Talk:Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contents

Album leak

the album leaked, it's an easily verifiable fact, why is it not in the article? there are several other album articles which state the date that the album leaked, and i think it's just stupid the way people have been adding & deleting it from this page. the higher ups @ wikipedia really need to make a new rule about album leaks so people will stop trying to "protect album sales" by deleting info about album leaks.

I don't see how it matters whether or not the album has leaked. If someone bootlegs a movie before its release, would you put that in an Encyclopedia? Of course not. Maybe if the album leaked like a month ago and caused something interesting or notable to happen, but that isn't the case. I say we just avoid the topic because in the grand scheme of things it's not important enough to note. -Werideatdusk33 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, if you can find a legitimate source saying the album has leaked, then you could probably add it. However, no one has come up with one yet. –King Bee (τ • γ) 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
yeah but there's no legitimaite sources. can you think of any major notable websites that have a news item every time any album leaks? there aren't any. the main thing that bothers me is that when someone added it to the article for static-x's Cannibal for example, no one deleted the leak date cuz it wasn't that big of a deal, whereas it seems like with this album (and one or two others in recent memory)people are making a big stink over making sure the leak date isn't added to the article. now frankly i could give a crap. i don't really care whether wikipedia states the facts accurately, and i generally don't come here every day waiting to see if the albums leaked or anything. this is just about consistency. it bothers me that some albums (that came out up to 4 years ago by now) still state "this album leaked on jan 5th 2003", whereas other ones (which may or may not get more traffic) don't state the facts becasue some people are concerned that that might encourage piracy or something. i understand the whole thing about only putting up info on wikipedia that's veifiable and sourcing your info and whatnot, but there is no confirmable source for album leaks (which meet wikipedia's guidleines). i mean it's fairly easy to verify that the ablums leaked, but i'm pretty sure that that would fall under "Original Research". like i said the people who make wikipedia's rules really need to do something about this.
Then go to the other articles and delete the original research from them. You are correct; such uncited information does not belong. –King Bee (τ • γ) 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether you hold on to such ideas that listing the album as 'leaked' on Wikipedia encourages piracy or deprives the 'artist's income' or whatever, it's still relevant. Without mentioning it, the article gives the impression that this is an unreleased, and publicly unheard, piece of work which is just not true. As for expecting sources to be cited, it's obviously difficult to do. I'm sure linking to the leak itself is not kosher, and you're not going to find any other reliable sources reporting on it. MrHate 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see why it shouldn't be included, but would like to add that not citing a source that it leaked could be original research. I say wait until some news source says it did, and then add it. Godlord2 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. As Godlord2 points out, just wait until a reliable source exists, then add it and cite it. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. –King Bee (τ • γ) 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"yeah but there's no legitimaite sources. can you think of any major notable websites that have a news item every time any album leaks? there aren't any." Well then doesn't that fail Wikipedia's notability guideline? I'm sorry dude, we just can't include it, it just grinds with too many policies that make this encyclopedia trusty and relied on. If these policies were not being enforced, I'm sure Wikipedia wouldn't be the 9th most visited site in the world, and it wouldn't be so popular.
I know you want "consistency", but it's a hard thing to achieve sometimes. I can relate to you: I've always strived for consistency in artist genres, and I have tried coming up with a few solutions to deal with the slow edit wars that circulate around them. But I have a policy or two that has me up against the wall on this one as well. That and the fact that not enough people care. Hate to break it to you, but that appears to be the same situation here.
Finally, the only reason you see it mentioned in other articles is because there aren't as many of us policy commies patrolling around those articles. Alot more editors are buzzing around here than on Static-X's album article. But shit, you got me now, thats original research. -- Reaper X 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is true. And it isn't significant. Almost all new albums leak online now. Its like listing the name of the machine that puts the labels on the CD. Most bands leak the cuts themselves. Its true. Its a promotional gimmick. I don't get it but it is a fact. The trax from this album hit the internet about a week before release and they are high sound quality MP3s that must have come off the masters strait to the sound file.Billyjoekoepsel 01:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
um... no. the leak is variable bitrate mp3s just like every other scene release. it came from a promotional copy of the album or something. high quality mp3s are not high sound quality, high sound quality would be uncomprerssed wav files. and most bands don't leak the material themselves, just trent reznor. that's not to say no one else ever does it, but he's the only high profile artist who has recently, and i can guarantee that billy didn't leak Zeitgeist. Billy leaked Machina II, but that's only becasue the record label wouldn't release it and he wanted the fans to hear it.69.214.139.70 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well before we shoot too far off the trail...I think the bottom line is it stays out. Unless some newsflash develops of it, like the artwork, and verifyable, notable sources come to light. -- Reaper X 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

