Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Rock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start

K so this will be the discussion area now. I've got most of the project pages taken care of, and I have started tagging/assessing articles.

{{Progressive Rock Ad}} may help you recruit some new members

S'all for now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making this group. I love this sort of music and I'll be glad to work for this wikiproject. On the memberlist, there is a longer explanation concerning that. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

If anybody wants to help me tag, I've linked some templates for bands below that contain 20-50 links to albums/songs/members that should all be tagged with {{Progressive Rock}} (If you don't with to put a class or importance parameter in, we can always come back to that.

So anywho, without further ado:

Template:ELP
Template:Genesis
Template:King Crimson
Template:Opeth
Template:Pink Floyd
Template:Rush
Template:Supertramp
Template:Yesband

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the following should also be tagged with {{Progressive Rock}}:

Template:Camel
Template:Caravan
Template:Curved Air
Template:Gong
Template:Jethro Tull
Template:Man (band)
Template:Renaissance (band)

-- Cdl obelix (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

and:

Template:Fish
Template:Gentle Giant
Template:Porcupine Tree
Template:Van der Graaf Generator

--Cdl obelix (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we added Fish we should also add
Template:Marillion
--Cdl obelix (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I Think we should tag this too

Template:Kansasband
Template:Magma
Iamthejustice (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. You can always add others yourself by editing WP:WikiProject Progressive Rock/leftpanel. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to help with tagging but I'm not sure I understand class and importance. Based on what can we judge an article's importance? --Aeternus ^(talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification and importance of albums is defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment.

Album class:

• Stub: Criteria for Start-class not fulfilled
• Start: An infobox. A lead section giving an overview of the album. A track listing. Reference to at least primary personnel by name. Categorisation at least by artist and year.
• C: All of Start class criteria. A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art. At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section). A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs. A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. A casual reader should learn something about the album.
• B: All of B-Class criteria. A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details. A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians. No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS.

Classes above B (GA, FA, FL) must pass a formal review process.

Album importance (from ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ):

• albums and members are generally Low (Unless they are particularly notable)
• bands are generally Mid or above (Unless they are virtually unheard of outside the prog community)
  --Cdl obelix (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aeternus ^(talk) 16:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm going by. Usually I put albums as stubs if they only have one sentence of prose, such as "X is a Y album by Z released in xxxx", but otherwise if they have an infobox, credits, and track listing in a properly presented fashion, I tag them start. I also do not give an article C class until it's got at least some references/inline citations. Importance, just use what you think fits. Obviously the members and bands and albums that are household names should be rated High or Top, but otherwise Cdl obelix said it all. Remember that we can give a page a different class than other wikiprojects have. I've changed a few C classes back to start, and a few stubs to C class. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Template Done

Where do I have to place the YDone once I have completed a template ? --Cdl obelix (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the main group area, click edit at the top-right of the left panel (to edit the /rightpanel), and go down and strike it out in the "Tasks" area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. --Cdl obelix (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested articles

I think there should be a place for requested articles. --Aeternus ^(talk) 16:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is something I would agree with. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Let me know if you need help with adding that first entry to it : ) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Who borked it?

Is it just because I'm using redundant ol' internet explorer, or does the right panel look strange (ie the description under the image of Yes has a box around each line of text instead of around the entire paragraph)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The layout does look peculiar on my computer as well, so it might be an Internet Explorer problem (I use Internet Explorer as well). Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Must be... I use firefox on my other PC and firefox/safari on my macbook and they show up fine. Oh well. Internet explorer is just the slow kid of the group. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Members

I created a category for us: Category:WikiProject Progressive Rock members. Add yourself if you want. And, would it be nicer if Category:WikiProject Progressive Rock music would be renamed as Category:WikiProject Progressive Rock (without 'music' in the end)? --Aeternus ^(talk) 10:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be. Its one of the leftover messes from copying the layout from WikiProject Rock music. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

System of a Down

I don't think System of a Down should be covered here. --Aeternus ^(talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

