Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Progressive Rock

765:, 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. 792:

original form was most often progressive, whereas by the late 70s, "fusion" began to encompass instrumental funk (no doubt by very competent musicians) that doesn't push musical boundaries nearly to the extent of the first-generation Miles Davis alumni whose music spawned the term. The IP is correct that "jazz-rock fusion" consisted of jazz musicians who began to play rock instruments, and thus generally have a much higher level of both technique and also in many cases musical background even than those progrockers who are identified as virtuosos. Keith Emerson and Chick Corea may have a fairly comparable level of raw chops, but as a lifetime jazz musician, Corea can improvise on a much more deeply interactive level, which would make him arguably a more well-rounded musician. That said, jazz-rock fusion and progrock, as part of a broad, anti-mainstream movement that also included "trad" folk rock, were musical allies and didn't detract from each other's popularity.

817:(fusion guys were immersed in the rather hermetic world of jazz gigging). I'd like to demonstrate the following, but it would take genuine scholarly work to conduct a broad survey of articles from the time and not just cherry picking the ones that make this point. I think it can be objectively argued that jazz-rock fusion took the first critical hits a few years before progrock became the punk rocker's favorite piñata. In the early to mid-70s, even reviewers who were generally supportive of prog began to feel that virtuosity for its own sake was becoming a dead end (I recall, among several reviews making this general point, a Creem magazine trashing Mahavishnu Orchestra in the same issue that was lovin' on ELP). By the time punk's press supporters began wailing on "wankery" in all its forms progrock and fusion were conflated — and it was the fault of those flamboyant virtuosi. 314:

What matters with reviews is whether they are useful for people who might be interested in the album. I contend that Christgau's reviews are not useful to someone who would be interested in progressive rock. They would be unlikely to prefer an album because it was closer to another genre (Christgau's best grade for a King Crimson album was based on its being more like jazz). His reviews are not useful information; they are being privileged simply because they are available on the web. Very few reviews from the 1970s are available on the web, and that's when much of this music was released. If his views were useful in telling us that "Tales" was a better album than "Close to the Edge," that would be one thing, but given his bias, his views are not useful.

3307:

the eighties or even seventies. But being a rock history myself I am very aware that most all Americans cannot focus on music longer than 5 minutes because the radio tells them dictates to them what they like and don't like. Where's Americans are supposed to be free people and free thinkers but when it comes to music we are not our thoughts are dictated basically by what is played on mainstream radio. Everyone however has their bands they like that are not on mainstream media but they generally do not include progressive rock bands. My thought is Americans have been dumbed down and given a certain musical ADD About progressive rock music. A good example would be ask any American on the street to explain side one of Jethro Tulls album,Thick As A Brick

453:. Not that the reviews are necessarily all that good all the time (some of them are but many are not; I've written them countless times on genre bias and incorrect factual information). The virtue of the site is that it's extremely comprehensive and as a commercial site, not prone to link rot. As for Floydian's point, I don't think that would be a tenable common practice. Multiple reviews more often than not reveal a narrow range of consensus; it's the exception to provoke love 'em / hate 'em reactions a la 2061: 71: 53: 848:

jazz-rock fusion remain in the background music on The Weather Channel and on "smooth jazz" radio), guaranteeing a solid market niche all through the late 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond. Progrock, in order to survive, had to amalgamate with New Wave in various ways, and beyond the relative successes of examples of this, it's arguable that this deformed the music (neither quite prog nor quite New Wave) in a way you can't say about fusion.

3588: 2716: 1616: 3361: 22: 2918: 1003: 361:...which again boils down to "we shouldn't include his reviews for certain albums because he doesn't like certain albums". This selectivity is a POV issue - we're starting to go around in circles. If the issue was with the quality of Christgau's reviews, full stop, then that may be a case worth considering, but considering you're cherry-picking reviews of his to ignore, that's not the case. 957:

I'm never tempted to visit them, because the bulk of info they must present makes them both hard for a reader to absorb and difficult if not impossible for editors to bring anywhere near a reasonable comprehensiveness. Can anyone explain what function timeline articles serve? I'd like to help out with this, but obviously I can't be much use without knowing exactly why we're doing it.--