as I said earlier, (and I notice no one listens to each other on these talk pages) the leak dont mean shit unless it moves into something more important. as Billyjoekoepsel points out, almost everything leaks these days and the fucking date of the leak doesnt mean anything at all. Even if it's verifiable on a certain torrent host, there's no way of knowing if that was the first leak. Not that we should look. This is a waste of everyone's life. -Werideatdusk33 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems my last entry was deleted (would you quit doing this?!?), the actual CD (no promo or advance tag given) was released July 1st, 2007 by the MP3 group SAW. It doesn't sound like a webrip. Now it is possible it was a promo copy, just that someone mis-labelled it (?!?), doesn't matter, AWESOME album (and I dislike the band), I plan to buy it on record/vinyl once it hits retail (in fact I also bought the latest Rush CD on record/vinyl too). BTW: My sources are legit!!! UPDATE: Word is that it's also avaliable in lossless format, though I dunno if this is a re-encode from VBR MP3, apparently it's not, and avaliable via Torrent. 24.68.69.28 01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alas, you still have no reliable source. Sorry. –King Bee (τ • γ) 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Band name

Although the correct name for the original Pumpkins lineup(s) was "The Smashing Pumpkins" you should note that the current lineup is referred to as simply "Smashing Pumpkins" -- the Zeitgeist cover and official WWW site reflect this. Does anybody know if Billy or Jimmy have addressed this slight name change in any interviews, blog postings, etc.?

look @ the cover of Siamese Dream.68.255.172.238 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to re-open this can of worms? -- Reaper X 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
no. that's why i said that he should look @ the cover of Siamese dream, cuz that kinda settles things.65.43.213.243 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does say Smashing Pumpkins on the cover of Siamese Dream. But, starting on the Rocket single, and every release after, it has said The Smashing Pumpkins. However, on their website, they have referred to themselves as both Smashing Pumpkins and The Smashing Pumpkins. My suggestion would be to try to find what most sources you, or try to find a explanation from the band. Godlord2 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think it matters enough to warrant this much discussion. surely there are more pressing issues.65.43.213.243 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious. "More pressing issues", yet you're merely lurking on Wikipedia, making minor edits to articles that nobody really cares about that much.

They were originally The Smashing Pumpkins, switched to Smashing Pumpkins, back to The Smashing Pumpkins, and then back again. Without the article the word Smashing is a verb. With the article the word Smashing is an adjective. It is a difference. Do you want to smash a pumpkin or be a smashing pumpkin?--Zahveed 21:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

according to BC it's not a verb but an adjective as in "those pumpkins are just smashing".

Officially sixth album.

The Smashing Pumpkins website, when they reformed, has stated that they had been working on new material since their 1999 album, indicating the first Machina album. The Smashing Pumpkins Myspace album announcement also stated that it was their sixth album. Although dedicated SP fans wish to canonize the second Machina album in its discography, leave it out (but leave a footnote explaining it) unless the SP team decide to officially state/revise it themselves. Kittyyradio 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the seventh album for now until we can confirm Billy Corgan didn't just forget one. Allmusic has it listed as an official album, and reviewers treat it like one. WesleyDodds 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Corgan and the Pumpkins called MACHINA II their sixth album. Matt "AgentA" 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Corgan definitely called Zeitgeist their sixth album. Pisces Iscariot and Machina II are compilations of outtakes and b-sides from other albums and should not be included with the other studio albums.

