Talk:Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song)

message: 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! MahangaTalk 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you for the review! --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Live versions?

message: This sounds like grunge? Anyone agree? Thundermaster367 09:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Grunge 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TodayIntro.JPG

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Todaypromo.jpg

message: Reqluce (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208194143/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/smashing-pumpkins/earphoria.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/smashing-pumpkins/earphoria.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824224751/http://woxy.lala.com/music/mr500-06.php to http://woxy.lala.com/music/mr500-06.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definite article in band's name in article title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FA concerns 

message: :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)
replies: text: Today (The 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 March 2023 

message: :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)  (t/c) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 March 2023