496:

the spectrum: RIO, Zeuhl and avant-prog. I just think we don't need to go out of our way to confirm a 20-year-old mainstream consensus that prog is somehow not part of what NYTimes critic Ann Powers called "rock's canon" at the turn of the millenium. Prog is coming back; even teenage garage bands are obsessed with odd time signatures these days (cf. the

220:. I would say that the only reason they're in the infoboxes is that they are available online, rather than because they have any special insight into progressive rock. The fact that he'd comment on every kind of album doesn't mean that his tastes were in any way catholic. I would suggest simply dumping them from the article infoboxes in this Project. 4095: 4038: 3981: 3924: 3817: 3760: 3528: 3471: 3414: 3226: 3169: 3112: 3055: 2963: 2860: 2660: 2466: 2409: 2321: 2237: 2180: 2123: 1963: 1821: 1741: 2561:, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time. 492:" — which is an essentialist ideology about what people like him believe rock music should and should not be. Christgau ranks Yes albums with C's because he's comparing them in his head to The Rolling Stones. Which is as absurd as getting a classical reviewer to share his/her opinions on the latest Madonna release. 1509:

is the second article I've created, and the first music article. I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments. I have pretty much reached what I think I can do on my own with it without some kind of guidance, but I would love to somehow work it up to GA class, though I would be quite happy with getting it

907:

I'd start by filtering out the bluelinks. From what remains, first find if they're released an album in the past two years, and then see if they're reviewed by a major source (UG, DPRP, something that's not just an unedited, user submitted review), or if they have two reviews from minor sources. This

3306:

For many years 90% of all progressive rock music came from somewhere other than the United States. Today with progressive rock finding its way to United States through progressive metal progressive rock and even some cult followings, Most Americans seem to be somewhat more familiar than they were in

1287:

regarded as a reliable secondary source? The two reviews at the source webpage are evidence that the two albums produced by Café Jacques are covered by a reliable media publisher. This is the means by which I wish to show notability (i.e. the band released two albums with a major record label). I am

791:

Jazz-rock fusion (as distinct from the later and much more generic term "jazz fusion") is decidedly another stream of progressive rock and IMHO should be included within the scope of this project. The difference between "jazz-rock fusion" and "jazz fusion" (or, for that matter "fusion") is that the

680:

on February 2, 2011. I haven't seen activity from this person since that edit, I believe, but that doesn't mean this person isn't active. I've observed long spans of little activity from this person before, so that doesn't mean this person is done for good. That person has been doing it for over two

3027:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

215:

I first noticed this in the article on "Tales for Topographic Oceans," but I think it applies to progressive rock album articles more generally. Why is there a seemingly requisite Robert Christgau review? As his WP article notes, he was no fan of progressive, so his reviews are virtually violations

956:

Going over the task list for this project, I noticed that much of it has to do with the article Timeline for Progressive Rock. I've seen these timeline articles before and honestly, I still don't really understand their purpose. When I'm going through Knowledge (XXG) as a reader and not an editor,

886:. Proposal: New entries are only acceptable if at least two reliable sources are cited. If not, the entry shall be removed. A review shall be made to cleanup the existing entries of all Timeline of Progressive rock pages to add the necessary citations and to remove all entries in the list failing 690:

As for the originally posted genre warrior, (s)he's gone under another IP and done similar activity. That is pretty unfortunate, but a fellow user reverted a lot of 98's stuff. That is definitely reminiscent to the practice of number 90, by the way, especially if the person keeps IP hopping. I, as

495:

Understand that I'm no advocate of adding fancruft, pushing POV or editing confrontations with the mainstream to make the band or album in question "look good." My contribution is going to try to add (and hopefully source) some balanced and objective musical analysis to prog on the obscure end of

487:

who decided to help out the Progrock project strictly because of our undying love for Knowledge (XXG). We're here to help this music get better exposure primarily for the sake of people who may like the music because progrock has been a misunderstood, minority style even during the brief cultural

2017:

Does anyone have any reliable sources which they could contribute to the Skywhale page, and more specifically to their album page "The World At Mind's End". Both pages are currently in the draft stages, waiting for review and have wikipedia issues due to lack of reliable sources. The former band

