Chicago Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative music: Smashing Pumpkins Template‑class

This template is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is within the scope of The Smashing Pumpkins task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

In Billy Corgan's MySpace message announcing the next Smashing Pumpkins album "Zeitgeist," he refers to it as the 6th album from them, meaning he doesn't consider Machina II an album. Based on the history of the songs on Machina II, it may be better to call it a compilation than an album. Machina II is mainly composed of songs for a new album that never came out and B-sides off the studio Machina I. Basically, do you think Machina II should be listed under compilations and not albums. Pisces Iscariot, b-sides off Siamese Dream, already occupies this position. I believe it makes the most sense to put Machina II there too. --SpacePope 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well MACHINA II was supposed to be another disc to an album that never happened thanks to Virgin Records. Then it was released as another album, only for free and in MP3 format instead of a physical CD. I'd say thats different than b-sides of an album, and therefore not a compilation. -- Reaper X 04:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blasphemy. It is an album released for free. 125.238.108.190 (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think James Iha and Billy Corgan's solo albums should be included in the 'related articles' section of this template? I think they should be...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I added the Corgan solo album some time ago because he said in his newspaper article that it continues the charter of the Pumpkins... I'd say that makes it related, at least as related as his poetry book. The Iha album should be separate, though-just as the JCC and Zwan albums are. -Werideatdusk33 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cliff em all 1988 has broken off James Iha and D'arcy Wretzky, making them separate and also listing them as former members. I want to ask if you guys think that is appropriate. I don't think it is a half-bad idea, seeing as they both are unlikely to be in the re-union, and they were former studio members of the band. It does however bring up the issues that their involvement is neither confirmed or denied, and what about Melissa Auf der Maur? She has offered her services and might be in the reunion. She also contributed to a track on MACHINA, and was recruited to take over for Wretzky for the final tour.
Thoughts? -- Reaper X 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per her identification as one of the three former band members in the infobox, MAdM should not be relegated to the same line as Aronoff et al. On the other hand, she clearly doesn't have the same status in the band's history that Iha and Wretzky share. I've put her on her own line. View, discuss, slam.—DCGeist 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, why are Jeff and Ginger added to the top line? They haven't yet been confirmed, and even so, they may just be touring members only. If that's the case then do they get a place with Billy and Jimmy or go with Melissa or maybe just the other touring members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.139.144 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the above commenter - Billy's latest message (June 2009) on the band's official site suggest that they're in for the long run. There have also been pictures of Jeff in the studio with Billy. Can we move Jeff and Ginger to the top line now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.238 (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because people are seeing this article where the author jumped the gun. It started with Rock rumor webzine Buddyhead posting the rumour, and people have been freaking out since. This has already been discussed at Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins#New Member Rumors, and it's been decided upon that we will wait, based on the fact that it is nothing but a rumour, and the world will not end tomorrow. I have reverted it. -- Reaper X 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved Matt Walker to same status as MadM; I defy anyone to make a cogent argument that she was more significant in either the band's touring or recording history. Matt was the drummer on one of the band's singles (The End Is the Beginning Is the End), appeared in the video for that song, was the drummer on much of Adore. He *was* the band's drummer for around 18 months. MadM, by comparison, recorded bass on precisely one track (Rock On), and was the band's bassist for about 12 months. Just because that was in 2000 and Matt's work was in 1996-1997 doesn't make him somehow less significant. One could even point out that the drums have always been a more important element in the Pumpkins' music than the bass. For all these reasons, Matt belongs at least as high as wherever MadM is placed. Jjb 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the earlier versions where the related info was not devided up into categories is much better than the current page. There's too much wasted space. And if you do want to condense the template (admirable), condense the related info page, don't delete the singles like they did. Also, Mashed Potatoes belongs in Related Articles. Mashed Potates was never officially released, whereas the point of that list is to list rare, official releases. --MikeLondon