System of a Down have occasionally dabbled in art rock, but definitely not progressive rock. As a comparison, David Bowie has released many art rock albums which are definitely not progressive rock. Una Laguna^Talk 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about what I call "the difference between Progressive Rock and Rock that "progresses"" (Art Rock). The former genre has somewhat strict, although "progressive" rules. Genesis, Yes etc. The latter genre I think is about artists that push rock's boundaries, but do not have the same elements as classic prog bands. David Bowie, Tool, maybe even Pink Floyd. And I almost forgot that this WikiProject should cover art rock too.--Aeternus ^(talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The project covers all thing progressive. This includes experimental and art rock, which are both often grouped with progressive. Besides, it's independent of what shows up in the article in the infobox, so we can cover the band without them having to become progressive rock. Besides, several reliable sources do assert SOAD as a progressive rock band. Regardless of what they are formally labelled, their music is not-your-average-rock. Frank Zappa is constantly brought up for comparison (Though the two bear very little resemblance), and he is not listed as prog rock, but we cover him. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean all things progressive rock. Because there are too many progressive grenres out there that have nothing to do with prog, take for example progressive electronic dance music. --Aeternus ^(talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Progressive bluegrass isn't really relevant to progressive rock either as far as I know. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to come up with a formal definition. It's a wikiproject, so you can tag articles if you subjectively feel they qualify. It just determines which articles we are going to look at / improve. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

System Of A Down belongs in the more recent sub-group New Prog. Firstlensman (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of progressive rock list

I think Timeline of progressive rock is too long. It should be split. --Aeternus ^(talk) 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For sure... Perhaps it should be split into decades? (I could see too many troubles splitting it by prog rock and prog metal) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be split into decades. Not by its subgenres. --Aeternus ^(talk) 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Splitting it into decades wouldn't be a bad idea. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 00:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added attention=yes to its talk page so we get to that one as soon as we're done with the tagging crap (Or sooner if someone is adventurous) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take on the challenge of breaking the timeline out into decades. I'm new to editing here. Would I create new pages for each decade (and how do I do that?) and then would I change the current page to be a list of links to the decade-specific pages? - Nickelarcade 22:57, 01 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and yes :). The current page would become a disambiguation to the decades. The articles should be named in the convention of Timeline of progressive rock (1960–1969). You make a page the same way that you edit one; just change the link in your address bar or search the title and click edit at the top of the page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please take a look at this (particularly the "See Also" section) and let me know what you think of the layout. Timeline_of_progressive_rock_(1960–1969) - Nickelarcade 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking good, although I'd suggest letting the article create a default table of contents. Ideally with the See Also, we'll make a template with the 6 timeline articles for simpler navigation. You're a brave editor to tackle this monstrosity! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I delete an article? I accidentally created one for 2000-2010 when I meant that to be 2000-2009. - Nickelarcade 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete articles. I tagged your article with a 'delete' template, It should be deleted soon.. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And you can bring a page you created, but need deleted to an admins attention by blanking the page and putting in {{db-author}} - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I´ve tried to sort the 1979 albums by release date. It turns out that for the majority of albums the exact release date is not known, or at least not listed in the albums infobox. Anyone an idea where too search (allmusic, discogs, freedb isn´t of any help here) ? The albums with unknown release date I´ve listed in alphabetical order. Just have a look at Timeline_of_progressive_rock_(1970–1979)#1979 and let me know what you think. --Cdl obelix (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have done a good job there thus far. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When did we consider Pet Sounds Progressive Rock or on it's timeline? Progressive rock sites like Progarchives.com and Strawberry Bricks Progressive Rock Timeline doesn't even have the Beach Boys in it. If you are going to let Pet Sounds you should let the Beatles Revolver in as it was more influential on psychedelic rock than Pet Sounds. As it is I think neither should be in. As for the Beatles I would let in Magical Mysytery Tour in the progressive rock timeline. Of course, there's only proto-prog like Strawberry Fields Forever ( psych with mellotron), Flying (space rock with mellotron), Baby You're A Rich Man (use of clavioline with psychedelic rock), I Am The Walrus (UK psyche), Blue Jay Way (space rock) - a series of progressive technological aspects. RigbyEleanor (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

I personally never considered The Beach Boys a progressive rock band, bor did I ever associate them with progressive rock before certain people came into this (and/or maybe other) wikiprojects. I still don't think they're progressive rock or proto-prog, but it is ultimately what is widely agreed upon that gets put upon/kept on wikipedia. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Beach Boys Pet Sounds is baroque pop with some slight psychedelic pop influences. There is hardly any rock music on the album. There are not on Strawberry Bricks Timeline or even mentioned in the Wiki Article for progressive rock. Oh Lord I love the Beach Boys but prog there not. The Beatles at least were considered prog by many people.