1573:, and I think this is ill-advised. Not all Rush songs are classified in this genre, particularly songs from their debut album. I would remove the category and recategorize the pages myself, but this is going to be a fair bit of work if it goes against consensus and needs to be reverted. Thoughts? 712:

FWIW, I did some minor revisions on Allan Holdsworth's genres in the body of the article. I indicated specifically where he plays jazz-rock fusion (a specific genre started by jazz musicians), British jazz-rock (started by rock musicians) and progressive rock. There are multiple reliable sources

328:

That is a good point. Considering his bias against progressive rock, he likely is not the "go-to guy" for the genre. As I said in my first post on this thread, his reviews are not necessary to apply to this WikiProject because of this. So, what about the reviews that are already put there? If you

313:

is a guideline for sources about facts or opinions about facts, not about things that are purely matters of taste. The word "music" does not appear anywhere in the guideline for a reason. There is no sense in which opinion about music can be extreme in the way a fringe conspiracy theory would be.

1631:

is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating

816:

The IP's thesis statement is incorrect; progrock and jazz-rock fusion arose at roughly the same time and rode the same economic and cultural currents. It's also much more likely that fusion had a greater influence on progrock (especially on the Canterbury jazz-rock contingent) than the reverse

643:

Also, I have another one to share. There has been an IP-hopping person who pervasively changes genres, even after being told not to do so. The IP name almost always starts with 90.21#.###.###. The 1 is there most the time, but not all the time. I haven't seen editing characteristic of this in a

847:

Finally, an irony somewhat galling to progrockers. Because fusion is essentially jazz, and jazz can be disassembled into funk, blues and the American popular song, it was pretty easy to de-tune the music and take the edges off without losing the music's essence as "fusion" (the descendents of

1317:

This is a tough one I've faced for several years. My opinion on the matter is that the DPRP is a directory, and so it doesn't impart notability on a subject to be covered by that site. However, as a secondary source, I believe the CD reviews qualify as peer-reviewed and not self-published (as

1529:

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Knowledge (XXG) struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia

520:

Several points here. First of all, you're all talking as though Knowledge (XXG) is a buyer's guide. It's not; it's an encyclopedia. So whether or not Robert Christgau's reviews are "useful" is irrelevant. All that matters is that they are notable. Our job is to document an album's historical

529:

of Christgau's reviews are negative. He doesn't hate progressive rock any more than he hates music in general. Meanwhile, you have plenty of reviewers on Allmusic who essentially write "This album is progressive rock; therefore it stinks" and even make snide comments such as "The spirit of

524:

Second, you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. Your theory that Christgau hates progressive rock is based solely on reading way too much into some of his comments, and the observation that 95% of his reviews of prog rock albums are negative. The latter is meaningless, because 95% of

2532:

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template

1917:

for good article status. I and a couple of others have put in significant time improving the article since Keith's untimely death and I think it's ready for a GA review. Thought I would mention it here since this project has it categorized as a high-importance article. Best,

1259:

and populated it with a lot of referenced names. Why not amend that request and ask that anybody with the time and inclination please compare the new list page with GEPR and add any names that are missing? There are also quite a few redlinked names that could use articles.

386:

No, I am definitely not arguing that we should cherry pick his reviews. I think we should get rid of all of them because he has nothing useful to say about the genre. So, in your words, my argument is about the quality of his reviews, full stop, of progressive rock albums.

411:

In my view, we shouldn't include any specific reviewers on every album. Each album should be examined on a case by case basis, but overall keep in mind that the infobox review section should include one positive, one neutral, and one negative review in order to satisfy

3385:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

533:

Third, and most importantly, if you are indeed "here to help this music get better exposure" as Snardbafulator says, then you really should excuse yourself from editing music-related articles, if not Knowledge (XXG) entirely, because this is what is known as

3187: 1530:

Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please

3244: 3382: 3179: 3161: 3240: 3236: 3218: 802:

Pink Floyd didn't improvise at all, for instance. Most Canterbury rock had room for improv and some of it is heavily jazz-influenced (qualifying it as jazz-rock, but not fusion), but it's also beloved precisely because it isn't

2573:. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals. 768:

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.