Zeitgeist is known as their official sixth STUDIO album. Notice the keyword? Yeah, it's in uppercase. Hard to miss, that is.
It doesn't really matter. Maybe Machina and Machina II were counted together. As it is, there are seven albums. PI never counted, nor did TAFH or Judas O. Given the whole 7:07am on 07/07/07 thing, I find it immensely confusing that it was labeled the "sixth album" by their website. -Werideatdusk33 23:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

what the hell is up with the ogg?

it's just some guy saying zeitgeist. sounds like neither billy nor jimmy. what the fuck --Flvg94 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be a quote from Billy or Jimmy or anything. That is a sound that was taken from the Zeitgeist article, just to give people the proper pronounciation of the word. I threw it in there, but once the album nears the release date, I don't think it will be necessary. It's not enourmously difficult. -- Reaper X 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's just Billy and Jimmy...

They were already reunited in Zwan! This makes it, so far, as much of a Zwan reunion as it is a Smashing Pumpkins reunion...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree some mention of this should be added. Also we could add something about the current status of the "missing" members pherhaps? Like what other projects they are involved in right now that are of more importance than the Pumpkins. Matt "AgentA" 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The music Billy wrote in Zwan was completely different from the music he wrote as a member of the Smashing Pumpkins. Furthermore if people are curious about what D'arcy & James are up to they can go to their articles or the main SP article.69.218.199.100 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The difference now is that they are reuniting under the name "Smashing Pumpkins", so it's a reunion, while Zwan was simply a side-project/super-group. Brandt Luke Zorn 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, this SP will be playing old SP songs, not old Zwan songs. I dont think Billy will ever play a Zwan song again. --Werideatdusk33 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Working Titles"

According to the article, the track listing is from a photo posted on Billy Corgan's personal MySpace page, but unsourced. I've gone to both Billy Corgan's page and the page for the Smashing Pumpkins, and I can't find said photo anywhere. I'm going to remove it for now, since the photo obviously isn't posted anywhere, but here it is if anyone can find the source photo:


Working titles

On Billy Corgan's personal myspace page, a photo of a whiteboard featuring the following song titles was posted. [citation needed]

thats the way
orchid
shades of doom
c'mon lets go
doomsday clock
F# stomp (or FA stomp)
god & country
united states
never lost
death from above
pomp + circumstance
stellar
gossamer
ma belle
from America with love
tarantula
scars
bring the light

- Upon some further research, I've tracked this down to a forum posting. This is the only result that came up for on Google for the first three song titles. Results

I think if it was actually posted on Billy Corgan's MySpace page it would be turning up in more places than a forum thread, but for now I'm willing to call this fake.


Billy Corgan has a personal myspace page that he uses himself. (as opposed to the smashing pumpkins and official billy corgan myspace pages which are used for promotion and run by other people.) He posted the picture of the whiteboard on that page. The profile is set to private, so citing it as a source won't help with verification unless you are one of his friends.

if we can't source it better it should stay out. but it's pretty clearly Billy's handwriting. -Werideatdusk33 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

TSP have announced that Zeitgeist will be released July 7, which is a Saturday, and I don't believe that albums are released on any day except Tuesdays. Anyone know any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs)

“ Pitchfork Media reported that the album is set to be released on July 7, 2007; however, this is unlikely as 07/07/07 is a Saturday, and major records are almost never released on any other day but Tuesday.[1] ”

  1. ^ Llewellyn, Kati (2007-02-07). Smashing Pumpkins Reveal Album Title, Release Date. Pitchfork Media. Retrieved on 2007-02-07.
This was included in a previous version. I don't know why it was removed, or if it should be put in the article again. Any opinions? -- Reaper X 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but noticing it's also the anaversary of the London subway/bus attacks... its probably an uninteded coincidense though. 125.238.18.100 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

digital release the 7th, actual cd the 10th Rhinowing 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consistency in the release date listed for Zeitgeist in wikipedia. On the main Smashing Pumpkins page, it says July 7 in the discography. On this Zeitgeist page, it lists both July 7 and July 10 depending on where you look. Can we pick a date and stick with it? Even http://www.myspace.com/smashingpumpkins is now showing July 10 as the release date in their countdown clock, so I think they've given up on the July 7 date.75.35.109.255 19:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war now over whether it is July 7 or July 10. Godlord2 has gone and cited the official site as the source of the release date for the 7th. I agree with this decision as I believe the official site should be more credible than the myspace page. That and it could be one of those wierd "official release on this date and released in stores on this date" things, as previously mentioned. -- Reaper X 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cover

Let's see some sources for this... - ZEROpumpkins 02:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Artwork leak

please note that this is CONFIRMED as being authentic material by Frank Quinto's request that it be removed. IMO, this would also confirm the jeff/ginger sitation, but thats just me. Rhinowing 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe their removal was requested because they are crap pictures, not because they are authentic.

