Talk:Teargarden by Kaleidyscope

Tracklist

Someone added a "songs" section consisting of those songs which are "rumored" to be on the release. The notion of such a section is flawed in several ways. First of all, the inclusion of "Shadowland", based on its appearance in the David Lynch Television interview. This was one of the 50-odd songs Billy demoed at his LA studio over the summer, NOT a recording for the final album. It does indeed seem likely that the first four songs are "A Song for a Son", "A Stitch in Time", "Widow Wake My Mind", and "Astral Planes", based on short snippets released on the internet, and comments made by Corgan, Tulin, and Brown on various videos and interviews. However, Corgan himself said that he didn't want to confirm any songs because he wants to retain the right to change his mind about them at the last minute. So, aside from all the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" and "original research" objections, it's also against Corgan's artistic wishes. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, there's a few dead links too, the ones for notes 5 and 6 both yield a broken link (i think it's a deleted page from the pumpkins site) Don't know how to edit it out, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.201.142 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if they bring the news back online. – Kochas (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Release date

I don't think Dec 7th is really viable for an official "release" date. The whole concept of this album is a set of 11 EPs, and Song for a Son being available for streaming on AOL Spinner doesn't really have anything to do with that. I think any release dates should be the date that the first four song EP is released. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Incredible. I spoke too soon. [1] Still, the question remains, shall we have it as the 7th or the 8th of December 2009? Does an online stream count as a "release" just because SP.com says so? I'll put in the 8th of December for now rather than "To be released", because at least now we have a tangible time of availability.119.224.20.137 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The release date section of the infobox is intended to display the earliest known date the album became available to the public. A stream is more of a sample, and not really anything that can be defined as ownership. As of today, no one can obtain the single, only listen to it. So, I would not call December 7th a release date. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the release date: as the official, December 7 press release was saying, the song was available to download "starting tonight at midnight" – see: Google's cache of the official website [as at the moment it's no longer online]. So firstly, the press release calls the matter a release, so the song is in fact, but digitally, released — and secondly, midnight was undoubtedly already the 8th. – Kochas (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception

I think we are going to have many voices from different media, about each and every upcoming song from the "album". So how do you imagine the Reception section? Do we make separate subsections with reviews of each song? [Btw, I think the reviews space in the album's infobox counts for the album as a whole.] –Kochas (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

the article shouldn't be using full quotes in the first place.. everything including the reception section should be slimmed down and match the formatting of official good articles. as for reviews of each song, i strongly think it's unnecessary and should only pertain to the project as a whole. multiple critical reception on 44 separate songs is overkill. —Vanishdoom (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it would be silly to include reviews for every song. This article will probably evolve quite a lot over the months as more songs are fed to the public. We only have one song now, so that's all we have to work with. Maybe once the first EP is released, there will be more room to have a summary of the album as a whole. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably too early to have this discussion, as only one out of 44 singles have been released. It's possible that there will be reviews of individual EPs, or two years from now there could also end up being reviews on the project as a whole. The infobox review section should definitely only be for reviews of the entire project. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Not only are there way too many from primary sources, half of the links are probably dead ever since SP.com updated its main page. These citations are going to have to be found elsewhere, preferably links that aren't published and written by Billy or anyone closly associated with the band. In the meantime I'm going to remove the dead links.Pasta of Muppets (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for EPs

An article for "A Song For a Son" has been created. By someone who either doesn't understand the announcement about 44 songs to be made available—or who hopes to make detailed articles of every single song of the project. I believe separate articles on the consecutive EPs is considerable, but not necessary. But still, it's too early for that. – Kochas (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is optimal that a page was created for the first song, considering that it is the first one, though I agree it does look bare at the moment. I don't think it's necessary to make a page for each song, at least not yet, or as you say, it's too early to decide on that. But who knows? Corgan's whole point for Teargarden was to spend as much time and focus as necessary on each song in order to make each a masterpiece. We shall see if that pans out, and if that correlates with WP notability. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Download links for each song

I think it'd be good, right, and perfectly legal to include download links to mp3's each song, considering the album is being given away for free on the Internet. Best comparison I can think of is how Smodcast, which is also a free podcast, has available DL links with each posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.101.138 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that it started downloading just because I clicked on it. I think a link to the website would be good enough, no?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that either. Add their official website as an external link, and add some prose about smashingpumpkins.com being the location for downloads in the main article text. Possibly the lead too. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually think including the links would be a good idea. The user is warned that it's an MP3 by the little music icon. Relying on one (terribly implemented) source is a bad idea. For instance, think of the trouble a year from now having to hit "Back" a hundred times to get "A Song for a Son". --Evil Eccentric (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seams fine to me. Maybe putting the EP info into a table with a dedicated row for the song link would be better? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the dedicated row/table idea. Once again, I point to the article for Smodcast. I think that's a good format to emulate. (but not quite as long). There should, at the very least, be an easily accessible download link for people who are interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.185.65 (talk • contribs)

Smodcast should not be used as an example for us to emulate. It doesn't comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for external linking (see below) and is a blatant copyright violation as it is copied and pasted from the SModcast archives. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Try to keep the article encyclopedic. External linking on Wikipedia is meant to be an after thought, just a place to find more information that is not already being used as a reference. Adding 44 links to download songs could be seen as spamming, advertising or promoting. All songs will be available to download on the band's official website, so a single link will suffice. A similar format is followed on The Slip (album), Ghosts I–IV, and LeftRightLeftRightLeft; three albums that were also released as a free download by the artist. Some things to keep in mind: Wikipedia is not a collection of external links and Wikipedia is not a directory. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that one for The Slip page is very useful at all, since the only reference I see to it is all the way at the bottom of the article. It should at least be available in the lead or main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.185.65 (talk • contribs)

Primary sources

Would it be easier if I went through the article and tagged any primary sources that need replacing with either () or ()? I still count at least 15 primary sources (personal blogs, youtube, official websites) that need to be replaced with secondary sources (articles, interviews). Although there has been an effort to clean these sources up, 15 out of 36 references is still a large chunk, so the template message should still remain. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: reception by Pitchfork

There seems to be 3 different reviews by Pitchfork, is this correct? All three say something different, and frankly, not all seem essential to the article. Is there some way to clarify this point?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the rephrasing. I understand now. :-) Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Simpson?