797:

It's important to recall that virtuosity was only part of progrock's appeal; there are strains of progrock that aren't at all "virtuosic" as the term was understood by the endlessly soloing jazz-rock fusioneers. Genesis and

881:

This page had been classified as unsourced and was then, I would say erroneously, deleted. It is on the other hand true, that there are more and more entries where I am not sure, whether the band and/or album listed satisfy

2570: 1431:

that actually mention the critical acclaim that prog received. Much of it is devoted to the criticism and subsequent backlash of prog. This looks biased. Shouldn't it be expanded to reflect both sides fairly evenly?

625:

Bah! I hate and loathe the type of editing that consists of changing genres for no reason! Thank you much for the warning to others about the issue. If this person keeps up this shady activity, you can report it to

3389:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

2522:

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

745:

page. Obviously I'm not intending this for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) as it would qualify as original research (until such time as it becomes sourced), but it does speak to the genre discussion on this page.

1288:

intending to put two inline citations after the names of the albums in the discography, if that is the right way to approach it. In other words where citations 2 & 3 are now. Thankyou. Have a great day.

243:, which he rated B. If it is true that he is not a progressive rock fan by default, then it is not necessary to have his reviews on progressive rock pages or for his reviews to apply to the WikiProject. 2577: 2198: 239:

and other Yes albums; he classifies them under B's and C's on the ABCDF scale. They seemed awfully negative to have such ratings, save for some of the albums he rated B- or higher, especially that of

1280: 530:

traditional progressive rock experimentation is alive on this album; five of the seven songs exceed six minutes."(actual example from a real Allmusic review!) Singling out Christgau makes no sense.

644:

while, and I'm not sure if (s)he persists, but if it happens anywhere, then you can report it to the two above links and possibly tell me, because I could be able to help with relevant information.

282:

Oh, I get where you're coming from there. Just because he doesn't like progressive rock by default does not mean he dislikes all progressive rock. A crackdown removal would not be necessary, then.

2929: 162: 1456: 538:. Intentionally introducing bias only damages Knowledge (XXG)'s content, not to mention makes progressive rock look far worse than reviewers like Christgau could ever hope to make it look.-- 2190: 2172: 1479: 716:

Anybody's welcome to quibble and reinsert the common (but somewhat empty) generic term "jazz fusion" if they like, but I think my reasoning is solid (and duly posted on the AH Talk page).

1303:

You could ask at the reliable sources page. I would have said that the DPRP's reviews don't seem like a reliable secondary source to me, but I could be persuaded that their news page is.

441:

of progrock — which is something that a freelance critic has every right to be (there are many horror stories about Christgau's prog reviews: he thought his amp had died when he put on

3737:

parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.

3873:

There is a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the band either ending in 2015 or 2018. Some opinions would be helpful to see if a full consensus can be given. The topic is

3327: 197: 3020:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 3685:

Quality assessments by Knowledge (XXG) editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at

1675:

keeps making a number of edits to the page that I don't feel are supported, but I don't want to get into a bilateral edit war. It would be good to have some additional perspectives.

2082: 631: 2018:

members have gone on to play with well known artists but the article needs sources from the 1970s. Does anyone have any magazine articles, reviews, tickets or festival flyers?

3723:

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass

853:

So while jazz-rock fusion was more about virtuosity, progrock was (and is) more about form. The pressure to innovate satisfyingly is thus heavier on the less virtuosic genre.

155: 3283:

to the article. I have been looking, but can't find whether or not its fluff or if it's something that can be added to the article. That's why I haven't commented myself.

2590: 627: 2940:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

2089:

in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

2674: 3690: 605:

It's hard to tell what they've added and what is already vandalized. From the looks of it, most Weezer albums are IP troll-holes. They need some love and dedication. -

4162: 4157: 1636:! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! 1593: 1322:, the reviewers are not users, but a set staff), which certainly imparts more significance than allmusic reviews, which are acceptable sources for non-genre facts. - 1143: 169: 148: 3302:

Has America been too dumbed down by mainstream radio,to understand progressive rock music? Or are Americans just not able to focus on songs longer than 5 minutes?