Doesnt make sense that pakula would be banning for posting them, then 70.225.169.83 18:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am putting the artwork leak info back in. A Pumpkins representative was involved, it's the real deal people. MMBKG

Yeah, please keep this up. Right now the only question is what the band's intentions are. Some have theorized that this is all a very elaborate viral marketing scheme. I don't believe them, but either way the band's management definitely has become involved. --Werideatdusk33 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some references to it though...any ideas? Any sites write up on it? How did someone find this out? -- Reaper X 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a great example of how conventional sourcing will have to be redefined in the Internet age. The Pumpkins' myspace page, and Netphoria (along with the other SP message boards - Siva, ThePumpkins, etc) are all abuzz with information about this, but no news media have picked up on it, and the band has yet to release a statement. For now, I think we could cite the actual threads (or, at least, those that have not been deleted) in the Netphoria message board (which is public), and leave it up, at least until its confirmed as either legit or fraudulent. Due to the involvement of Frank Quinto and apparent involvement of the Chicago Police, this should stay up, at least for now. --Werideatdusk33 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Its been reported at Pitchfork, basically entailing everything that has happened link. I imagine that this would be a better citation for the article. Should the original netphoria posts remain? Aljohnston 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you really want the section to remain, get as many references as possible. It only makes your verifibility stronger. -- Reaper X 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple news articles about this now :contactmusic, Drownedinsound, NME, Rolling Stone. FMQB, Spin. And on and On. Put the Netphoria posts back up. It is now proven with multiple articles that this happened. Yearsago 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored this section. Please leave it up! This has been verified by news media, commented on by Chicago Police personnel, and confirmed by the band's management. The Pitchfork reference is pretty solid, but if you need more its out there. You citation nazis. Also, the reach of Frank Quinto extends far indeed. --Werideatdusk33 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The MTV article is REALLY thorough, with new information, and more information about what happened on Netphoria. The link to the MTV story is already on the page of zeitgeist wikipedia. Yearsago 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, the section looks good now., all citated and such. Asked about the band's predicament, a Chicago Police officer commented, "They were pissed." Haha, I love it! The only issue is this line: "[The images] had already spread to hundreds of fans' personal archives." I think we need to deal with that line... -- Reaper X 21:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tracklist

Where did we get this "That's the way (My Love Is)" thing? Is there a source for that parenthetical thing? Does this mean its not a Led Zeppelin cover? --Werideatdusk33 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the source is here: [1] and three tracks - 3,4, and 8 - have slightly different titles. Not sure which is "more" correct, we'll have to wait and see, but I added this source to the track list citations. --Werideatdusk33 05:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming out on the 10th?

The new promo poster says the 10th: http://www.msopr.com/files/Smashing%20Pumpkins%20Admat.pdf

I know Billy wants it on a Saturday, but albums typically come out on Tuesdays. He might not be updating his website, but it looks like the record company is going ahead w/ a 7/10 release. --byelf2007 13 May 2007

"The Pumpkins have also changed Zeitgeist's release date to a Tuesday in alignment with industry standards. The record will now come out July 10 instead of July 7, but don't let those three extra days convince you to go stealing anything." - [Media] 84.68.9.72 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are still persistent rumors that itll get a digital release the 7th. No word if theres a real source for that. -Werideatdusk33 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Their website link now says the 10th and I have changed the article accordingly. Aljohnston 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard on the radio today (The Rock (New Zealand) that the album will be released on the 6th of July in NZ. 125.238.129.144 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd add it, sounds resonable since thats the same deal with Ireland. I'm worried about flag clutter though, so don't be surprised if someone takes it down. -- Reaper X 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Album Cover

http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/images/zeitcover.png --byelf2007 16 May 2007

That was quick. The MySpace bulletin was put up just over ten minutes ago. WesleyDodds 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarantula online

http://www.spinner.com/2007/05/18/new-music-tarantula-by-smashing-pumpkins/ --byelf2007 18 May 2007

Lineup confirmed

As they played on today's show in paris: Ginger Reyes on Bass and Jeff Schroeder on Guitar. Fco. 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Album Artwork Stolen?