Strawberry Fields Forever hardly conforms with any conventional genre (hence prog...eclectic prog?). In fact I find it hard to determine the genre of most of their songs and only tried to do it for the proto-prog material on Magical Mystery Tour.

A Day In The Life: The intro is folky and the drone parts point towards space rock or US psyche while (after 2 minutes) there are definite UK psyche parts such as the marching bass part.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun is eclectic prog mixing various genres (folk, R&B, soul, reaggae-ish...rock) and meters. RigbyEleanor (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable - if one or more reliable sources consider The Beach Boys/The Beatles/whoever to be or not be progressive then that's what matters. You may disagree but we can't change the article based on one or more Wikipedia editor's opinion - that would be original research. Una Laguna^Talk 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Niftyness

I just added a bunch of new crap. Enjoy! :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! This page needs a content table though. --Aeternus ^(talk) 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Was beaten to it. All pages with the header tabs will need the table of contents forced. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessing for WPBiography musician-work-group

Since the assessment classes in {{Grading scheme}} changed some time ago (adding C-class et al.) and since assessment of Unassessed biography (musicians) articles is (currently) hardly done anymore, I would like to suggest:

If you assess an article for this project and it has a WPBio/musician-work-group tag of either

• unassessed or
• a lower class than your current assessment,

update the assessment class of the WPBio tag too. Cheers, BNutzer (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool album

Somehow came across this album when I was looking up Nektar on allmusic. It's a 53 track CD called Supernatural Fairytales. Lots of stuff you've never heard of mixed with lots of the stuff you have. This would be a good starting point for articles for the less popular bands. http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:azfuxq8hldje - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can have a section on Compilations that readers, unfamiliar with Progressive Rock, can seek out for purchase?!?!? Firstlensman (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikpedia isn't a catalogue or a business though, it's an encyclopedia. If a compilation has some sort of coverage by somewhat reliable third-party sources we can make an article for it, but otherwise it will likely be deleted by the community. In some cases where multiple volumes are released by a company, we can cover the series in a single article. Again however, there needs to be some sort of coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of Dream Theater band members for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SRE.K.A.L.24 (talk • contribs)

Business is booming

V Schauf recently pointed out to me that this quaint little group has already grown to a dozen members in a single month. This coinciding with a lot of the major articles being tagged at this point means we can start looking into where things need to be improved. Feel free to add more, as I'm only one person and certainly not an expert.

Category:B-Class Progressive rock articles - 41 articles Category:GA-Class Progressive rock articles - 9 articles

These two categories are the articles that are well written at this point, but with lots of room for improvement. Some of the B class articles might meet the criteria for a Good Article, and some of the Good Articles might meet the criteria for a Featured Article. We should see if any are ready or within close proximity to being ready for promotion and fix them up accordingly.

Also, if any of our members have books on specific bands or prog rock in general, let everyone know, as those books are often the best sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is nice to know that this group is getting noticed and influential within wikipedia. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I work in downtown Chicago and they have a huge library that Rocks (Harold Washington Library)! I think I am going to go back and get the Pink Floyd book that I was reading before to make contributions. Can't remember the name of it but very comprehensive - from their beginning to their reappearance at Live Aid a few years ago. V Schauf (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Would the book be Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd by Nick Mason? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A user who owns Glenn Povey's "Echoes" would be most welcome, as that book is a bit of a goldmine for Pink Floyd factoids (although I have noticed the odd error). By the way, I currently have The Wall in my sandbox, and am after any technical articles that anyone knows of. Right now, its mostly arguments and bitching, as was Floyd's want. Parrot of Doom 14:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

actually it's Blake, Mark. Comfortably Numb: The Inside Story of Pink Floyd.

