarching project currently in production.
Xanarki (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep listing Oceania and Monuments in the main list, as they were more prominently seen as their own thing than a part of TBK. The Atum stuff makes more sense to revisit after part 2 releases, as there's no way it would be split before then, and wouldn't need that mention until at least then. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Pisces Iscariot

How is this album not listed? One of the greatest covers ever on it. Landslide. LoveDemDawgs (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@LoveDemDawgs Pisces Iscariot is a compilation. The discography section of their main page is for studio albums only. yawaraey (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Yup, this is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Genres

We should include more genres than just alternative rock. One genre on it's own doesn't cover everything. I recently added more genres with sources and maybe we could narrow them down and add some more genres to the infobox. Alternative rock on it's own doesn't cut it because it does not provide a summary of what is in the musical style section. I suggest including grunge, psychedelic rock, heavy metal, shoegaze, and synth-pop on top of alternative rock, as these provide a nice summary/overview of what's in the article and provides more detail than alternative rock on it's own. I know we can't list every genre they are know for but more than one would be helpful for the infobox.Bowling is life (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Not every infobox needs a laundry list of genre like that. The band dabbles in many genre, but its relatively rare for them to be called things like a "heavy metal" band. There's an extensive "musical styles" section that covers the other genre with the proper context and nuance that the infobox lacks. Adding those were only worsen the genre warring I've been maintaining for the last decade+. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I get that avoiding genre warring is important but I feel like this has the same issue with the grateful dead article in that the singular "alt rock" heading doesn't really do it justice and is way too vague. The pumpkins are routinely placed in categories like grunge or electronica or shoegaze. I think there should be some kind of vote on what genres can be included because as it currently stands, it's way too insular and vague Susrage (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@Susrage: I agree, that's why I started this discussion two years ago. Deciding on four genres may be a little tricky but four would definitely be better than one. The Template:Infobox musical artist says two to four are preferred. Only having one genre is not descriptive enough considering the changes in sound throughout the band's career. I know some band articles have more than four, but if you think we should stick you the preferred amount per the guideline that is fine too. What do you think we should do? We do have plenty of other genres in the body of the article we could include. Bowling is life (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I’d say the editors hold a discussion to decide which genres appear frequently enough to be included. In my mind probably something like grunge, art rock, or metal since they appear very frequently Susrage (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
As I said two years ago, I'm against this. I believe the current set up is better when you've got a musical styles section as well developed as this one. But the way to go about changing what's been the sitting consensus since it passing its FA would indeed be garnering a new consensus, and the most likely way to get that would be to demonstrate that reliable sources commonly use the respective other genre. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I think having only 'alternative rock' suffices. This is because, from one particular perspective, 'alternative rock' can be considered a generalized umbrella term of a genre, similar to 'hard rock', 'classic rock', 'crossover punk', etc. (just one step deeper than the likes of 'rock' and 'metal'). As opposed to the more specific ones like 'shoegaze', 'groove metal', 'post-grunge', etc.
So, by sticking with the vague and generalized 'alternative rock', it automatically encompasses the dozen or so genres that the band has touched upon.
But if the majority prefers more specific tags, then I wouldn't opposed to it. But lengthy discussion on each one, individually, would have to happen. Xanarki (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Why does the lead section focus so heavily on their new music, as opposed to their more well-known 90s albums?

The band is generally known for their 90s work, such as Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, but for some reason, the lead section spends a disproportionate amount of time on their post-reunion material. Why is this? Dogslatin (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier albums should be named dropped, I'm surprised they're not there, but otherwise, I mean, chronologically speaking, about half their career is "post-reunion", so it's not surprising to see a fair amount of time covering it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Just added the information on there. Had to make it four paragraphs, but with the size of the article and per MOS:LEADLENGTH this should be appropriate. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it looked good. I just made some minor grammar additions and also added the other 3 albums without too much of a spotlight on them (due to their decreased importance when compared to Siamese/Infinite) Xanarki (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks good. I don't really think there was any active intention to emphasize the newer stuff, I think it was just an effect of editors adding new development over the years. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Sergecross73, and I appreciate the additions Xanarki! PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just shortly after we came to an agreement on it, another edit came by and made a bunch of changes that I didn't think were overall improvements. Info was added and removed without explanation, it was overly wordy in places, they added a bunch of sources which goes against WP:LEADCITE. Mentioning it here in case we need further discussions yo hash this out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

TFA?