According to the sources provided, Jessica Simpson was dating Billy Corgan during the time of recording, but is no longer. There were also some photographs of her in the studio more or less hanging out. The only part out of the whole paragraph that might make mention of Jessica Simpson relevant to Teargarden by Kaleidyscope is "The photographer Kristen Burns admitted Simpson and Corgan were working together on the song." However, the source provided is a twitter post with a link to picture of bassist Mark Tulin. It also fails to link whatever the song is/was to this album. The whole section has issues with WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Until there is a reliable source that directly supports Simpson's involvements with Teargarden by Kaleidyscope, this speculation does not belong here. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good reason to remove that claim. Nice work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Fezmar. Thank you Abie for noticing this... Still though, the pictures clearly show Billy with Simpson in the studio. And we all know the recording sessions Billy is workin on at the moment are the ones of Teargarden by Kaleidyscope, anounced officially. So your argument regarding the very Twitter post with a wrong picture is just semantics, admit it. In my opinion, the news about Simpson "working on a song" was that notable it just couldn't be avoided in the article — that's why I tried to include many direct references. For now, I included the modified paragraph in Billy Corgan#Personal life. – Kochas (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it couldn't be for a Spirits in the Sky song or even Corgan contributing to a new Jessica Simpson song? Any statement beyond "Simpson and Corgan are in the studio together" is pure speculation. The twitter reference with the wrong picture has nothing to do with semantics, it just doesn't verify your claim. Your claim being "According to the photographer Kristen Burns, Corgan and Simpson were working together on the song during the recording sessions to Pumpkins' concept album project Teargarden by Kaleidyscope." and your source for this statement was "http://twitpic.com/x0u36 - earlier today i took some snaps of @billy @studiodog + the gang. here is a snap of the amazing bass player @mtuli". Fezmar9 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Widow Wake My Mind" released?

I dont see any official mention on the official Smashing Pumpkins website about a release, a download? should it be posted here as fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.7.183 (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Not unless referenced.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For now it's on their MySpace only. But it's hard to say the song's "made available"... –Kochas (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked out the MySpace page and it looks like a full on "made available" to me. It's even got new artwork with the words "Widow Wake My Mind-Download Here" as well as a Twitter posting from 30 mins ago saying "Listen and download the new track..." I say we add info that the track has been released on MySpace.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the address of the download link posted on the band's MySpace page seems to be from the band's official website, though it's not posted there. (link: http://smashingpumpkins.com.s3.amazonaws.com/player/mp3/Widow-Wake-My-Mind.mp3) –Fezmar9 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Methinks Billy Corgan is just lousy with computers. Zazaban (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As of today, the song is now posted on their official website. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

new formatting for "track listing"

IP editor 222.152.179.218 reformatted the "track listing" section, i personally think it's an improvement. Nice work. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The nice thing about the track listing template is that it's collapsible, which will be nice when we have eleven EPs to display. See Let Sleeping Corpses Lie. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I put the next two tracks titles to the template, but really, we don't need it. Imagine the listing after they'll announce next few additional tracks in the limited edition. The template works best with say different producers on hip hop albums, or completely different writers or composers. Let's just quit the template and put the releases dates as a <small></small> text. – Kochas (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

re:Byelf2007's edits

I think Byelf2007's edits are a nice improvement. All except one: the removal of the following paragraph, and I move for it to be reinserted (Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)):

This is the second time the Smashing Pumpkins album is being released for free over the internet. Although the story behind the 2000 Machina II: The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music was a conflict with a record label, and the album included outtakes and alternative versions (to the ones from the earlier Machina: The Machines of God ), Teargarden by Kaleidyscope will be composed of 44 new songs, released one at a time.

I agree, that's notable information. Zazaban (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

His edit summary for the removal of this information was simply "confusing". While I agree here that it should be included, I must also agree with Byelf that this is not really clear. What does the story behind Machina II have to do with Teargarden having 44 songs? This should be reworded before it is readded. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has nothing to do with anything to begin with. Why mention the amount of songs there at all? Zazaban (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reinserted the mention of Machina II, though I think I need you all to make sure it's all right.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Widow Wake My Mind

Please merge There really isn't enough content to justify a new article for each song released from this album. "Widow Wake My Mind" is not likely to have more content than it does now, and that largely amounts to reiterating what is in this article. Anything unique could be merged into a critical reception section and a release history. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say wait until the first 4-track EP is released, then this problem will be solved with a merge to the EP article. StevePrutz (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steveprutz. Combining the song pages into each EP that's released makes sense to me. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...provided there is enough information and sources on each individual EP to warrant individual articles. Corgan makes it sound like the main focus will be the digital downloads, and physical releases are going to be limited to small quantities. I doubt a limited edition release would be deserving of it's own article. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Release history section?