So, we're having a slight disagreement about whether Early 1989 Demos is a title or not. User:Werideatdusk33 is claiming it isn't, while I'm saying that it is currently treated as one. I agree that there is no official title, but it is treated as an unofficial title elsewhere in Wikipedia. If this is to be deemed not a title, then the capitalization (and possibly the name) of the article needs to be changed, the italicization and likely the wording in the article itself needs to be changed, and the italicization in the discography needs to be changed. Consistency please. --PEJL 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wow. Okay, well, my only point is that it's not a title, but refers to a bunch of early demos that were never released as a collection or anything under that title (unless theres a bootleg out there - if thats the case, the article doesnt address this). So italicizing it is misleading. If you ask me, The Smashing Pumpkins, Moon, and Eye could get their own articles and placement in the template. But, I understand. At this point, either way. I'm raising the white flag in this edit war. Getting stressed about such a matter does not reflect well on my priorities. -Werideatdusk33 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Splitting the article into separate articles for the separate demos sounds like a good idea. In the mean time, I've restored the italicization, for consistency with the article. --PEJL 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Early 1989 Demos, IIRC, was a title for a bootleg compilation of several demo tapes that had been in circulation amongst collectors.[1] This was superseded around 2000 by the release of the complete Reel Time Sessions (one electric,[2] one acoustic [3]), which I believe is the source master for all of the tracks on these tapes, as well as several obscure releases (eg "Daughter" flexidisc), and also includes some additional material that was unreleased prior to 2000. So really, I think it should all just go to Reel Time Sessions, since that is the probably the best way to collate the information. If anything else exists from that period, it would be on the Ignoffo Tape. Girolamo Savonarola 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Actually, a lot of the stuff on the early demos was from other sessions - The Smashing Pumpkins demo tape was recorded at Schwa productions in 1988 [4] and if we're including "Nothing Ever Changes," that was recorded at Billy's dad's house. I think there should probably be a section called "Early Demo Tapes" or something that would address all 4 or 5 early demos, without any of this is-it-a-bootleg question. -Werideatdusk33 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If it's not a title, that should be "Early demo tapes". --PEJL 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Right, I was just giving an example. Do people think this is a good way to resolve the issue? Rename it something more generic and perhaps add info about Nothing Ever Changes and more detail in general? --Werideatdusk33 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Yes. If we're going to use a non-title article name, I think it should include the artist name. --PEJL 05:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Something like Early demo tapes (Smashing Pumpkins) or Smashing Pumpkins demo tapes or Early Smashing Pumpkins demo tapes? -Werideatdusk33 06:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Using a disambiguator seems unnecessary, since we can just name the article to avoid it instead. The second option sounds good, but I'd change "tapes" to "albums", as "demo album" is a term used by WP:ALBUM, and since we generally discourage focusing on the format an album was released on (album rather than CD/LP and so on). --PEJL 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • New article created: Smashing Pumpkins demo albums. Template updated. Please help shape the new article! Werideatdusk33 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • The article should have been moved instead, to retain the edit history. --PEJL 05:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is some controversy as to whether Mashed Potatoes belongs in the "Rare and Specialty" section, since it is not an "official" release. I, for one, think that "rare and specialty" is a broad enough term that we can put a noncommercial release there, and that sticking it in "related articles" is just confusing. Thoughts, consensus? -Werideatdusk33 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rare & Specaility should only be considered "official" music. Look at other bands. They don't have bootlegs (which is what Mashed Potatos is, albeit one assembled by Billy Corgan) on their band template. It should be on the template, sure, but it shouldn't be listed as part of their "discography". Great White Wonder, one of the most famous bootlegs out there from Bob Dylan, isn't on the Dylan template. When rare & spec. was created mashed wasn't there originally. Going by other band precedents (look at Pink Floyd as well), non commercial projects are not included. berenlazarus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berenlazarus (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I see it, there is no commercial benchmark established. Several of those releases are non commercial - "1991-1998" was never available to the public. The FAEOMM boot, in particular, belongs in the same category as Mashed Potatoes. It was given to a fan by Corgan and was never given an official release whatsoever. Mashed Potatoes was "released" in the sense that it was put together by the band, then given out to people, albeit a limited amount of people. The Dylan example, meanwhile, never saw voluntary release, and was only a bootleg. Mashed Potatoes, however, was printed and pressed by Corgan himself. I'm moving it back until a more convincing argument is made as to how Mashed Potatoes is not "rare" or "specialty" and the others are. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, then bring an administrator in to settle the dispute. As it stands, I'm moving the link back to "Other", because that's where it originally was if you look back in the history when "Rare & Specaility" as first released. As far as 1991-1998 goes, it was a promotional release and does count. "Friends & Enemies" (both Machina II and the actual album itself), were, granted, not released via a label; however, Billy Corgan did want the music distributed because of issues with the label. Had Machina done better Machina II would have been released commercially, and probably the earlier friends and enemies as well. But it is clear Corgan wanted the music out to the fans as part of the band's body of work. "Mashed Potatos" was made only for the band in 1994 -- it was never meant to circulate and only came into easy access around 2002 when it was uploaded to the internet. It does not have the same classification as Friends, the intent is not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berenlazarus (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that "rare and specialty", for some reason, refers to releases "intended for the fans". Show me the wikipedia policy that says that. Think about this - the word "specialty" in particular leaves a lot of leeway for what we can include in there. from a logical standpoint, it just makes sense to have all music releases (and yes, Mashed Potatoes was released) that dont fit in another category together in the VERY BROAD "Rare and Specialty" section. I'm just concerned that putting it in "Related Articles" makes much less sense than putting it in "Rare and Specialty", even if there is this clause that "Rare and Specialty" albums and releases were "meant for the fans". All I ask is that you think about this in terms of the template, and see that classifying "Mashed Potatoes" as "Rare and Specialty" is much, much more sensible than classifying it as a "related article". -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reverting it back. Bring in an administrator to settle the dispute. As far as the logic goes, there's a clear distinction between "official" releases and bootlegs. I think the arguement could be made that Friends is a quasi-offical release, but if you want to remove it from the rare go ahead, but the offical album Machina was distributed in the same way. Bootlegs are bootlegs, and do not belong in this category. No other major band I've seen has bootlegs listed in their discography section. Friends are Machina don't really qualify as bootlegs, because Billy Corgan chose to release the material in this manner. Mashed Potatos he has never released publically with intent to distribute, and qualifies only as a bootleg. Stick with the original template and get an admin in to see what they say. I'll stand by their decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berenlazarus (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, are you saying that Mashed Potatoes shouldn't be in this template at all? (I should also note I have no idea how to "bring in" an administrator) -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm not saying it doesn't belong. It definetely does belong in the template, but you shouldn't list it as part of their discography, because it's not an official release. This is. You could probably even make an argument the gravity demos are "offical", but never mind. I'm going by the precdent set on other band templates. Look around at other band templates -- bootlegs simply don't belong, even ones assembled by the band themselves. You have to remember Corgan did that set in 1994 -- we've known about it from prolly '95, but no one had heard it until 2002, which is when the entire set was leaked on the internet. Berenlazarus (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precedent doesn't matter, because, no matter what we say now, Mashed Potatoes is not easily definable as a bootleg or otherwise. I think we can agree that not many bands have similar releases. Our duty, then, is to make the clearest and easiest template for the user. And, to the user, Mashed Potatoes makes more sense as a "Rare and Specialty" item than as a vague "Related article". Besides, the "Rare and Specialty" section is not clearly marked as part of their discography - that might be implied but I think the template is more about notable articles related to the Pumpkins. The Gravity Demos are not notable enough to have an article, aside from the fact that they are not really comparable to Mashed Potatoes. In any case, it doesn't make sense that you can put a related article in one category of a template and not another. Show me the rule that says that, or bring in an admin, and I will relent. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a lot to learn if you think precedent doesn't matter. It does matter. Reverting back. As you say, bring in an admin and see what they say.

