Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929121522/http://www2.jsonline.com/enter/music/apr00/fade12041100.asp to http://www2.jsonline.com/enter/music/apr00/fade12041100.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512122132/http://blog.hipstersunited.com/2010/05/08/smashing-pumpkins-acknowledge-report-identifying-new-bassist/ to http://blog.hipstersunited.com/2010/05/08/smashing-pumpkins-acknowledge-report-identifying-new-bassist/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417045833/http://smashing-pumpkins.concerttournewshub.com/ to http://smashing-pumpkins.concerttournewshub.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127051909/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/smashingpumpkins/articles/story/5921548/when_billy_corgan_speaks to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/smashingpumpkins/articles/story/5921548/when_billy_corgan_speaks

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909000000/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/smashingpumpkins/articles/story/5918770/smashing_pumpkins_look_back_in_wonder to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/smashingpumpkins/articles/story/5918770/smashing_pumpkins_look_back_in_wonder

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001175302/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/zwan/articles/story/5935907/zwan_call_it_quits to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/zwan/articles/story/5935907/zwan_call_it_quits

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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

• http://loudwire.com/three-fourths-classic-smashing-pumpkins-lineup-reunite-studio/
• http://loudwire.com/billy-corgan-2018-double-album/ Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/arts/music/smashing-pumpkins-reunion-billy-corgan-interview.html?smid=pl-share - good, long article about the band in 2018. No huge bombshells or anything, but some interesting notes to be added. (Schroeder will be third guitarist, Jack Bates will play bass for live shows, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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 [1], 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)

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

• Gish (1991)
• Siamese Dream (1993)
• Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness (1995)
• Adore (1998)
• Machina/The Machines of God (2000)
• Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music (2000)
• Zeitgeist (2007)
• Teargarden by Kaleidyscope (2009–2014) †
• Shiny and Oh So Bright, Vol. 1 / LP: No Past. No Future. No Sun. (2018)
• Cyr (2020)
• Atum: A Rock Opera in Three Acts (2022–2023) °

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)

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:

• Also released was a VHS cassette titled Vieuphoria featuring a mix of live performances and behind-the-scenes footage. (https://www.allmusic.com/album/vieuphoria-mw0000119315) Following relentless touring to support the recordings, including headline slots on the 1994 Lollapalooza tour and at Reading Festival in 1995, the band took time off to write the follow-up album. (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-smashing-pumpkins-mn0000036521/biography - covers most of this sentiment)
• the band's next album would feature few guitar-driven songs.
  • This source - https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-smashing-pumpkins-mn0000036521/biography - and any number of others - can confirm that Adore was far less guitar driven. It's well-documented, as it really altered the trajectory of the band (not really in a great way). If the source request is specifically that Corgan was dropping hints well ahead of time, its...likely true, but it may be easier to just drop that sentence than find an exact source. The album's sound change is covered in detail in the following paragraphs so its not like that sentence is really necessary.
• The single "Untitled" was released commercially to coincide with the farewell show. (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-smashing-pumpkins-say-goodbye-60315/)
• Vieuphoria was released on DVD in 2002, as was the soundtrack album Earphoria, previously released solely to radio stations in 1994. (https://www.allmusic.com/album/earphoria-mw0000228347 loosely verifies this, though honestly the info at Allmusic may have some more important bits that what we cover.)
• Despite this, it was greeted with generally mixed reviews (https://www.metacritic.com/music/thefutureembrace/billy-corgan) and lackluster sales. (I know this to be true, but I haven't found an RS that outright states it yet.) Only one single, "Walking Shade", was released in support of the album. (https://www.musicomh.com/reviews/albums/billy-corgan-thefutureembrace There's a paywall, but if you check the article before it loads it, it definitely mentions Walking Shade as a single.)
• Zeitgeist received mixed reviews, with much of the criticism targeted at the absence of half of the original lineup. The album divided the Pumpkins' fanbase. Corgan would later admit, "I know a lot of our fans are puzzled by Zeitgeist. I think they wanted this massive, grandiose work, but you don't just roll out of bed after seven years without a functioning band and go back to doing that".
• Despite never getting to properly tour Cyr, the band did play four songs from the album at their headlining shows at Riot Fest and Sea.Hear.Now Festival in September 2021. (removed)

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)