How would everyone feel about a release history subsection under the release section? Instead of having a single sentence mentioning the release date of each song and EP, perhaps this information could better be displayed in a table format. It would have all the release dates for all songs and EPs in one centralized location. This would also clean up the release date section in the infobox and the track listing. I created a rough idea of what I am talking about in one of my sandboxes here. Obviously there could be various alterations to what I have in my sandbox if this is to be implemented. Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Teargarden Theme

Should there be any mention of the song "Teargarden Theme"? I believe it was released to some degree on 4/17 for the Record Store Day stuff. It's certainly from these sessions, although I'm not sure how exactly it fits into the whole scheme of things. (b-side?) Sergecross73 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Although this really cannot yet be confirmed through any decent sources, a bunch of blogs and forum posts are suggesting that the bonus 7" vinyl that comes with the Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor box has a song called "Teargarden Theme". Once some better sources become available, this could probably be added to the track listing section and maybe release section too. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It would be quite easy to put infoboxes for the individual EPs under the "Track listing" section on the main page. Not only would this be a more efficient and prudent deployment of information, it would prevent the already-unwieldy body of Pumpkins articles (and the increasingly bloated SP template) from sinking with the weight of all of this! This is certainly an unusual way to release an album, it's relatively unprecedented, so this is open to discussion! -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we make individual pages for the EPS, it would prevent the TbK page from becoming too large.... this is going to be 11 eps. Think of how big that would make the TbK page... Each EP will be an "album of sorts" in its own right, and although I was pretty lazy in my creation of the page, I think that there is more than enough information to warrant each EP its own page. Tom H. Gatti 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support – There are tons of sources about the Teargarden by Kaleidyscope project as a whole, but not enough sources specifically about Vol. 1: Songs For a Sailor to create an article beyond a stub. As of this comment, I am not seeing any sources to expand the article beyond what it is now with sections on writing, recording, release and reception – the most common sections of Wikipedia album articles. That's not to say that each EP won't someday down the road have enough sources to have their own articles, just not right now. Personally, I don't find the track listing at Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness to be terribly cluttered, and that has 58 songs using two columns. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I believe Teargarden should be split into at least two things: 1. Background/History (ex: History of Chinese Democracy) for the 'album concept', and then 2. an article for all 11 [future] EP's tracklistings/personnel. This is the best deal for this concept "album" I can think of... StevePrutz (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Weak split It seems like this article would be a good place to have an overview of the album series and possibly information on an eventual box set edition, but it would also be wise to have articles on the 11 separate releases to keep this one from getting bloated with individual track listings, infoboxes, and possibly categories. Needless to say, this is a sui generis of an album, so the approach we take here will have to be an ad hoc one that best meets the needs of a reader trying to learn about this topic. It is likely that there will be enough information on the album/box set, individual EPs, and singles to support separate topics with this article being almost a directory for all of that content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Perhaps it would be best to wait until we actually have all this information before we make any final decisions on what to do with it all. Right now this discussion seems very hypothetical... Fezmar9 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Metacritic managed to dig up a whopping four reviews for the EP, so a reception section would likely be pretty weak. The physical release itself contained no liner notes for writing and production credits, so a personnel section would be non-existent. Those are two pretty important sections for all album articles. I really don't see the article expanding much beyond where it is right now—which is currently a stub. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Merge If there are no liner notes at all for the physical release(s), I would support a combine. StevePrutz (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Merge those babies like a transporter accident on Star Trek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.150.30 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Support – I don't think the EPs articles would ever grow to full-fledged pieces anyway. – Kochas (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have added Teargarden by Kaleidyscope, Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare to this discussion. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been merged and redirected here. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps start thinking about making a Teargarden physical releases to trim this article a little? StevePrutz (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Steveprutz/listofteargardeneps StevePrutz (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Analog tape?

Where is it sourced that this album is being recorded on analog tape? After watching the session on webcam yesterday, I'd say this could be disputed. With the way the engineer was maneuvering through the song, there's no way this is on tape. You would have heard the song rewinding back to the beginning. He got to the beginning of the song much quicker. I think this is being recorded digital. 10:04, 30 May 2010

According to a recent interview that Corgan did with Music Radar, they're using both: [2]

Music Radar: Recording-wise, you go straight to tape, right?

Billy Corgan: "I'm starting to use Pro Tools a little bit more for technology advantages, but still, all the core sounds are analog."

As you might tell by his answer, Corgan doesn't go into specifics about how much "more" he's using the technological advantages, but at least it sheds some light on your question. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Track Order

What actually is the correct track order? Different sources state different track ordering. Which is the correct one? 222.154.243.247 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of the physical EP, and the listing is: "A Song for a Son," "Astral Planes," "Widow Wake My Mind," "A Stitch in Time" with the Teargarden theme is on a separate 7" vinyl. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