I used it once to make a minor edit and reference on the Atom Heart Mother article. I'm hoping this time I'll use the book much more effectively. V Schauf (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I really like what you all have done to improve WikiProject: Progressive Rock. It has been considerably improved since last fall. I'm impressed ! V Schauf (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ECHOES Update for Good Article Nomination

Echoes was voted down for Good Article Nomination. I would like to call upon all of you in the group to look at the bottom of the "Talk" section (the critique and justification for it not being GA) of this song, and hopefully, if you have time, to improve the article. For maximum exposure, I'm putting this in the other Prog Rock page as well. Hope none of you are bothered with that redundancy. V Schauf (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Rick Davies

The Rick Davies article is pretty... shit.

http://www.swindonweb.com/index.asp?m=8&s=9&ss=1098&t=Rick+Davies

That seems like a detailed and reliable source, lets see if we can make it a GA or better using this and any other possible refs (Anybody got a book on supertramp?)! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Is it worth a section somewhere on what books/sources we own between us? Parrot of Doom 08:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by BetaCommandBot

Quite often I find on talk pages comments from BetaCommandBot red-linking to an image, but a new image has already been added to the article (e.g. Gryphon (album). What's the best thing to do with such comments ? Delete it, strike through (what I normally do), just ignore it ? Any recommendation is welcome. --Cdl obelix (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If a new image has been made available, just strike it out or delete the comment. I delete them personally, as they no longer serve a purpose. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd discography

This article seems pretty set for becoming a featured list. The prose could be updated to contain specific discography related information that is not in the main Floyd article, instead of a band bio. Other then that, it seems pretty set. See also the talk page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Mason

Having looked at the solo album and collaborations addressed with the Nick Mason template I suggest to remove it from the list of articles to be tagged as Progressive Rock.--Cdl obelix (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Mason's Fictitious Sports: After having just listened to it again, with Robert Wyatt's prominent vocals and that electric guitar, I still vote that it's Progressive Rock (as well as jazz fusion). Cheers, BNutzer (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't listened to it myself, so I couldn't say, but if you feel that way then tag 'er. Remember that what we put on the talk page is not an assertion of its genre - We are only indicating that are group will watch over the well being of that article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll tag it if not already done. --Cdl obelix (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve Swindells

There has been a kerfuffle at WP:BLP over the liberal splattering of this article about an ex-member of Hawkwind with peacock terms by the subject or his representative. Someone WP:PRODed it and I have removed the tag. However, if someone with a good set of references could give it a hack before it reaches WP:AFD, that might be useful. I'm currently preoccupied with a very different musical article which I'm trying to complete before the 5-day WP:DYK deadline. I may have a look at the Swindells article at the weekend, but it may already be at afd by then.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How to create the perfect album page?

I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing, please be gentle on me :). I added Magma's Theatre Du Taur live album from-scratch (my first) a few days ago. It has been tagged as unreferenced. I had used another Magma album as a template, guess it wasn't sufficient.

I got most of the information from the album itself, how can I reference that? Should I find the same information on another web site (progarchives, rateyourmusic, amazon, allmusic, etc) and show that as reference?

Is there a good album page you can show, I can use for my further edits? (which has the correct tags, categories, etc) Also I welcome any sort of criticism for improvement.

Dfisek

Well, there can't be a "perfect" album page, but there can be some album pages that are well-structured enough to be a featured article (the highest rating). The two album pages that are classified as featured articles according to this wikiproject are The Dark Side of the Moon, Freak Out!, and Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). Feel free to make observations from those pages.

I can answer the question about sourcing the album itself. Below is a template for that. It looks better (in my opinion) when it is viewed in editing mode. There is a page about sourcing albums somewhere on wikipedia, but I wasn't able to find it, so sorry about that.

<ref>{{cite album-notes | title = | albumlink = | bandname = | year = | notestitle = | url = | first = | last = | authorlink = | coauthors = | pages = | format = | publisher = | publisherid = | location = | mbid = }}</ref>

I can say for a fact that progarchives and rateyourmusic are not to be sourced here or put in professional review sections. I've used amazon as a source before, but it's not my source of choice. And allmusic can be included in the professional reviews section and a band's biography has been sourced before on allmusic; so until I'm proven wrong, I find no problem with those biographies being sourced. For information on which sites to potentially include and not to include in the professional reviews infobox section, click here.

Hopefully you will enjoy wikipedia, and thanks for your additions.

Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why these sites aren't considered as "professional" review (though I don't necessarily agree). But if I understand correctly what you say correctly, we can't cite them for information as well? There is a lot of valuable (not available elsewhere) information on non-mainstream bands/albums on sites like progarchives, progreviews, progressor, etc. I have seen much too amateur sites being referenced over the wikipedia :/. If so, do you know the reasoning behind this?

Dfisek 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The main concern is whether anybody can post a review to these websites. If it is user-generated content, then it is not a reliable source.

That being said, a borderline-poor source is better than no source at all. I haven't heard of the latter two, but I believe that progarchives and dprp.net are both reliable enough for the non-mainstream acts that we cover. Obviously bands who get coverage outside of those websites shouldn't reference them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually in progarchives, there's a "Collaborators/Experts Reviews" section (which is default), where only selected members' reviews are show. Though probably this isn't the place to discuss this, I should take it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites discussion page. There isn't a single progressive review site that we can put to an album page in the list :). Anyway, we can put them in an external links section I suppose. Dfisek 19:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"I have seen much too amateur sites being referenced over the wikipedia " - if anything, that's a failure of much of the Wikipedia community to understand the concept behind a reliable source. Unfortunately for obscure material such as the album article you're working on, you're going to struggle to find good sources. Parrot of Doom 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Only just seen this, but ProgArchives definitely fails WP:RS. Specifically see this section. There is no editorial oversight on ProgArchives: there are guidelines in place, but they are not concerned with fact-checking. The "Collaborators/Experts Reviews" are similarly unmoderated, and the process to become a Collaborator/Expert is not rigorous enough for Wikipedia's standards: read the criteria for selection as a Collaborator/Expert and that becomes apparent.

An unreliable source is still an unreliable source, even if there are no alternatives. I recently had this discussion at the Octavarium page: the bottom line is that no content is better than potentially misleading and harmful content from an unreliable source. The reviews at ProgArchives should never be listed in the "Professional Reviews" part of the infobox - simply because they're not professional reviews. Una Laguna^Talk 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Collins FAR

I have nominated Phil Collins for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush and Progressive Rock portal

{{Portal|Rush}} Rush and Progressive Rock portal have been upgraded ....New links to here have been added Pls add this to your watch list--->Portal:Rush {{Portal|Rush}}

Could i get someone to update the Portal:Progressive rock NEWS...as i am just here to upgrade portals and dont want to put the wrong info {{Portal|Progressive rock}} Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Debate (song). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Pink Floyd

Ok guys new portal to add to our watch list!!!!!!

Portal:Pink Floyd
{{Portal|Pink Floyd}}...........Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline of prog rock also correlates with rise of jazz rock

Or it seemed that way at the time in the 1970s - in addition to the rise of punk. When John McLaughlin and Mahavishnu Orchestra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McLaughlin_(musician), Chick Chorea and Return to Forever etc took off (all ex Miles Davis sidemen) this new virtuoso genre seemed to render prog rock clunky and irrelevant, though in hind site this was a misguided view, probably because at the time instrumental virtuosity seemed to be so much of what prog rock was about although (again with the benefit of hind site) it was not the main point of prog rock at all. McLaughlin and Chorea's bands were all such dazzling technicians that most of the prog rockers were not in their league technically (in terms of say speed), with the notable exception of Bill Bruford (a brilliant drummer by any standard), Zappa and company, maybe Soft Machine and possibly Keith Emerson. Clearly Mahavishnu and Return to Forever owed much to prog rock's concept album format, marriage of influences etc. The sad thing about this move to complex jazz rock was that the 70s jazz fusion players, first and foremost and despite the myriad influences, were identifiably jazz musicians on loud electric instruments, whereas prog rock was indisputably rock music.