Hi all, I'm considering scheduling this at Today's Featured Article on the Main Page near the end of October. One potential problem: there's a trend among Wikipedians to get more serious about inline citations in general ... for instance, there's a recent change requiring inline citations for Good Article nominations. This is a Featured Article, and the unreferenced passages tool is showing that a fair number of sentences at the end of paragraphs are missing citations:

The odds are that nearby citations will cover most of these sentences ... anyone feel like working on this? - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I can take a look and let you know what I can find in the coming days. I'd probably remove that last one about Cyr performances. That one off show probably isn't noteworthy in the scheme of their 35 year history... Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll add the refs as I find them above for you to check over for approval. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Great. I changed "progressive rock," to "and progressive rock." (in the article, not above). But that might mean that some text got deleted at some point. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sergecross73 ... anyone have thoughts on whether running this (after the citations are added) at TFA is likely to have a net positive or net negative effect on the article? I'm not good with band articles, but I can ping some people who are if that will help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Its up to you. Once could argue we'd complement each other well - I'm good with band articles, but I don't do much with the GA/FA process. (I write/rewrite article and let others send it through the process if they want to, or like this article, maintain it after its already been passed.) You know FA stuff, but aren't big into bands. If you're spearheading it, I'll keep helping. If you're not, I've got other things I'm trying to work on. Its up to you. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
It's looking good, but let's run this next year. I'd like more time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

In the second paragraph of the lead section of this article, it said

Disavowing the punk rock roots of many of their contemporaries...

.

This sentence implies that the band takes little to no influence from punk rock. That sentence is also unsourced.

However, that contradicts a paragraph in the body of the article under the Musical style, influences, and legacy stating:

The Smashing Pumpkins' music has explored alternative rock, grunge, psychedelic rock, heavy metal, shoegaze, synth-pop, art rock, electronic rock, gothic rock, dream pop, psychedelia, college rock, punk rock, and progressive rock.

There is a source after the mention of punk rock, however I cannot corroborate it.

I have therefore removed the sentence in the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that it's truly unsource-able, it's been present in the article since 2007, when it passed the rigorous Featured Article review, though the source given back then isn't working for me at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
So what do you think about the sentence? DeathTrain (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming Ginger and Lisa should be referred to as touring members and not official members?

This has been brought up a few times, but another user went on List of the Smashing Pumpkins band members page without any discussion, and moved Ginger & Lisa from Former Touring Members to Former Members.

I believe that both should be considered Former Touring. As someone up above said, "Looking through the talk page archives in one of the peer reviews, it was mentioned that no one could find a source explicitly calling Pooley an official member, and that’s why they relegated her to just touring member." I assume the same applies 10x to Lisa.

The only argument anyone made was Melissa's inclusion; however, despite her limited studio involvement, it's dead easy to find sources from the era that mentions her as an official member. I think a final word needs to be made on this. Xanarki (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is accurate to my recollection of prior discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

How should we handle the Machina reissue?

The track list for upcoming Machina reissue is currently included at Machina/The Machines of God#Track listing. As you're all no doubt aware, the reissue also encompasses Machina II/The Friends and Enemies of Modern Music, so it doesn't really make sense for the track list to be in one article over another, or even in both articles.

I'm not aware of any precedent for this, but how would others feel about the creation of specific article for reissue titled Machina Aranea Alba Editio [sic], which appears to be the official title of the reissue per Billy Corgan's website? This separate article could then be linked to in the leads and body (with minimal sourcing) of both the Machina and Machina II articles, and included at The Smashing Pumpkins discography#Box sets, since the reissue is an 8-disc vinyl box set.