2077: 559:... We all know the truth is that progressive rock is awesome, but unfortunately we have to verify it from people that are more important and notable than us. - 416:. Obviously some albums are going to have universally positive or negative review, and so we should seek to balance out the critical reception as best we can. - 141: 1478:

Members who are interested in Ayers Rock (band), are invited to contribute to an RfC regarding the lead paragraph of that article. More details can be found at

3183: 875: 475:

Let me address a final point to Una Laguna. Look, let's be honest with ourselves. Every person on this project's signup sheet has identified themselves as a

2670: 2652: 3372: 2828:. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like 908:

should clean up most of the junk. I'd list the ones that you can only find minor sources for here at the end, so that they can be looked at case-by-case. -

1346:

where it sat for a week unanswered, before trickling down the drain (into Archive 166)! I will continue the search for a reliable source. Have a great day.

1694:

Discussion is required to meet citations on System of a Down are strong enough to have the group be considered part of the prog rock genre. Discussion is

2878: 3651: 2788: 2103: 127: 78: 58: 3029: 2738:

since December 2010. Quick search for sources found one website showing the band existed, but I wasn't able to find anything to show how it meets

1795: 2870: 2852: 2378:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#12:22:48.2C_9_April_2017_review_of_submission_by_37.201.138.83

2548: 1643: 839: 3710:

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to

2386: 1542:(Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) 1216: 3720:, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories. 3024:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

2634: 1875: 4052: 3905: 3289: 776: 3655: 2792: 1197: 3714: 3701: 3367: 3351: 1073: 535: 761:

Or it seemed that way at the time in the 1970s - in addition to the rise of punk. When John McLaughlin and Mahavishnu Orchestra

2537: 946: 936:

I would like to summon anyone coming across this thread (and preferably has experience with album cover displays) to take a look

4113: 3707:, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. 2557: 4056: 3942: 3671: 1570: 3686: 2832:), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the 2037:

Would this be a good idea? How would it be done? By redefining this project, or by creating "progressive music" as a parent?--

472:

a Christgau review, I'd strongly suggest adding the AllMusic review. That would also serve Floydian's concern for "balance."

33: 1943: 1896: 1332: 1256: 1156: 918: 615: 569: 426: 3643: 3599: 3577: 2780: 2727: 2705: 2673:

to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion

1625:

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that

236: 3647: 2784: 2086: 4101: 4044: 3987: 3930: 3823: 3766: 3534: 3477: 3420: 3376: 3232: 3175: 3118: 3061: 2969: 2866: 2666: 2472: 2415: 2327: 2243: 2186: 2129: 1969: 1827: 1747: 838:

and countless punk and New Wavers were quick to sing the praises of the non-virtuosic (but oh so musically innovative)

3835: 2607: 1601: 1487: 1413: 1377: 1351: 1293: 1013:... music was called "an industry founded on exploitation, oiled by deceit, riven with theft and fueled by greed" by 4135: 4105: 4087: 4078: 4021: 3964: 3857: 3800: 3568: 3511: 3454: 3266: 3209: 3152: 3095: 3003: 2900: 2696: 2578:

article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject

2506: 2449: 2361: 2277: 2220: 2163: 2003: 1861: 1781: 1510:

to a B class for now. I've just been staring at it too long I think. Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions? Thanks!

3021: 2377: 4048: 4030: 3934: 3916: 2981: 2596:

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the

1566: 1183: 1123: 1044: 990: 442: 1633: 1627: 1615: 2833: 2339: 2194: 1981: 1723: 807:

with constant displays of self-important virtuosity — making it a charmingly self-deprecating alternative to the

587:

Just to say that there's an IP switching around genres in infoboxes for no given reason. All of their edits here

4112:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4055:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3998:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3941:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3834:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3777:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3545:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3488:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3431:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3243:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3186:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3129:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3072:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2980:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2877:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2483:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2426:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2338:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2254:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2197:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2140:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 1980:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 1838:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 1758:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3882: 3312: 2945: 1167: 1106: 1026: 972: 861: 751: 726: 511: 3630: 2597: 39: 3279:

Someone started a discussion, which I saw on my watchlist, on the Rush talk page about adding their nickname

2937: 2921: 2910: 1759: 1755: 1532: 3778: 3542: 2928:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 2484: 2390: 2370: 2042: 1212: 1002: 780: 2382: 772: 741:

I'm reviving this from the archives, since I just wrote a ton on this very subject on the Allan Holdsworth

3902: 3827: 3809: 3489: 3308: 2583:

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

1923: 1702: 1597: 1483: 1409: 1373: 1347: 1289: 273:

viewpoints. Discarding the ones we think of as "not catholic" or "extreme" is itself a violation of NPOV.