Dear all, I'm against separating the extra tracks from each EP's track listings. As we all know, there will be at least one different edition of the full Teargarden, with yet further "exclusive tracks". So then what? Another separate section? We should put everything together, like in every other album article. Bonus tracks are just bonus tracks. – Kochas (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you said here. If we're listing the EPs, why separate their corresponding bonus tracks? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. They should be separate/not be in the "release" section, but they should be with their EP in the EP section. (They can be in the same section and still have some sort of note about being a b-side or something) Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes. Also, I think it's best to reset the numbering for each EP, since they are separate releases. Seems like we could number all the free mp3 release continuously, but it seems like the EP should have separate numbering. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all part of the same project, though. Each EP will have 1 bonus track. So you're saying you want to make eleven separate bonus track sections? We're mentioning what EP it's on, and making sure each EP has its own individual track listing, so why not list the bonus tracks in their own section, with clear distinctions between them? And why just repeat the numbering every EP? Again, this is all one album being released in separate parts. Friginator (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If/when it is released as a box set, I would agree with you 100%, but as of right now, I think my way is more accurrate. They're still being released separately now, and I haven't seen anyone anywhere list them all as one set, continuously numbered, when referencing the release of the music in EP form. And I dont' understand what doesn't make sense about keeping the b-sides together with the EP's they came with. I'm going to change it back unless consensus starts to swing in your direction... Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that they're "continuously numbered" or anything like that. But it's all one album, regardless of whether or not it's released in volumes. (which it is; every EP says "Teargarden by Kaleidyscope Volume'"...) The 4-track EPs aren't albums. That's why they don't have their own pages. They're limited collector's items that are released temporarily while the album continues to be made. The way you seem to want it just makes the article messier and more confusing to anyone trying to understand this concept.Friginator (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Friginator, your constant reverting is violating several Wikipedia policies including ownership of an article, failing to adhere to or form a consensus and the three-revert rule. I will ask you politely now to stop reverting against how the majority of the editors feel this article should be written. I fully understand where you are coming from in your argument, however I disagree. The song "Spangled" is the fourth song on the second EP, not the eighth song from Teargarden by Kaleidyscope. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And not only is there the consensus issue, but again, I haven't seen anywhere that has the numbering/organizing you are suggesting. Do you have a reliable source that numbers it the way you do? I'd drop it if you did, but again, I've never seen it your way anywhere...Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first, I'm not claiming any ownership of this article at all. I'm trying to make sure that the information is as clear and accurate as it can be. To be perfectly frank, I'm going to revert edits that make the article less clear, even if three editors disagree. This does not in any way constitute definitive consensus. And as for the track numbering, bonus tracks like the "Teargarden Theme" aren't even on the CD. How does that make it "track 5"? And repeating the numbers 1-4 (or 5, apparently) on each of the scheduled 11 EPs not only will cause confusion for readers, but will give the impression that the album and it's release are not linear, which they clearly are. This is an album article, and the album tracks should be numbered chronologically. If this were an article on one of the EPs, it would be numbered the way you want. Friginator (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear that this is a collection of songs being released on limited edition EPs. Numbering each EP as the EP that it is won't confuse anyone. Reverting an article to a revision that only you agree with is ownership as it demonstrates a possessive nature. From WP:OWN, "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few go so far as to defend it against all others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist— perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it." Fezmar9 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WHAT have I been doing that even comes close to that? I'm only keeping the track listing, and that only started today. If you really want to make crazy accusations because you disagree with me on a particular issue, take it to a noticeboard. But if you're really trying to improve this article, don't stay on this page and point fingers for no good reason. I'm trying to make this album article as clear and accessible as possible, not reverting everyone's edits that make it different from "my version". Rearranging the track listing so that the album's increments doesn't improve the article. It just makes the songs and order harder to keep track of. That's the reason--not some obsessive need to have everything my own personal way. Friginator (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On October 13 you altered the track listing from each EP being numbered individually to being numbered together. And now despite multiple objections to this change, you are maintaining that your revision is more "accessible" and continue to revert back to your revision. That could not be a clearer definition of being possessive over an edit. Especially when you make claims like, "To be perfectly frank, I'm going to revert edits that make the article less clear, even if three editors disagree." You are also failing to even attempt to reach a compromise. Is that because you don't believe there is one to be made? Fezmar9 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. I'm done with the accusations. I'm through pretending that I'm having a normal, polite conversation with normal, polite people. Go crazy with your own conspiracy theories, but if this is your idea of a relevant discussion, you've got a lot to learn. Friginator (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What conspricy theories? Do you deny saying the things that he quoted you on? Or that 3 people disagree with you, but you keep changing it anyways? Everything he said is exactly what happened, using things you said. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, provide a source for numbering it the way you want to. Even if its "unnecessary", as you claim, you should be able to do it if requested...Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What kind of source do you expect? I've tried being reasonable about this on your talk page, but you're clearly not understanding my point. You don't need a source. It's the numbering of already-sourced content that you're fighting over. Billy Corgan has made it clear that this is one album, not eleven. That's why it's all one article. Friginator (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just like Fezmar said: Show me one reliable source where Spangled is listed as track 8. That's all you need to do.Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's two:

• JamYourself.com: here
• TheRockBlog.net: here

Random,unknown blogs are not reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 04:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I left edit warring notices on both of your respective talk pages. Edit warring is highly unconstructive behavior, and also the reason we have talk pages. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. There's no need to keep changing it short term, I'm sure this'll be put the right way in the long term. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I still believe in everything I've said so far, but let's look at it another way. Look at Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. It is considered one, collective album, despite being on two separate discs. Yet look at the article, and virtually any source available. The tracklist numbering restarts for the second disc. No one labels "Bodies" track 16, do they? Same concept should apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Friginator, I'm still waiting to hear why Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, an album by the same band that is also a collection of songs that all go together but span more than one disc, is numbered the way I'm suggesting, not your way. I mentioned this at the end of the tracklisting part 1 discussion section and never got a reply...Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Table suggestion

table one

No.	Title	MP3 release date	MP3 length	EP length	Box set cover	Download cover
Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor May 25, 2010					150px	150px
1.	"A Song for a Son"	December 7, 2009	6:02	6:02
2.	"Astral Planes"	April 16, 2010	4:05	4:05
3.	"Widow Wake My Mind"	January 18, 2010	4:26	4:59
4.	"A Stitch in Time"	March 2, 2010	3:32	3:28
—	"Teargarden Theme"†	—	—	4:03
Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare November 23, 2010						File:Tbkvol2.jpg
1.	"The Fellowship"	TBA	TBA	TBA
2.	"Freak"	July 6, 2010	3:51	TBA
3.	"Tom Tom"	TBA	TBA	TBA
4.	"Spangled"	September 14, 2010	2:29	TBA
—	"Cottonwood Symphony"†	—	—	TBA
A "—" denotes a non-applicable or unknown field. A "†" denotes a vinyl bonus track that was included in the box set and not released as an MP3.