This is all opinion sorry - I don't have a ref. but I'm sure one exists somewhere or perhaps I'll write it, I just wanted to put this thought here for when an appropriate ref. emerges. Hope this is the right place to leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.159.4 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I don't know how it could be used on wikipedia at this moment. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Miles Davis and Fusion in general rose at the same time as Progressive Rock -- listen to In A Silent Way (1969) and Bitches Brew (1970). Firstlensman (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Progressive Sub-Genres and Associated Pages

Original discussion at Talk:Progressive rock

Progressive Rock should have the following Sub-Genre pages:

• Canterbury
• Crossover Progressive
• Eclectic Progressive
• Electronic Progressive
• Jazz Fusion
• Krautrock
• Neo-Progressive
• New Prog ("nu-prog" would redirect to this page)
• Progressivo Italiano
• Proto-Progressive (or "Progressive Influences")
• Psychedelic/Space Rock
• RIO/Avant Progressive
• Symphonic Progressive ("Art Rock" would redirect to this page)
• Zeuhl

I would like to start with the cleanup of the Symphonic rock page (see the discussion on the Symphonic rock talk page -- also see the discussion on the Progressive Rock talk page). I would like to re-name it Symphonic Progressive. Is there a way where I won't be fighting other editors that want to tout their favorite bands -- most of them on the page are not truly Symphonic Progressive bands!

To clarify, based on the discussion on the talk pages mentioned:

• Crossover Prog is a new grouping that is defined on [Prog Archives].
• Psychedelic/Space Rock is combined because Space Rock is an extension of Psychedelic Rock.
• RIO/Avant Prog is combined because RIO is an extension of Avant Prog.
• Art Rock and Progressive Rock were at one time synonymous, but both referred to Symphonic Progressive. Symphonic Progressive now refers to groups like Yes & Genesis (pre-1976). Art Rock is more for groups like Roxy Music.
• Krautrock is a specific form of German Progressive Rock and is recognized as such. A lot of people lump in ALL German Progressive bands which is a definite mistake as they all do NOT play Krautrock. The term Krautrock started as a derogatory term in the British music press, but has been embraced by these German bands. Notable examples of Krautrock bands are Ash Ra Temple & Faust. Examples of German Bands that are NOT Krautrock are Grobschnitt (Symphonic Prog), Eloy (Psychedelic/Space) & Tangerine Dream (Electronic).
• The same goes for Progressivo Italiano.

My attempt was to have 14 editable pages but if you want to separate the ones I combined, that would be fine. (UPDATE: I left out Electronic Progressive above -- corrected the text)

Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very 'prog archives' to me. I don't think there are enough reliable sources to back up your initiative. There are, of course, some subgenres that are notable enough to have their own pages (the likes of neo prog and krautrock), but some others, such as 'eclectic progressive', are a product of utter exaggeration, I think. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been used elsewhere... Eclectic Prog is exactly that -- Not quite Symphonic Prog (Yes), not quite RIO/Avant Prog (Zappa), not quite Zeuhl (Magma), not quite Folk Prog (Jethro Tull), but a mix of various elements like the works of Gentle Giant. Firstlensman (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury scene, jazz fusion, krautrock, neo-progressive rock, new prog, Italian progressive rock, psychedelic rock, space rock, Rock in Opposition, and Zeuhl already have wikipedia articles, so those suggestions are already taken care of. Avant progressive rock used to have a wikipedia page, but since then has been deleted under the G8 deletion rule. "Crossover progressive" and "eclectic progressive" seem like unofficial terms; the timeline of progressive rock already takes care of the "proto-progressive" issue. As for the "symphonic progressive" page, that term isn't used very much, so I'm not certain about whether that should have its own article. Thanks for your input. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A little addition to your collection: Berlin School of electronic music. This article covers the so-called 'electronic progressive' subgenre.

(copied from my response on Talk:Progressive rock) On the Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock this form is called "Symphonic Rock" although at times it is clarified as "Symphonic Rock/Progressive Rock". On the Prog Archives site it is called "Symphonic Prog". I submit to you that this makes more sense as it will not confuse this style with, as stated on the Symphonic rock page here on Wikipedia, groups such as KISS who happened to use an orchestra on one album! (the KISS reference has since been deleted) Firstlensman (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(copied from my response on Talk:Progressive rock) Amazon, Sonic Empire Music, last.fm, Prog Radio, Progressive World, and other sites refer to it as Symphonic Progressive Firstlensman (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated the Symphonic rock page

Cleaned up the "Artists" section. Please review and suggest any changes on the Talk:Symphonic rock page. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I cited sources such as "Rocking The Classics" by Edward Macan, the "New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia Of Rock & Roll" by the editors of Rilling Stone, msnbc.com, latimes.com and others. Could the editors of this WikiProject please remove the WP:NOR issue? Firstlensman (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have refrained from using Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock and the Prog Archives as sources on the Symphonic rock page because a couple people complained. Yet, they are both used throughout all the other Progressive Rock pages as sources! What is the ruling? Firstlensman (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ProgArchives and GEPR do not count as reliable sources as there is little to no editorial oversight to ensure the websites are accurate sources of information. They shouldn't be used as sources in Wikipedia articles in the same way that Amazon and IMDB shouldn't be.

ProgArchives and GEPR may be used in other articles, but they shouldn't be - see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (which is written with AfD debates in mind, but also applies here). Una Laguna^Talk 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominated Office of Strategic Influence (album) for Good Article

I've been working on Office of Strategic Influence (album) over the past few weeks, and have submitted it to the list of Good Article nominees. There currently seems to be a waiting time of around two months for a review, so if anyone here has the required expertise to review the article, it would be much appreciated! Una Laguna^Talk 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would if I was any good at reviewing. What I can tell you though is that for your sources, it's better to put the publisher as the author if no author is found. It will keep the reflist looking neat and tidy, and that's good for brownie points. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD for individual Dream Theater AA suite song articles

I've nominated The Root of All Evil (song), The Glass Prison, This Dying Soul and The Shattered Fortress for deletion as the individual songs do not have enough reliable information to justify their own articles. All necessary information can be given in one moderately-sized article (Twelve-step Suite). See the deletion discussion here. Una Laguna^Talk 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove WP:NOR From Symphonic Rock page

I have many references to the information I presented in the Artists section. I did not use any references that any editors felt were no good (i.e. Prog Archives, GEPR, et. al.). I've requested that the WP:NOR be removed, but have not received a reply. Then, the page was flagged for containing Original Research. I don't think I have to have a reference on each and every sentence I wrote in the Artists section. But, I can do so if needed. I'd like to remove the "Original Research" flag from this page. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left comments here. Una Laguna^Talk 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROGROCK userbox

This user is a member of
WikiProject Progressive Rock.

 :)

I'll stick it by the Members section and wherever else seems sensible. Una Laguna^Talk 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll put it on mine. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Going on mine right now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Great!Going on mine too. --Cdl obelix (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Porcupine Tree

I became the 9th member to join it, and it is an inactive project. Feel free to join the wikiproject if you are interested. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 06:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis (band)'s FAR

I have nominated Genesis (band) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Two new WP:PROGROCK Good Article Nominees

I'm not sure if anyone still checks here - but I'll place a pointer to two prog-related Good Article Nominees awaiting review at WP:GAN#Music: Octavarium (album) and Blood (OSI album). If any Good Article Reviewers lurking about here are looking for an article which they may find more interesting to review, I'd really appreciate it! :) (I also have two other articles, Awake (Dream Theater album) and Graveyard Mountain Home, which I'll submit for GAN after the first two are reviewed.) Una Laguna^Talk 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I check everything, I just ran out of ideas for the Picture of the Arbitrary Length of Time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty; not including Fireballet, or Zazu! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.93.87 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're requesting articles be created, then there is a space for that. Here it is. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed an issue with a tissue

No need to have the closing table tags at the end of the project pages anymore. I used a different technique (thanks to User:Jeni) that lets the wiki software take care of it. Enjoy - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool stuff. It had given me trouble in the past, albeit only minor trouble. Thanks for fixing it. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Every Stranger's Eyes

The article Every Stranger's Eyes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Single songs generally do not meet the requirements of WP:N, no mention of notability no references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Allmusic

Please see here. BNutzer (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Progressive rock articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Progressive rock articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor questions on Yes (indirectly)-related band "Los Bravos"

To anyone who's interested in either Yes or Los Bravos (and has fun in doing some punctilious research), I have raised some questions in the talk page on Los Bravos about their connection to Tony/Andy Anderson, older brother of Jon and former member of Jon's first band The Warriors. Moongateclimber (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding use of succession boxes in song and album articles

An RFC is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes to discuss the merits of their use on articles for songs and albums that reached number one on various music charts. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Reasoning

The page for the band The Reasoning currently has an Afd discussion concerning it and needs more opinions. To see the discussion and potentially donate to it, click here. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nick's Boogie

The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)