As far as "not easily definable", it's very easy to define Mashed Potates. It's a bootleg. There's never been anything "official" about it. It's like the difference between Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes and the actual 1975 album released by Columbia. Had they never been released, they would occupy the same area as Mashed Potatoes -- a very famous bootleg, widely heard and known, but still unoffical. That situation still exists with the Basement Tapes, as the majority of the material did not make the final cut of the album, and the material that did make it was tampered with (four tracks), and also Robbie Roberston included 8 Band numbers taht were not recorded during the sessions proper. As much as I like the Basement Tapes, the sessions themselves have not been officialy released, and do not belong on the template discography persay. As far as "Rare & Speciality" not being part of their discography, if you look that was the intent of the section, as all rare things listed there have been offically released, conventionally or otherwise (Machina II, Friends & Enemies). Berenlazarus (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read an article which was written by a fan on the bands website last year (so the information should be good). This is a bootleg considering the fact it has no commercial release. It was made in 1994 by Billy for friends, family and the band. A popular story among Mashed Potatoes fans is that someone stole D'Arcy's copy and sold it to a record store owner for $500. The owner thought less of the five disc he just got claiming it was "shit". So he almost threw it away when someone got it off his hands. From there it was uploaded to the internet. As far as officially released, Rarities and B-Sides has the versions of Smiley and Blue. There is an outtake of Mayonaise and I believe that is the same recording featured as the acoustic version on Rarities and B-Sides.