table two

EP	No.	Title	MP3 release date	MP3 length	EP length
Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor – May 25, 2010	1.	"A Song for a Son"	December 7, 2009 (2009-12-07)	6:02	6:02
Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor – May 25, 2010	2.	"Astral Planes"	May 16, 2010 (2010-05-16)	4:05	4:05
Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor – May 25, 2010	3.	"Widow Wake My Mind"	January 18, 2010 (2010-01-18)	4:26	4:59
Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor – May 25, 2010	4.	"A Stitch in Time"	March 2, 2010 (2010-03-02)	3:32	3:28
Vol. 1: Songs for a Sailor – May 25, 2010	—	"Teargarden Theme"†	—	—	4:03
Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare – November 23, 2010	1.	"The Fellowship"	TBA	TBA	TBA
Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare – November 23, 2010	2.	"Freak"	June 6, 2010 (2010-06-06)	3:51	TBA
Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare – November 23, 2010	3.	"Tom Tom"	TBA	TBA	TBA
Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare – November 23, 2010	4.	"Spangled"	September 14, 2010 (2010-09-14)	2:29	TBA
Vol. 2: The Solstice Bare – November 23, 2010	—	"Cottonwood Symphony"†	—	—	TBA

In trying to combine details about the digital releases, physical releases, the history section of this article and the infobox of the formerly separate articles, I came up with this table. It may be a little clunky, but it does combine a lot of necessary information into one section. How would everyone, including those not involved in the above dispute, feel about this format being implemented? If this were to be implemented, what improvements could be made to make it better? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this looks great and we should definitely use it! It's better because it encapsulates all release info together. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. We probably shouldn't make it too complex, but overall I like this table format a lot better, especially because it it'll solve the problem of how to include the respective album covers. It still doesn't settle the previous dispute (and raises more points about the use "—" symbol), but this format is a lot less confusing then the previous or current version. Making it sortable would be an improvement, though. That way there would be more distinction between the order in which they were released, and the actual track order. Friginator (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The way this table is currently set up makes the sortable feature impossible. If anything takes up multiple cells it won't sort properly. By listing the individual release date of each song this table does make a distinction between the track listing and separate release of the songs, it just doesn't list them chronologically. Could you elaborate on your concerns with the use of the dash? Also, as a note to everyone, a bot came through and removed one of the covers. Apparently there's something prohibiting images on talk pages that I was not aware of. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion about the dash would be to make a clearer distinction between "unknown" and "non-applicable." We don't want to give anyone the impression that "Teargarden Theme" or "Cottonwood Symphony" have an upcoming mp3 length or release date. This should be common sense for most people, but everything on Wikipedia needs to be as basic and accessible as possible. Since more symbols would be unnecessary and more confusing, so I would say just writing "N/A" would work better. And the image was apparently removed because according to WP:FUC, which states:

"Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace...images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion."

And for the record I have absolutely no idea why this rule was made. The other two images must not fall under non-free content guidelines, which is why DASHBot didn't remove them as well. Friginator (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns about the dash styling make sense to me, however I used the dash to avoid using N/A as it appears cleaner and more visually appealing. What about using TBA for fields that will eventually be known? Also, the other two images are missing their licensing information, so that's why they were not removed by the bot. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to just say "TBA" and use the dash to simply indicate a non-applicable field. Friginator (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that i really like the new table layout. After months of everyone trying to find a suitable way to present such a crazy track list, this seems to be the best and easiest to understand. ckolar612 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the table with "TBA" in place of "—" where it seemed make more sense. Is this better or worse? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's better, but it does look messier. Still, I'd prefer it was done like this.

Can you think of a good way to change the rows featuring the titles to columns? That way the table would be sortable (I'm pretty sure), and we could have an extra column to list the release number as well as the song number. Friginator (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(With this edit I added the second table for comparison) The "release number" is stated directly though the release date in the original table. The songs may not be arranged in this fashion, but the information is there. The sortable version has many other disadvantages, for example, once you sort the songs in a few different ways, it cannot easily be UNsorted and back to normal. Either you end up trying to solve it like a puzzle, or you have to refresh the page. The cover art cannot be added to the table. You cannot properly sort something that takes up multiple cells, like how they are in the first table. It also looks far more messy than the original, for which I took special care and thought in arranging all of the information in an aesthetically pleasing and minimally confusing manner. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Table 1 looks infinitely better. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't look like anyone is outright against Table 1...how much longer do we have to wait on this? Doesn't seem right to keep it as it is, in which there are three people against it. I'd make the change, but we know what happened last time, even when I had consensus. Can someone else do it, or give me the go-ahead, so it doesn't look like an "act of aggression" or whatever? Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be in favor of the table, you don't need permission or anything. I'm fine with putting it in there, but until there's more consensus about the numbering, I think we should keep as it is, as a compromise. Since it's a 44-track album, people shouldn't have to navigate in order to figure out which of the 44 is which. IMO, bonus tracks should be listed together, but as long as they're not listed numerically with the regular CD/mp3 tracks, I don't see any real problem with keeping them as they are. So I'll just go ahead and add it like that. Friginator (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You've currently numbered the tracks 5,4,5,6. I imagine that's a typo, as no one was shooting for that one...Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Also, I was editing in two tabs on my browser and got mixed up, which is why the first image was restored and made enormous. So sorry about that. Friginator (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I was personally waiting for a solid week for anyone to hop into the discussion before adding the table myself. No one has so now is as good of time as any. In addition to messed up track numbering, I also notice the row headers were removed during their implementation. Any specific reason for that one? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that was another mistake on my part. I didn't copy and paste all of it, apparently. Friginator (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For your consideration

Guys, gosh is this really the better way of highlighting the content of all those upcoming box sets? I'm definitely against any tables! Just take a look at tracklists in cases of other articles regarding the complex mainstream releases:

• Unearthed, a 5-CD set of Johnny Cash albums – even with lots of additional comments to tracks, everything looking nice and clean;
• Remixes 81–04, the triple remix compilation by Depeche Mode, each description in one line;
• Live Box from Björk – every one from the CDs with notes at the bottom (could be done with a slightly more accurate formatting),
• Anthology 1 (or 2 – or 3) by The Beatles – one hell of a complex credits listing.