I've so far found 22 reliable sources discussing this reissue since at least 2014, so I believe there would enough coverage to facilitate a standalone article, and I believe this approach would make the most sense for the casual reader. But like I said, there's no real precedent for this type of approach, in that I've never heard of 2 different albums being reissued together in the same box set in this way. So I'm hoping for feedback before embarking on this project. Would appreciate any and all advice or criticism, or alternative ideas. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, a new article would be ideal. Overall, it is common for singular reissues to combine different albums, but usually they're given generic names such as Album #1/Album #2 or The Boxset or something. Corgan is just a bit more particular about the naming and whatnot. Xanarki (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what sources are out there and if we can avoid WP:MERGEREASON. Is this breaking news or something? I haven't seen this pop up on any of my news feeds, so it's new to me... Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the sources I've found to my sandbox. It's 21 sources (1 was more relevant to Machina/The Machines of God, so will add that to that article soon), spanning 2014 to 2025. I personally don't believe an article about the reissue would meet any of the 5 criteria at MERGEREASON, and would even be protected from the deletion by the 2 reasons listed at WP:NOTMERGE. I'll work on the proposed article over the weekend. My work in my sandbox won't be pretty or by any means complete, but will hopefully give everyone a better idea of the kind of article I have in mind. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
@Xanarki: @Sergecross73: Sorry about the delay, but I have a first pass for the potential article at my sandbox. It's still not mainspace ready, but it should give you a good idea of what I'm going for. There's a brief introduction to both albums, with the majority of the article providing a history of the labored reissue project. How the band began work on the project in 2014, and that it would include alternate versions; the band re-recording material in 2018; remixing material in 2020; and the promotion for the reissue (his "solo tour", why James and Jimmy aren't participating, Melissa Auf der Mar returning for a show, and the general release history). Hopefully, this can still be expanded with some reviews and a commercial performance section, but those remain to be seen. Feel free to tinker around at the page and improve whatever you want. Should you and anyone else agree, I'd ideally have this at mainspace before September 5 (release day). Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I think it looks fine, good job overall. Certainly covers all of the basics. My only suggestion is to add something to the lede which summarizes the box set, like along the lines of.. Machina – Aranea Alba Edition essentially reissues and combines two of the band's previous albums, Machina and Machina II (the latter of which has never been widely circulated up until this point) etc etc etc. Xanarki (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I've created Machina: Aranea Alba Editio. Anyone can feel free to change things up there as they see fit. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I thought there could be pushback on having an article for a re-issue, but it doesn't seem like anyone's raised any issues yet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Zodeon at Crystal Hall