• There seem to be questions of what singles should be included. For a while it was down to only singles that had commercial releases - excluding bona fide Pumpkins hits like "Everlasting Gaze" and "Drown." These were added back in. Recently someone added "Doomsday Clock" even though it had no single release - it was just released early on iTunes. Whereas songs like "Crestfallen," "I of the Mourning," and "Heavy Metal Machine" had some kind of limited release but are not on the template. Should we include these? Or go back to songs that are either commercial singles or successful hits? Or even further, and just songs with commercial single releases? -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here's a thought - what if the benchmark for what singles are listed is, all commercial singles plus promotional singles that charted. This would allow us to exclude stuff like "Daughter", "To Sheila," "Daphne Descends," "Crestfallen," "HMM" "IotM," and so forth, but include the "important" promo singles. I'm gonna do this. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the songs that got limited release and charted should be included. Thus, I of the Mourning, Crestfallen, and etc. should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.122.157 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Okay, someone who can edit this wikipedia page needs to change the discography page to include doomsday clock charting as well as put the songs that charted (that didn't get single release) and promotional release under singles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.100.197 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Additional musicians can probably be removed, especially if they played minor roles in the history the band. But there doesn't seem to be any other place with this list, so it's valuable in being informative here.

Rare and specialty are within scope, and seem to be of more interest to the reader due to them being more sought after.

Band templates generally do not list producers, unless the producers are known heavily for being associated with the band.

Under related articles, I suggest removing Chicago Recording Company as out of scope (are those other studios notable?), Alternative rock as being too general, Constantinople Records and Yelena Yemchuk as uninformative, Blinking with Fists and TheFutureEmbrace as being too narrow in scope as they're Corgan projects. –Pomte 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no other list of additional musicians, but that is in and of itself a problem, as a template cannot really inform the reader of anything. I think the main SP article should have that list, but was shot down at that suggestion. CRC and Blinking with Fists are definitely not that related. I think Future Embrace should stay on because Corgan announced it "picked up the thread of the as-of-yet-unfinished work of The Smashing Pumpkins" and is thus related. The other studios (Sadlands, Pumpkinland) are probably not notable enough to have their own articles, but as long as they do they should be on the template, I think. I'll remove the producers because they're clearly listed under each album's credits. I encourage more discussion and feedback on this issue. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should The Frogs (band) be included in the template? Corgan and the band did quite a lot for the guys. StevePrutz (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this has been a recurring issue here, but since Billy has spent a lot of time trying to explain that "Smashing Pumpkins" just happens to be whoever is playing these songs with him at the moment, shouldn't we get this infobox up to snuff with that? Lisa, Ginger, and Jeff were involved in the last tour, but haven't played on a single recording, including the new album. Meanwhile, Mike Byrne, Mark Tulin, and Kerry Brown are confirmed as participating in the new SP album... so are they SP? Point being, I think it makes sense to just list "Billy Corgan", maybe with James, Jimmy, and D'arcy listed under because they are the only *true* past members. What do you guys think? It just seems like a more accurate, simple way of looking at it. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the album should simply have one page, with sections about each EP release... the template already looks ridiculous with a whole section devoted to one album's unconventional release. I'm proposing to merge the Teargarden by Kaleidyscope, Vol. 1: Songs For a Sailor article into the main Teargarden by Kaleidyscope page, and I likewise think the template should simply have a link to Teargarden under "Studio albums", with no mention made of the individual EP releases.-Werideatdusk33 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a specific navbox for Teargarden releases/singles. I know it's way early, but I think it's going to be inevitable. (In my sandbox at User:Steveprutz/Sandbox4... feel free to comment or express ideas). StevePrutz (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now reserved ((Teargarden)). StevePrutz (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is anyone still considering the Teargarden project a "studio album" at this point? It's more of a box set, or maybe compilation. I suggest the link be moved. StevePrutz (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, it's pretty standard to shorten down titles in instances like this, where a template has grown to massive sizes. A passerby IP seems to object, but there's nothing lost in shortening a monstrous title like

• Shiny and Oh So Bright, Vol. 1 / LP: No Past. No Future. No Sun.

to

• Shiny and Oh So Bright

This is especially true as long as there seems to be no particular plans for a Vol 2. I'm not suggesting renaming the article, just tidying up the template a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second request for discussion. No comment all month so far... Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]