Talk:Gish

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum 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.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Christgau rating

Am I the only one who thinks that the display of the Christgau rating is very misleading? It looks like he only gave it one star (presumably out of 5), but in reality, his * is intended to mean "honorable mention." (see: http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php) BlackberryLaw 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; a couple of words is hardly a "review" anyway. Link being removed. Masebrock (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with the notability or relevance of Christgau's reviews, it should probably be taken up over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. They explicitly mention him in the list of good, notable reviewers. Reviews of his containing no text at all have been used many times in Featured Articles, including Adore. Now, I do agree that his rating scale is a little odd, but that's how he's chosen to do it so that's how his ratings are presented. It may also be of interest to check out the full text over at Template:Review-Christgau. I am replacing the review. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the notability of the review, not the reviewer, is what should matter here? He probably wrote this in five minutes, maybe without ever hearing the album. If it is to be kept, a note saying that he hasn't marked it out of 5 has to be included. Otherwise, the Pumpkins and Cristgau both probably have a libel case against us--MartinUK (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This album is connected

All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages. Godlord2 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but i dont think Snail has been done. IDISLIKEcaugette 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just made a redirect for it now IDISLIKEcaugette 09:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box set?

According to this article there is going to be a pre-Gish/Gish box set, tentatively coming late 2008. StevePrutz (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Usage

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gish → Gish (album) – I think this article should be perhaps be considered for movement to Gish (album) and Gish (disambiguation) be placed in this mainspace.

If the entity is not significant enough to be mentione off-the-bat on the dismabiguation page, I am very concerned that it is not the primary use of this term.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree --Cybjit (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the comment you are replying to is over 3 years old. At that time, the version of the disambig page looked like this. Now it looks like this. In both cases, the album is listed. IMO the album is more well-known than anything on the disambig so it should remain as-is per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Release history

I have a cassette version with catalogue number HUTMCX 2 (and the number 7243 8 39663 4 9) - I assume this is a UK release, but is not listed in the article. 91.107.122.63 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I suggest you check Discogs for that information. I actually have a promo copy of Siamese Dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clcng (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A1e63mpz39f6o

--CactusBot (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Using this space to list sources to use. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At my previous company I had access to the Factiva database, and I remember finding 1991 Gish reviews in Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times. Also, this book looks useful, and note that Spin and other music mags have put their entire archives up on Google Books.—indopug (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never found that bio all that useful, which is why I never used it for the band article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have it? I don't mind buying it even if just for the odd fact. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to use

Azerrad, Michael (October 14, 1993). "Smashing Pumpkins' sudden impact". Rolling Stone: 19–20.
Gore, Joe (September 1994). "Billy Corgan: Smashing Pumpkins' one-man songwriting team". Guitar Player: 85–87.
Johnston, Chris (April 25, 2003). "The Crate". The Age (Fairfax Media).
Mayfield, Geoff; Atwood, Brett (July 24, 1993). "Smashing". Billboard: 18. (Just an infographic; supports the fact that the release of Siamese Dream revitalized sales of Gish.)
Mettler, Mike (December 1993). "Brutal beauty: the epic tone poems of Smashing Pumpkins". Guitar Player: 65–67
Scaggs, Austin; Sheffield, Rob (October 16, 2003). "Men at work". Rolling Stone: 40. (Not much here, but mentions that Gish was recorded at Smart Studios in Madison, WI which was then being demolished)

Some of the section headings I added were removed and things moved around. I was following the model of some more recent album FA's such as Silent Alarm. I like the "Commercial" and "Critical" subheadings because they nicely delineate chart performance from written reviews. Accolades was meant to contain awards, of which there are admittedly not many. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the reason the sub-headings were removed is that there isn't much more than a paragraph or two to say about each of those things (critical, commercial and awards). So a single, undivided section might be better for this particular article.—indopug (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. Don't split things up until you have to; that allows you to ensure the prose flows better, too. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, makes sense. I guess I'm in the habit of "outlining" so I have the ideal article structure in mind, but I should probably expand first and add the headings later. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outtakes

I have several live bootlegs that I have legally downloaded from the Internet Archive, and I have noticed there are dozens of songs recorded in the range of 1989-1991 that have not been noted in the article. If you would like to research more information about the songs from "Kill Your Parents" and forward, I highly suggest it. If a song has any new wave influences featured in the song, it will not be included as those songs are very early and would not have a chance to be on Gish. By the amount of songs I found, it may need to be a seperate article titled "Outtakes".

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gish. 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) 10:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]