Nowhere do I see any tables, nor I ever imagined any on any of these track listings. It just wouldn't be clean. This of course is not a rule, and tables can actually improve the presentation of writers, producers, featured collaborators, especially regarding hip hop artists, like Busta Rhymes: Extinction Level Event, Anarchy, or Genesis. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not Discogs, and was never about full credits listings.

After all, Billy isn't recoring any hip hop album as far as I'm concerned – and is not hiring any horde of producers to every track of the Teargarden project. Plus, we cannot actually use any fair-used album cover in any non-infobox entity. We should use the plain track listing, like we have before, with no hidden bonus tracks (because additional tracks will appear in future releases). I rest my case. – Kochas (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that the current table looks a lot better than any of your examples. And this is different than most mainstream releases, in the fact that the songs and EPs are being released at different times, so I think something more detailed is appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

While you are more than welcome to disagree with the way the information is being presented here, I notice a number of flaws in your argument. First, use of tables in a track listing section is accepted by Wikiproject Albums (see WP:ALBUMS#Track listing) and none of the examples you provided are very similar to Teargarden. In fact, there are very few albums that could be considered similar to Teargarden in terms of the way it was released, and thus warrants a unique method of displaying the information. For all intents and purposes, consider the table that is currently on the article as a hybrid between an infobox and a track listing table. Because each individual EP fails to meet the general notability guideline (see above discussion), this large table is an attempt to provide roughly the same information that would be on eleven separate articles within one section. Wikipedia actually does care about full credit listings, as that's one of the criteria of a B-class album article. Also, it is perfectly okay to have cover art outside of an infobox, there just has to be a justified reason. This situation seems to meet WP:FAIRUSE, and as I said earlier, consider this table similar to an infobox. Can you suggest a better way to provide: track numbers, song titles, EP titles, EP release dates, digital song release dates, digital track lengths, physical track lengths, physical cover art, digital cover art and bonus tracks for eleven EPs? Fezmar9 (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is Machina II though. But the main reason I'm in favor of the table is that it lets us display the images for each set of songs. I would be fine with the old track listing (mainly because it's sortable), but the table definitely has its advantages. Friginator (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys for the recalls. I'll try to come up with my own suggestion and share it soon. – Kochas (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Concept and sound

Someone, I believe Friginator, put a "clean up" tag on this section, without any explanation as to why. What needs to be fixed here? Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it, and it's been added back on. Anyone care to explain? Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been added back because no one has done anything to improve the section. It should be completely and utterly apparent from simply reading that the section is not written from an encyclopedic point of view. It seems to be written directly from Corgan's own point of view, putting words in his mouth instead of listing information that has been established elsewhere. Please don't remove cleanup templates unless cleanup has been performed. This should be common sense. Friginator (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very aware nothing had been done on it, I was just checking, as sometimes people add things like this by mistake. No one answering this in over a week further made me wonder if it needed to be there or not, considering the high traffic this page has gotten as of lately. No need to get worked up about it or to take it personally. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Personnel instruments

Currently in the personnel section electric sitar is listed as an instrument Billy Corgan recorded with on the album. I believe this should be taken out because a sitar is a type of guitar, which already is included as an instrument he recorded with. It does provide a distinct sound though, so I'm not removing it without agreement. Appels+Oranjes (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, bass guitar is a guitar too, but it's also mentioned separately, isn't it? I think it's worth mentioning.Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Limited edition singles

Should the "Widow Wake My Mind / A Song for a Son" and "Astral Planes / A Stitch in Time" really be mentioned in the infobox? According to Discogs[3][4] they were each limited to 250 copies and given to attendees of Record Store Day, with each one being given out at a different location. These are more like collector's items than actual singles. I also don't really see any significant coverage establishing their notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but they're still official releases, and the exact same thing was done for Machina II. If they chart, I'd leave them there, but just as promos given to a select few, they shouldn't be categorized as "singles" in my opinion. They still might be worth mentioning. Friginator (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

These singles are completely ineligible to chart. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, if they did chart, they should stay where they are. But if they haven't we should probably list them somewhere else. Friginator (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it's pretty much impossible for them to chart with only 250 copies out there, so that point is moot. I too support mentioning it in the article, but not in the infobox...Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not quite how you phrased it the first time. But anyways, due to zero media coverage outside of fansites and blogs, I don't see any reason these limited edition singles should be even mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Other than acknowledging their existence, there's really nothing more that can be said about them. I believe they should be regarded as fancruft and removed from the article entirely. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

They're just as official as the limited edition EPs, so why shouldn't we mention them? The Machina II EPs only had 25 copies, and they're featured prominently on that particular article. But for a third time, if they haven't charted then I wouldn't put them in with singles like Freak. -- Friginator (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Machina II EPs are different though, they contain songs not featured anywhere else. These "singles" only contain songs already on TBK. And no ones suggesting they be listed as singles anymore, you need not continue to emphasize this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Machina II is worlds away from these two singles. The most obvious difference being the biggest element that fuels encyclopedic content: sources. Without any effort at all, a quick Google search turns up coverage on Machina II from allmusic, mtv, cnet, forbes, chicago times and bbc. While Machina II was a limited edition release, there is actually something to be said about it. These two Teargarden singles were also limited, but no one really acknowledges their existence, so why should we? To me they seem to be the musical equivalent of a Happy Meal toy. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