3659: 3595: 3581: 2796: 1536:

and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my

3727: 2973: 2955: 2735: 2295: 1751: 1733: 1695: 1176: 1115: 1036: 982: 962: 742: 543: 86:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4120: 4063: 4006: 3949: 3910: 3886: 3842: 3785: 3746: 3675: 3553: 3496: 3439: 3401: 3339: 3316: 3296: 3251: 3194: 3137: 3080: 3041: 2988: 2949: 2885: 2845: 2808: 2681: 2646: 2612: 2491: 2434: 2394: 2346: 2307: 2262: 2205: 2148: 2046: 2038: 2027: 1988: 1948: 1933:

I'll take a look. I have a lot of GAN experience so I can spot out most issues that could be raised. -

1927: 1903: 1846: 1807: 1766: 1727: 1706: 1684: 1657: 1605: 1582: 1552: 1519: 1491: 1468: 1441: 1417: 1381: 1355: 1337: 1312: 1297: 1269: 1245: 1220: 1190: 1161: 1128: 1049: 995: 966: 923: 899: 865: 784: 755: 730: 704: 665: 620: 599: 574: 547: 515: 431: 396: 365: 342: 323: 295: 277: 256: 229: 3335: 2820: 2642: 2331: 2313: 1973: 1955: 1719: 1680: 1578: 1308: 1265: 895: 595: 392: 319: 225: 1672: 887: 883: 3878: 3667: 3546: 2941: 2804: 2423: 1798:

that may put an end to all of the edit warring and inconsistency surround band member timelines. —

1642:

To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to

1464: 1437: 941: 857: 747: 722: 698: 691:

well as others, just hope that the IP does not keep this non-negotiating serial genre changing up.

659: 507: 336: 289: 250: 2516: 2299: 3774: 3770: 3752: 3742: 3037: 2874: 2767: 2476: 2458: 2141: 2023: 1941: 1887: 1803: 1330: 1203: 1154: 1083: 916: 613: 567: 424: 2060: 1718:

Can someone help determine if any genres for this band can be verified from reliable sources? --

1232: 2571:

RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace

3897: 3831: 3626: 3481: 3463: 2763: 2303: 1919: 1698: 1070: 454: 2739: 413: 262: 3874: 3397: 3280: 3069: 2723: 2709: 2291: 1515: 1428: 1342:

Thankyou so much for your opinions, and speedy response. Actually, I asked this question at

958: 937: 831: 588: 539: 83: 3613: 2933: 2925: 2750: 2743: 1874:

I have started a discussion regarding how Knowledge (XXG) should define singles. Please go

1343: 437:

Completely agree with Academic38; strongly differ with Una Laguna. Robert Christgau is an

3938: 3428: 3331: 3017: 2638: 2427: 1977: 1835: 1676: 1653: 1574: 1548: 1537: 1304: 1261: 1096: 891: 676:

By the way, this number 90 person I'm talking about has his/her most recent activity with

591: 388: 315: 221: 1404:

Is there anyone who would want to participate or be a partner in this article's creation?

1236: 310: 266: 70: 52: 3663: 3538: 3520: 2800: 2255: 1460: 1433: 719:

The last thing I'd ever do is tweak a genre anonymously or against consensus. Sheesh.