Judging by this promotional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzHwPKXjMbU , it looks like the stolen pictures were Tarantula video stills, and not album artwork (shows kids doing Nazi-esqe salute towards the end). --byelf2007 31 May 2007

Alternate Covers/ Versions

I added a fancy gallery section with all the different cover arts and versions. The citations don't seem to be working properly - I'm not very familiar with gallery making. Please, feel free to fix them! -Werideatdusk33 18:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Why are there five different versions of the album? Desperate for sales much, Billy?
  • Jesus, people. Every artist from Ryan Adams to Bruce Springsteen releases aternate versions. That's the label, not billy, a guy who released 2 CDs worth of songs for free in 2000.


"It is unclear whether the band or the record label chose to release the album in this manner." I looked at that section and it reminded me so much of how the newest Static-X album was released. There was an Itunes version, Best Buy version, and an Internet version, each with its own extra tracks. Then I wondered if this album was released by Reprise as well and sure enough it was. So there's your answer for that question. SmartSped 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just bought the Japanese version with the bonus track Death From Above and the album cover was red, not orange. 219.60.122.141 09:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the bonus track is actually track 13, not 9. It is unlisted and there is no ID3 information about it, unlike the other tracks on the CD. 219.60.122.141 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just purchased the UK version, that has the standard tracklisting with booklet but a purple cover like the german one. I can't find a source for this however.BHARfan 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate song articles

Several of the songs have had their own separate articles created. However, apart from the single, upcoming single, and Doomsday Clock (appears on a soundtrack), none of the songs are yet notable. The separate articles contained no real information, or worse, Original research. Therefore, I've converted all (apart from the three I've just mentioned) into redirects back to this page.

Oli Filth 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think that is even necessary. Might as well delete them. -- Reaper X 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Release date table

Can we get more info on this, model it somewhat similar to the release history of Kid A? At least include the labels? -- Reaper X 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Personnel?

Is the extensive personnel needed down to the hair stylist? I figure it could at least be narrowed down to those working with the actual music and not so much the visuals.--Zahveed 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a tad extensive. But sometimes photos can add to the atmosphere of the album, so there may be a valid reason for them to be there. I'd just hate to be the person who had to do Billy's hair, I'd bet the pay isn't too good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlord2 (talk • contribs)
A personnel section should be included per WP:ALBUM#Personnel, which should be complete in order for the article to reach B class per WP:ALBUMA#Quality scale, but there is no mention that this only refers to the music. --PEJL 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An open letter from Billy Corgan

So a friend told me about "An open letter from Billy Corgan", in which Coragn apparently backlashed and chewed out all those giving negative reviews for Zeitgeist.
Fake? What exactly does it say? I don't know, I didn't have time to read it at the time. And when I did, the goddamn site was down, and it is the only place I can find the article. There's a chance it's legit though, because Rolling Stone made mention of it. Keep your ears perked guys, I have a feeling this is a notable shit disturber that will hit the fan. -- Reaper X 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The official site says it's fake. Forget it, unless Corgan wants to retaliate. -- Reaper X 06:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I only read the first few paragraphs, but it's a very obvious fake. I would hope no one would believe this :) MrHate 10:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, as soon as I read "plus another chick bassist and some new guitar guy." Wish I had time to read it, now I feel like a dumbass bringing it up here. -- Reaper X 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page to "(Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album))"

I propose moving this page to "Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album)". The band is credited on the album as "Smashing Pumpkins". It also sounds immensely better as well. Grim-Gym 04:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think that naming conventions for articles like this typically omit the "The" from a band's name anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Support. Regardless of your stance on the laughable "Smashing Pumpkins"/"The Smashing Pumpkins" dispute, it would be ridiculous to title something "Sticky Fingers (the Rolling Stones album)", even though there's no dispute that it's "The Rolling Stones." So, yeah. Make it so. --Werideatdusk33 06:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. In my experience disambiguators on album articles generally include the full artist name, including the "The". WP:ALBUM#Naming doesn't mention this case. I've brought this up at WT:ALBUM#Album dab should match artist article. --PEJL 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The only real rationale for this move is that on this album, the band is called "Smashing Pumpkins"; sans the "The". As a result, the page title should reflect the name being used on the album. This page should be moved to reflect how the band is being credited. Grim-Gym 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that may seem reasonable, but referring to an artist using the same name throughout Wikipedia avoids inconsistencies and other problems. Note for example that the The Smashing Pumpkins article refers to the band using the definite article consistently, even for events in 2007. --PEJL 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a case in which common sense should override policy. I acknowledge that the policy of using the same name throughout Wikipedia is an important one, and that in the vast majority of instances, this should be followed. Consider how unlikely it is that the absence of "The" will cause a problem. Yes, it is somewhat inconsistent, but that is because the band themselves are inconsistent with the name. I wish not to debate the actual validity of their name, and I think the band's article itself is fine the way it is; but this is a matter of an album, and the album's naming. If Gish, Siamese Dream or Pisces Iscariot needed to be moved, it would be appropriate to move them to (Smashing Pumpkins album), but if Mellon Collie, Adore or Machina required the like, it would be appropriate to include the "The". It's purely a matter of what the album is physically referred to on the record itself. The fact that by moving the page, we can bypass the anal-retentive quality that the current name has, is purely a bonus. Grim-Gym 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't feel strongly either way, but I think it's fine as it is. WesleyDodds 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zeitgeist cover.png

Image:Zeitgeist cover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Singles

At this point, under the pluralised title 'Singles', only 'Tarantula' is included. Shouldn't 'That's the Way (My Love Is)' also be included? And since 'Bring the Light' is an unofficial single in South America, but still referenced on Wikipedia, and 'Doomsday Clock' has been registered by Wikipedia, they ought to have some kind of inclusion, shouldn't they? Vaughn (non-user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.132.179 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Outtakes

"Superchrist" is not an outtake, but is one of the new songs debuted at the residencies. It was not recorded or even written during the Zeitgeist sessions... should we take it out? -Werideatdusk33 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be taken out.--Zahveed 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy re-issue

I apologize, I went ahead with these edits to the stuff about the Best Buy re-issue, without seeing the history of it. But IMO, this is a practical way to deal with it. Only the resequenced parts of the track listing are included, and the main information is included in the alternate versions section, with the rest of them. It doesn't deserve too much space. -- Reaper X 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the temptation, but this is a misleading and confusing way to present the information. The "Alternate Versions" section is about the multiple releases in July, and the bad publicity surrounding that move. The Best Buy DVD version is a reissue, not an alternate version, because of its later release date. Lumping it in with the July alternate versions flies in the face of the whole point of that section. Moreover, in other wikipedia articles, reissues with different tracklists are given an entire section to display this. The same should be here. I believe the separate "Reissue" section should be restored, and the reissue be removed from the alternate versions section. -Werideatdusk33 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Album Artwork Section

Delete - I believe this should be deleted. Although it may have had some significance a while ago, it is not important now, and certainly doesn't have much to do with the music, leak and all. Hakeem (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Retain - I disagree. The various cover arts, in some form, should be in the article, as long as the main cover art is. I think the "section" can be removed, and maybe do a separate section on the Best Buy Reissue, and put the alternate covers in the infobox. Or, just leave as-is, because I don't think it is obsolete- it is more than just a buying guide, it is valid information about the album's release. -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely keep it. It illustrates the different versions well, and it has everything to do with the music since the track listings vary on alot of them. Not to mention it is well cited. -- Reaper X 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
100% Keep -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

iTunes Deluxe Edition

As for the iTunes edition, is there a different cover? -- Reaper X 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The iTunes deluxe edition cover is the same blue cover. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll add the details beside that cover then. -- Reaper X 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.