They're like Happy Meal toys that are worth hundreds upon hundreds of dollars, but yes, they were given away for free. (Correction--they actually cost money.) The release of the Teargarden EPs has clearly overshadowed the two singles in terms of news coverage, but I fail to see why they shouldn't be included. It's not like the Mini-LPs, where no one seems to have ever even seen one. That would be fancruft. So if this is about only being relevant to a small group of fans why even include Songs for a Sailor or The Solstice Bare? Those are only bought by Smashing Pumpkins fans, yet they're all over the article. These are all clearly legitimate Teargarden releases, just like the commercial EPs. Friginator (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a very long-winded response to your comment, but in the end it's not even worth submitting and arguing about. Either someone takes the time to demonstrate the notability through the proper means, or these singles should be removed as holds true of all content on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a few sources, though I'll be on the lookout for more. We still need a ref for the "Astral Planes" release date. Friginator (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources provided qualify as reliable published third-party articles. Discogs is essentially a Wiki site since it's user generated, HipstersUnited is a fan blog and WorthPoint only mirrors data from Ebay. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, those sources are as sketchy as the ones he listed when he was trying to justify his way of numbering the songs... Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sergecross73, you're not being constructive to this conversation. I hope you realize that. Every one of those sources fully serves the purpose that you were asking for. True, Discogs can be edited by anyone with an account set up there. However, there are certain pages that have been confirmed as accurate, and the one I've linked to falls under this category. WorthPoint shouldn't be a problem as a source. It records certain eBay transactions that involve valuable items. And Hipstersunited is extremely notable as a fansite. But for this purpose, using a fansite doesn't violate any rule. Removing these sources, however, especially to create the impression that there is no notability and that the content should and can be removed, is against Wikipedia policy. So, as you can probably tell, I've put those two singles back under the infobox along with "Freak" and "Tom Tom". All four of those releases is every bit as valid. Friginator (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect on all accounts. Wikipedia articles are created through the information found in published sources that have been deemed credible and reliable. Questioning sources actually strengthens articles and is entirely constructive behavior. How is Joe Shmoe an authoritative source? If you had a medical question, which would you trust more: a doctor with education and background in the medical field, or some guy with blog? Discogs and eBay content is created by everyday people, not published/scholarly journalists or industry executives as one might find at say Allmusic or Rolling Stone. Fansites by nature are inherently biased sources of information and should never be used. In fact WP:ELNO believes fansites shouldn't even be used as a harmless little external link, which hold no bearing on the content of the article. And since when was Tom Tom released as a single??? Fezmar9 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Friginator, my presence shows that Fezmar9 isn't the only one who has a problem with what you're doing. I'm not as detailed as he is with his answers because, well, he's already covered it. But again, he's spot on: You're confusing "websites you find reliable" with "websites wikipedia finds reliable". The very fact you used the phrase "very notable as a fansite" is the epitome of that. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the epitome of the opposite, actually. And it would be irresponsible for anyone to stop making decisions because two people find those decisions wrong. So this whole "two person" style of intimidation isn't going to stop me from improving this encyclopedia. But back to the actual subject of this discussion, Fezmar, how are singles "fancruft" and why should they be removed from the article? When an album is being released, singles are released alongside it for purposes of promotion. Not everyone owns these singles, and not everyone will ever even see them. But that's simply how the process works. Of course they're mainly of interest to fans, but that doesn't necessarily make them non-notable. And I would also appreciate it if you would elaborate on your metaphor about the doctor, because I can't make heads or tails of it. Friginator (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not intimidation, that's silly. I'm just showing that it's not Fezmar that has a grudge against you or something. The fact is, you can't provide a wikipedia approved reliable source for this. Only ones YOU deem reliable. You still haven't done so, and so the burden is on you. Sergecross73 msg me 05:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How much more do we need to discuss that fansites like HU are not reliable sources on wikipedia? There's nothing left to be said! Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's your opinion, then there's no point in saying anything, is there? I'm starting to see why you seem so eager to edit-war over this. Fansites can be cited if they are in a certain context. There is no Wikipedia policy banning fansites, with the exception of directly listing them in the External links section per WP:ELNO. Not to mention that Hipsters United is already cited in the article. If you don't object to that, then why are you objecting to it in this particular case? Look, promotional singles are not going to be the subject of an in-depth article in Rolling Stone or NME. They're not going to be on the front page of the Times. They are minor details. No one here is pretending thatr they're always crucial to the article. What I'm saying is that they are definitely worth mentioning. I'm in part going by the precedent set in almost every major album article on this website. If you have a problem with this sort of thing in general, then your problem is much bigger than what we're talking about here. Friginator (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop using the term "edit war" as if you're not doing doing it too. It takes two, and you undo just as many of my edits, in the name of doing what you think is right, and it's no different than what I'm doing. Stick to the topic, and stop worrying about that. Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right, I'm perfectly fine with taking all HU links out. I never added them as a source, and wasn't aware they were listed elsewhere. You can't blame me for that. Thirdly, ignoring all of that, if what you are in favor of is worth being said, than you'd be able to find a source that isn't a fansite or user-created, it's as simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ALL websites are user-created, so I'm just going to assume you don't actually mean that. But assuming you mean the content is user-genreated, how is this the case with the third source I cited, WorthPoint? Also, like I've previously said, the Discogs website has confirmed the information in that source. Calling it purely "user-generated" is incorrect. Friginator (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Worthpoint personally, but Fezmar said that it just mirrors Ebay information, and you didn't contest that claim. If that is true, Ebay is most certainly not a reliable source, and so neither would Worthpoint. Ebay is not reliable, I hope I don't have to explain why that is...Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't simply mirror eBay. It records data from eBay as a means of determining value for things that have no clearly given value. If I though eBay was a reliable source I would have linked to it. In fact, just because I'm bored at the moment, here are a couple links to eBay: here and here. Friginator (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so four days have passed and I can't help but notice that no one has voiced support for you, here or elsewhere, and you still haven't provided any indisputably reliable sources...Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources for what? Album singles are mentioned in the album's infobox. Singles to an album are notable. That's the way it is with pretty much every album article on Wikipedia. You keep asking for reliable sources (despite that I have given them to you), but what do you even need the sources for? To prove that the singles exist? Yeah, I'm pretty sure these exist. If it's a single, it's notable. Plain as that. Friginator (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this conversation has been going on for a long time, so you know it's not "simple as that". Indisputably is the key word here. There is all sorts of doubt as to whether fansites/discogs etc are reliable. Do you have anything sources that no one would dispute as reliable. You know. Forbes. Chicago Times. MTV. Well-known places that aren't fansites. What I'm saying is, no ones been swayed by your argument, and you've yet to present anything different. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're expecting an article from Forbes, the Chicago Times or MTV, you're going to be disappointed. These are promo singles. They're not a big deal. But they're part of the album. And again, why do you need all of these sources in the first place? Friginator (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's because it's WP:FANCRUFT. If it were worth mentioning, it'd be reported on by reliable sources, not the sources you give, which fall under WP:SPS. See the "Approach" section on fancruft, especially "In the context of WP:NOT, the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish. Also see WP:Notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:BURDEN. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear god this has been going on far too long. Since everyone was in agreement about removing these singles from the infobox, I will go ahead and do just that. Mention along with a citation needed tag can stay in the release section for the time being, as long as someone is actively searching for the proper documentation. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A multi-platinum selling recording artist releases a single, but not one publication even bothers to mention it? Compare these two singles to the indie-metal band The Human Abstract and their promotional single they released prior to their 2008 album, Midheaven. The single received coverage from Blabbermouth[5], a respectable source for news on heavy metal bands, and a partial entry on allmusic[6]. These two sources warrant at the very least a mention if the single's existence. If the only sources acknowledging Smashing Pumpkins' singles are user-generated with no evidence of editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking accuracy, then Wikipedia simply does not care. This thinking is in compliance with many core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can involve any administrator or take this to any notice board that you want, but that will not make these singles notable. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, not all of the sources are user-generated. That's missing a pretty crucial point. Also what does WP:IINFO have to do with this? No, we can't put random, irrelevant information in this article, but that's not the case. I'm not sure what your problem is with these two releases, but it's ridiculous that you're going on this big crusade about removing two things from the infobox. You have all the sources you need for inclusion. All of your complaints about the sources are irrelevant (except possibly for discogs, but that's more of a gray area). Why has this gotten you so worked up? Let it go. Friginator (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Takes

The link below has alternative versions of the Teargarden Theme. Should we mention it in the article? http://www.dextrus.net/teargarden.php http://blog.hipstersunited.com/2010/09/21/fools-gold-obelisk-it-turns-out-did-herald-something-special/ Alec scheat (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If it does get mentioned, be sure to use the YouTube link that HipstersUnited uses as their source for your citation in this article. The two links you provided don't meet the criteria at WP:RS. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Album" ratings template

Working on a Professional reviews box for the EPs... It's tricky because the template is designed for a single album. Take a look and comment on the idea, and fill in other reviews!

Professional ratings

Review scores
Source	Rating
Allmusic	(Vol 1)
Rolling Stone	(Vol 2)
The AV Club	B (80%) (Vol 2)

StevePrutz (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Implementing a ratings template will be tricky for this project. Especially since reviews for Teargarden by Kaleidyscope are so scarce. Let's say we find between one and five reviews per EP (based on metacritc's findings) that would mean between 11 and 55 ratings stuffed into one template? That could get messy. What if we used multiple ratings templates in their collapsed state, and used the "title" field of the ratings template to designate what template held ratings for what EP? Fezmar9 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Professional ratings for Vols. 1, 2 & 3

Review scores
Source	Rating
Reviewer 1	2/5 (Vol. 1)
Reviewer 2	50% (Vol. 1)
Reviewer 3	(Vol. 2)
Reviewer 4	(favorable) (Vol. 3)

Professional ratings for Vols. 4, 5 & 6

Review scores
Source	Rating
Reviewer 1	B+ (Vol. 4)
Reviewer 2	(negative) (Vol. 5)
Reviewer 3	(Vol. 6)
Reviewer 4	82% (Vol. 6)

As I previously wanted in Talk:Teargarden_by_Kaleidyscope#Merger_proposal, the EPs are going to have their own article at some point. I think a ==Section== for each will split up the Ratings Vol. 1 from Ratings Vol. 2. PS: Just found another review (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-smashing-pumpkins-teargarden-by-kaleidyscope-v,48693/). StevePrutz (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't envision a separate article for all EPs being very detailed or worth the trouble. But I could be wrong. Could you maybe start a user subpage (User:Steveprutz/Teargarden EPs or something similar) to demonstrate what you have in mind? Then open up a discussion to all editors from there about the strengths and weaknesses of both a separate article or what we have now? If the consensus is that the separate article is better, it would be very simple to move your article to Teargarden by Kaleidyscope EPs. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Draft here: User:Steveprutz/listofteargardeneps StevePrutz (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

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

• http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:fzfuxzqsldse

--CactusBot (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)