Discussion relating to the release of Zodeon at Crystal Hall. Dispute as to if this is a studio album or b-sides collection. EL Foz87 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have seen zero third party reliable sources frame this as the 14th Smashing Pumpkins studio album. I have, however, seen it listed at the Atum track list for at least the last 2 years. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Even if it was considered by the band to be a major release (as I've advocated for certain EPs/mini-albums/soundtracks for other artists to be listed under Discography, so, I understand the approaches), it is structurally a compilation album. Albeit with only 2 or 3 previously unreleased songs.
And if someone wanted to get really technical + if the band is insistent that it's a studio album, then it could be filed as an archival album instead.
Either way, it shouldn't be listed alongside the main albums. Xanarki (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I mean, the signs are all there. It's not available on streaming, has no retail availability (beyond his own tea shop), has had nothing in the way of review copies or promotional efforts. It's not uncommon for these individual factors to occur sometimes, but for all of them to concurrently apply to an album release in 2025? That's not how you handle a standard studio album. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
it's referred to as an album in this interview with Billy (where he also talks about releasing albums in non-standard ways like a vinyl exclusive and with no press) and on the official store page for it. If Machina II is a studio album, I don't see how this isn't. RF23 (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Machina 2 is not a good comparison point. It was all previously unreleased content from a planned double album. Zodeon was largely released as part of Atum. And while I know the band is obviously far from their days of mainstream relevance, but come on. Zodeon did't chart anywhere, had no singles at radio, and had no promotional effort behind it at all. I wouldn't know it even exists if not for my Wikipedia watchlist. The band hasn't fallen that far into irrelevance yet. It was like this for Atum or Aghori - they both charted on a global level. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
is there some standard listed that say an album has to chart, have singles and promotional effort behind it to be considered a proper album? WP:NALBUM only mentions relevancy for standalone articles, I'm not sure if I'm missing something. to me that doesn't seem relevant when the album was specifically released in an obscure way according to it's creator. the pixies page lists Indie Cindy as an album despite it being just a compilation of previously released music (and I'm sure there are several other examples of this elsewhere), Once Upon a Time in Shaolin is listed in the Wu-Tang page's discography despite it's unconventional (non)-release that had no charting, singles or promo. RF23 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
No, its really just supporting evidence for the main argument, which is that its a compilation album. It's a collection of of Atum b-sides. Its not even the first time most have been released together. And even your source makes multiple allusions to it being done similar to how they've done past b-side releases. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The term "compilation album" contains the word album. I see no problem here. ~2026-16472-05 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I think we jumped right in without explaining why it matters. It mostly comes down to differences in how and where we organize things.
  1. Guidelines say that you generally don't list compilation albums at Smashing Pumpkins#Discography if a separate discography article exists (which it does, at Smashing Pumpkins discography.)
  2. Compilation albums are placed in a different subsection at Smashing Pumpkins discography
That is what originally spurred this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 04:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
It was in reference to the interview where the artist refers to it as an album, which does not in any way definitively solidify it as a studio album. Album is a rather nebulous and large umbrella term. It is without a doubt a compilation of already released material with some extras.
The overall resistance to shining much light on the release compared to Pisces, and keeping it tucked away with Atum, is interesting. Perhaps a collective (and admittedly un-encyclopedic) form of subconsciously wanting the release to fulfill its prophecy of staying overlooked? There is a peculiar sensitivity around this collection of songs. Not that I mind, just noting it. ~2026-16847-22 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're referring to, but that doesn't represent what's I've said nor my intentions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't know who you are. ~2026-17194-75 (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Who are you referring to in that comment then? Sergecross73 msg me 11:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The collective response towards this release is quite muted. I noted that it was interesting. There is nothing further to add, and this isn't about you. Nobody is the face of this article, believe it or not. ~2026-17281-85 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Your replies are getting further and further from the main question here: Is Zodeon at Crystal Hall a full album or something else?
I think it’s more of a compilation album, because it contains previously-released material, and I haven’t seen anyone or anything calling it the 14th album. Unlike Zeitgeist, Zodeon has not been marketed as a full album or released as a full album, and it isn’t available on streaming. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 10:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, there's the disconnect. This talk page is for discussing how to write this article, not for general personal musings about what you find "interesting" about the album. See WP:NOTAFORUM. Sergecross73 msg me 11:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion about whether I consider the album to be a compilation happened directly in my first and second replies, and I would invite you and PhilDaBirdMan to view them again. Everything has been in service toward the subject, including the unforgivable musing, which was expressing a very on-topic concern that the release is not prominent enough. There was no intention to ever expound further, however you engaged with it twice, insisting, a move you may want to self-reflect on. I will also self-correct and humbly reduce my future output to a far stricter adherence, and my suggestion to you would be to consider fewer forum-like musings yourself, such as "and while I know the band is obviously far from their days of mainstream relevance, but come on" under the Machina 2 discussion, and keep the talk page very strictly within protocol. We can all do better. ~2026-17094-18 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Moving on, reviewing the discussion, it appears we're, at best, "consensus in favor of it being a compilation album", and at worst, "no consensus for calling it a standard studio album". Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much. This was kinda clear cut the entire time. I've done my fair share of advocating for something being listed under a condensed Discography list, aka "major releases of new studio material"...this definitely ain't one of 'em though. Xanarki (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I can appreciate the deeply intractable need to maintain appearances. To join you in moving on, the fact is undeniable that the album compiles previously released material. The Machina box set also does this, and it too is a compilation, but "box set" is a higher order in that hierarchy, whereas Zodeon is a single disc. Compilation is the correct terminology. My concern remains that there is zero coverage of Zodeon at all on the main page, nor does it have its own article, for a release that is arguably more of a holistic statement than Pisces Iscariot, regardless of its status as a compilation. ~2026-17436-36 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Kiki Wong

Why is a 'touring member of the band' not a member of the band? Saw her in a music video with them recently too (Yungblud's "Zombie") Jaybonaut (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It's how sources seem to report it. See Guitar World, Loudwire, etc. Loudwire shows the exact wording from the band. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI