Talk:Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)

Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
April 21, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 3, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Alternative music: Smashing Pumpkins Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of The Smashing Pumpkins task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

On 19 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Today (Smashing Pumpkins song). The result of the discussion was not moved.

old discussion

The previous format of the chart positions was consistant with other articles on Wikipedia of the same type. If nobody justifies why it was changed, I am changing it back. -- LGagnon 03:36, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi LGagnon, I hope I didn't offend. I changed it because 1) I don't see why it should be presented in typewriter font, and 2) I don't see why the song name should be repeated on every line. But it's not a big deal to me. --Dbenbenn 22:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't offended; I just wanted to keep the article consistant with the current style model. If you still think it would be better a different way, you can talk with the guys who run the music Wikiproject; they decide the standard for how the articles for albums and singles are done. But if you'd rather not, that's fine. -- LGagnon 00:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't find anything at Wikiproject Albums addressing chart positions. I'll bring up the issue there. By the way, Pieces of Me is an example of a single that does it differently. Though I agree the fixed-width format is most common. --Dbenbenn 00:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the task. The more concensus we get on such things, the sooner we improve Wikipedia's consistency. -- LGagnon 01:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

It seems like the table format has become the preferred one lately, and I was told during a FAC nomination for another article that I should change the format to the table. I do think the tables look nicer. Everyking 00:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against the table format. My only concern is with the uniformity of the articles; after all, Wikipedia looks more professional when there is a consistent style to it. -- LGagnon 01:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

The non-tabled version is what we've been using, I guess out of tradition and because nobody wanted to do the work of making something pretty. I think DCEdwards has been the prime force in switching to the tabled version. Tuf-Kat 08:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I feel that this song isn't necessarily ironic or sarcastic, although you could interpret it that way. I always found the lyric "Today is the greatest day of them all" sincere since the singer is uplifted knowing today he will commit suicide. So I changed the article a little so there isn't the claim the songs lyrics are sarcastic, but if you think my view is bogus let's talk about it. Rab V 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sarcastic... just with the happy little guitar in the begining completely contradicting what's expect from a song about suicide... I'd just change the first sentence back to saying it's ironically upbeat. Underwater 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if you think that the singer might also be honetly happy thinking today he is going to end his life, or at least see this could be a valid interpretation I don't think we should lay down one way of understanding the song like it is absolute. Rab V 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Corgan says “Today is the greatest day I’ve ever known”, because it can’t get worse. He was being depressed and suicidal when writing this album, which explains the lyrics. ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This article is well written, it has a good lead, and it's broad in its coverage. It also has reliable references and citations throughout the article, therefore I'm passing the article. Good job to those who worked on it! Mahanga^Talk 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the review! --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live versions?

Hey, I'm a big fan of SP and like the articles on Wikipedia. Some of the singles articles discuss live versions and I think Today should also have this as it is perhaps their best known song. For example the early incarnations of the song stuck to the Siamese Dream sound, wherease during the Adore era it was acousticified if played at all. Finally, it's now taken on a short solo at the end as new live versions have shown.

Just a suggestion... DrBobert 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have been meaning to get around to expanding on how the song was performed live (much like what Smells Like Teen Spirit has), but these kinds of sources can be hard to find. I've taken a liking to the SPLRA for live Smashing Pumpkins-related info, but isn't really an appropriate source for how the song was played. You can help with it, if you want. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the song is performed differently enough to warrant a mention. The way it's played hasn't really changed in any significant way at all, but that's just my opinion. MrHate 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grunge

This sounds like grunge? Anyone agree? Thundermaster367 09:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound like grunge, but the Smashing Pumpkins are typically associated with the wider genre alternative rock rather than the more narrow grunge category. --Brandt Luke Zorn 13:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though, alternative rock is such a wide genre that it does not give a good definition of their sound, don't you think. Alternative rock covers Placebo, Radiohead, Hard-Fi and Nirvana. So do you think that this should perhaps be narrowed down a bit so that when the reader sees this page, they have an understanding of what the Smashing Pumpkins' sound is. Thundermaster367 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins explored a wide variety of genres (from the band's page we have gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, and progressive rock listed) but they usually aren't classified into a more specific alternative rock subgenre. Plus, if the "Composition and lyrics" isn't specific enough in describing the Pumpkins' sound, I don't think that a change as minor as a different genre tag would help a reader. --Brandt Luke Zorn 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-rock is fine. Also note that in the "Composition" section the sound of the song is directly compared to that of The Cure and My Bloody Valentine, goth and shoegaze bands respectively. WesleyDodds 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band's main genre is alternative rock, but can't a single song be another genre (like Cherub Rock and Bullet with Butterfly Wings)? As much as I agree grunge was very influenced by alt-rock, the main influences were punk rock and heavy metal. --Marcos FTO (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TodayIntro.JPG

Image:TodayIntro.JPG 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 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Todaypromo.jpg

Image:Todaypromo.jpg 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 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant?

Reqluce (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Why does this article contain a non-sequittor " It's important to note that Billy Corgan and Brett Hickman are long time buddies. Brett Hickman is obese" ? Who else is in favor of the deletion of this line?[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202223022/http://blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=221 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=221

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). 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/20131203021427/http://www.homelesstunes.com/john-craigie-leave-the-fire-behind to http://www.homelesstunes.com/john-craigie-leave-the-fire-behind

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article in band's name in article title

Shouldn't the title of this article be Today (Smashing Pumpkins song) (without the definite article in the band's name)? For example, Wikipedia has Something (Beatles song) and Something (The Beatles song) is redirected to it. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be either Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song) or Today (Smashing Pumpkins song) because they used both titles on their albums and singles. ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

This older FA needs some tuning up to get back to the modern featured article criteria. There's a couple of spots where citations are needed, such as the inclusion of Ludwig in the personnel section. There's also a couple citations to sources that are doubtful - a Reddit post, rocklistmusic, act4.net, and homelesstunes. This should be easily fixable, but work is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close to reopen as a properly formatted RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song) → Today (Smashing Pumpkins song) – I do not believe that there should be a definite article in the page name (same with Rocket (The Smashing Pumpkins song)). As User:Dyspeptic skeptic points out above me, articles like Something (Beatles song) do not feature the definite article in their titles, so why should this be the same? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I want to allow discussion to happen before a potential move takes place. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunately not a properly formatted RM request. Because it was apparently not created using the method described at WP:RM, it did not get the {{Requested move/dated|Foo}} tag that would have included it in the list of active RMs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know, User:BarrelProof. I was not aware of how to format these, but it seems that taking this to WP:Requested moves helped me (partially) figure it out. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– "The" does not need to be in the hatnote (see also: various Beatles songs with "Beatles song" without the definite article as the hatnote). JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested WP:RMTR technical request. Below are comments from the WP:RMTR discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean the disamb (part in brackets)? As I couldn't see a hatnote on that page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I agree with you, I also note Talk:Today_(The_Smashing_Pumpkins_song)#Definite_article_in_band's_name_in_article_title (not sure that counts as discussion though!) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also a malformed RM at Talk:Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)#Requested move 14 March 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, there's Drown (The Smashing Pumpkins song) and Tonight, Tonight (The Smashing Pumpkins song)... -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything in Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs uses "The", the main article is The Smashing Pumpkins, and there is definitely precedent for using "The" in similar disambiguation tags (not the Beatles, but see London's Burning (The Clash song), Never Enough (The Cure song)...) 162 etc. (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not uncontroversial. My recollection is that the latest discussion of this issue allows either form, while encouraging consistency within each group's body of work. Comment update providing further detail about the historical background: An RfC discussion is recorded at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 8#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles. There was a consensus declared on 23 August 2019 that the "The" should not be included in such cases, and a lot of articles were moved in the next couple of months to reflect that. The Beatles was one of the highly discussed examples. That consensus was then declared overturned on 11 October 2019. Although the consensus to not include "The" was overturned, there was no decision to say that "The" should be included either – so we ended up with the MoS being neutral on the subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which case I oppose this move for the sake of being consistent with the other articles. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to those who commented in the RMTR discussion: Kj cheetham and 162 etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also note Category:The Smashing Pumpkins albums as well as Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs. The outcome should be consistent for all works by the Smashing Pumpkins. I lean slightly toward support in these cases, but only if the same change is applied consistently to all their songs and albums.—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Kj cheetham's reasoning above. Moving these article will only introduce inconsistency across the Pumpkins' articles. I recall moving Give Me a Reason (The Corrs song) for similar reasons after someone took out the "The". Furthermore, the band's article is titled "The Smashing Pumpkins", not "Smashing Pumpkins". I refer to this as the "master" article. Unless it's renamed, the "subordinate" articles should stay the way they are. (To compare, note the naming scheme of Black Eyed Peas articles—all without "The".) ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. There is no policy-based reason to remove "The", and their other songs are all disambiguated as "The Smashing Pumpkins". See WP:BROKE. 162 etc. (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.