692: 653: 362: 330: 283: 274: 244: 119: 3612:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

2749:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

556: 4151: 4129: 4117: 4072: 4060: 4015: 4003: 3958: 3946: 3851: 3839: 3794: 3782: 3738: 3562: 3550: 3505: 3493: 3448: 3436: 3260: 3248: 3203: 3191: 3146: 3134: 3089: 3077: 3073: 3033: 2997: 2985: 2894: 2882: 2841: 2690: 2678: 2500: 2488: 2443: 2431: 2355: 2343: 2271: 2259: 2214: 2202: 2157: 2145: 2133: 2115: 2096: 2019: 1997: 1985: 1935: 1914: 1879: 1855: 1843: 1799: 1775: 1763: 1712: 1324: 1148: 1139: 910: 607: 561: 418: 240: 3383:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Live at the House of Blues (Jethro Tull album)

2917: 449:

to American jazz, etc. etc. etc.). If you're looking for a WP:Notable source, use

265:. That Robert Christgau doesn't like many prog albums is irrelevant. He counts as a 3432: 2924:, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 2635:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Wording_of_warning_re:_instrument_field_in_infobox

2630: 2626: 1796:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards

1632:

easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested,

1255:

The "tasks" section suggests creating a "GEPR list" page, but I've already created

1021: 1014: 827: 1058:

The DGM article should run on DYK on 25 March. Its good article review has begun.

3995: 3866: 3393: 3126: 2480: 1558: 1511: 1452: 1240: 823: 762: 1913:

Hello, this is to let any interested parties know that I nominated the article

634:. Genre warring is one of the most bottom feeding practices of the music scene. 3485: 2977: 2419: 2401: 1839: 1649: 1544: 1505: 835: 2589:

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the

2555:

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members

1371:

This is not related to doom metal; that's an English band with the same name.

329:

deem it necessary, you can forget about the last sentence in my second post.

4109: 3999: 3180:

Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show That Never Ends ∽ Ladies and Gentlemen

3162:

Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show That Never Ends ∽ Ladies and Gentlemen

3130: 2251: 2247: 2229: 2137: 2071: 497: 446: 811:

of Yes, ELP, King Crimson and Rush. Creativity has many available avenues.

3636:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

3241:

Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends – Ladies and Gentlemen

3237:

Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends – Ladies and Gentlemen

3219:

Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends – Ladies and Gentlemen

2773:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1794:

I wanted everyone here to know about the current discussion happening at

1646:. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X. 3184:

Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends: Ladies and Gentlemen

3065: 3047: 2335: 1451:

See discussion of whether arena rock (which includes some prog bands ie.

1386:

Hi, there was a U.S. progressive rock band, who produced only two albums

1284: 458: 450: 4094: 4037: 3980: 3923: 3816: 3759: 3527: 3470: 3413: 3225: 3168: 3111: 3054: 2962: 2859: 2659: 2465: 2408: 2320: 2236: 2179: 2122: 1962: 1820: 1740: 1592:

A unique image file deletion discussion is currently being conducted at

1408:

Any feed-back would be appreciated, so don't hold back. Have a great day

123: 3424: 3406: 1668: 489: 2075:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of 488:

moment when it was popular. Robert Christgau is a self-identified "

1831: 1813: 1790:

band member timeline standards discussion at WikiProject Musicians

1319: 501: 2052:

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

1239:

to the Knowledge (XXG) project. Your input would be appreciated.

3991: 3973: 3122: 3104: 217: 2930:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Progressive rock

2529:

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

1482:. Ayers Rock were an Australian prog rock band from the '70's. 1281:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band)

15: 2936:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

4093: 4036: 3979: 3922: 3815: 3758: 3689:, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent 3586: 3526: 3469: 3412: 3224: 3167: 3110: 3053: 2961: 2858: 2714: 2658: 2464: 2407: 2319: 2235: 2178: 2121: 2059: 1961: 1819: 1739: 1614: 1198:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links

713:

that identify his music as all three; I just sorted it out.

521:

reception, not help music lovers make purchasing decisions.

3328:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mirage (British band)

2829: 2051: 1596:, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 1480:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ayers_Rock_(band)#RfC

1427:

There are only a few sentences in the Reception section of

1398:

Does this WikiProject want an article created on this band?

736:

Decline of prog rock also correlates with rise of jazz rock

3371:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

464:

I agree with Backtable that we don't necessarily need to

269:. NPOV states that we should try to adequately represent 4126: