Talk:List of progressive metal artists

Metal List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of progressive metal artists article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3

Meshuggah and Kobong

I added those both bands, which i consider progressive metal bands. Kobong is a former, not more existent polish band.

Meshuggah is not progressive, mathmetal

[Kobong-Taka Tuka]
[Kobong-Rege]

other guy: Look I dont get this the experimental/technical brutal death metal band gets a spot in this list but when I add Elvenking it gets removed. They clearly have progressive guitarplay and sound despite being considered 'folk' cause there's a violinist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.37.254 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever listened to Elvenking then I might agree with you but your opinion doesn't matter here (see: WP:POV). Get a reliable source of someone claiming they're progressive metal first. As for Meshuggah, this (from their band page), is exactly why they're here but extreme progressive is merely technical or avant-garde influenced in my opinion. By the way, they were never brutal death and it's anyone's opinion of what they are (even reviewers) of them actually being technical death but that's just my opinion again which doesn't matter. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dillinger Escape Plan

I removed them because they're Mathcore not Progressive Metal. Mathcore would be the Core equivalent to Metal's Progressive Metal, yet they don't have anything in common really, aside from that both are considered technical in their respective genres.

Sometimes genres don't fit in mathematical equations as easily as in your edit. Would they be included if we found two sources?Revan ltrl (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tool and A Perfect Circle

Per the allmusic guide:

Tool: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kpfuxqw5ld6e
- Genre: Rock
  - Styles: Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal, Progressive Metal

A Perfect Circle: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:z8fe4j574waw
- Genre: Rock
  - Styles: Alternative Pop/ Rock, Alternative Metal, Post-Grunge

--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on requirements for inclusion in this article, or is based entirely on the editor's opinion? Also, this list is super-incomplete.

Blind Guardian------------

Cu> I think it's necessary to add Blind Guardian in this list. Their "Night in the opera" and "Fly" are obviously much more near to progressive then their earlier epic albums.

Coheed and Cambria----

I think they're just strictly prog rock are they not? I'm taking them off the list.

Rush------------

Why would you ever remove one of the intricate bands in the start of it. www.metal-archives.com also says that that's what they are, so I'm adding them back on

Voivod-----

Another important one, even though their sound is more thrash and hardcore.

Iced Earth and In Flames-----

Last time I checked, they were prog metal.

Mudvayne----

Wouldn't Mudvayne be considered progressive metal? Just wondering.

Mudvayne are Nu-metal not prog, I do like Mudvayne & I know that sometimes (though rarely) the distinction blurs between prog & Nu but mudvayne are not prog.--Fukhed666 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Diamond----

Definately re-adding him. Yes, he was Black Metal, however, most of his albums are in fact CONCEPT ALBUMS!!!

CONCEPT ALBUMS!!! may be common in prog but that does not mean that every band who has CONCEPT ALBUMS!!! are prog. Green Day's American Idiot was originally intended to be a CONCEPT ALBUM!!! & there is only one or two songs on it that do not follow the CONCEPT but I doubt anybody in their right mind would call them prog. --Fukhed666 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica and Iron Maiden

I added both. All first Metallica albums are conceptual albums and latest Maiden works are pretty prog for my tastes. Stahn -- --Stahn 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  they are gone, like they should be

Why was Iron Maiden deleted?, some of there album pages list progressive rock/metal as the genre even though it is not listed on the bands main page, and they are listed on progarchives.com. I'm going to keep adding them back until somone can supply evidence as to why they should not be and sign your posts and give a reason why they shouldn't be. --E tac 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tool and King Diamond

Will people quit removing King Diamond and Tool. They are Progressive Metal.

  King diamond is power metal, although he could fit in prog, tool sucks, they aren't prog

I don't like Tool but they are prog. --E tac 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Changing of this List

This list needs a complete overhaul, I've brung it upon myself to accomplish such. I use sources such as Wikipedia band pages, Last.fm song tags and Encyclopedia Metallum. Bands like Dragonforce, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Iced Earth and Megadeth are just NOT Progressive Metal at all. So they may have various progressive metal influences in a few albums, or a few songs - they aren't Prog Metal. If your definition of Progressive Metal is 'bands with a little influence of Progressive Metal', then this list could cover pretty much all Metal bands and all Progressive bands ever.

It is more accurate and useful to the reader if we add Progressive Metal bands to here and only Progressive Metal bands - and like the Power Metal list, I suggest adding flags to the bands listed (of their countries) and I would even be prepared to do a little description of a band (e.g: Opeth - Swedish Progressive Death Metal band)

What do you all think? - Skavuau

Thats cool, yeah i dont get why people add metallica to this list. I also think the power metal list is corrupt, as in the people "gaurding" it think too speedy of power metal. nevermore is on the power metal list, jeff loomis himself said they weren't power metal!

AMG lists Megadeth under prog metal and listen to rust in peace and tell me its not, Iron Maiden is on [[1] and heavily influenced by 70s prog listen to 7th son, the x factor, or a matter of life and death, bands cannot define what genre the are, and listen to metallica's ...and justice for all and tell me thats not progressive, dragonforce is somewhat progressive when they go into their long instrumental sections. I'm sorry but to be prog doesn't mean a band has to be in odd time signatures their entire career. It is merely one common trait of progressive metal, not every prog band has to have every single trait associated with what people consider prog. After all prog is about progressing the music into new and different territories, not having every band sound exactly like dream theater, and that making it prog. --E tac 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMG is a joke E tac. They list Nightwish as Well do ever metal band is Heavy Metal Goth Metal They are not goth metal in the list bit. Symphonic Black Metal yeah becuase Nightwish is really for satan and they have those blast beats that Black Metal has. {rolls_eyes} So if that's what you are using then dude stop using it. Go up to any fan of Black metal and tell them how Nightwish is Black Metal and they will laugh at you all day long until the cows come home. truemetalfan Jan 10th, 2007.

Kamelot

Shoudl not be on the list of Prog bands. They started out as a Power Metal band and are still playing Power Metal. They may have some Prog elements in there music but a lot of different metal bands in different gernes do. But it's just not enough to list them as Prog metal band. They don't really have those long solos that you find more in Porg metal.

Have you even listened to Kamelot? Especially the black halo and seriously so every prog band has to have super long solos or it is not prog? There are plenty of bands without "long solos" on this list and by the way Kamelot has plenty of solos, they just aren't a wanker band. That doesn't make them not progressive. --E tac 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but do you have any proof to them being a Prog Metal band? Hmmmmm well do you? I thought not they are not Prog Metal. They are Power Metal. And I can get lots of links to back it up. truemetalfan Jan 5th 2007

Here is one link http://www.metalmonk.co.uk/reviews/rev_0032.html yet another one http://www.metal-observer.com/search.php?q=Kamelot&sa.x=0&sa.y=0 last link http://www.last.fm/music/Kamelot?q=Kamelot

That would be me three points who zero. And yes I have listened to Kamelot I have five of there CD's a long with there live DVD. That's all Power Metal they are playing not Prog metal. truemetalfan Jan 5th 2007

They are progressive power metal buddy, when a site reviews an album they don't lost every genre, and by the way AMG lists kamelot as heavy/death/black metal so who cares what you found on some random webpage. The fact is they are progressive.

As wiki states prog metal is "Progressive metal is a genre of heavy metal music which shares traits with progressive rock including use of complex compositional structures, odd time signatures, and intricate instrumental playing. The high level of musical proficiency is often combined with a lyrical counterpart in the form of epic textual concepts, resulting in lengthy songs and concept albums. As a result of these factors, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs, much due to that the length of the songs are not suited for those medias."

Kamelot meets most of those requirements, to deny that they are prog is to deny them what they are. --E tac 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.last.fm/music/Kamelot?q=Kamelot LISTS THEM AS POWER METAL NOT PROG METAL. IF you can find a site better then LAST.FM that lists them as Prog Metal then please show me until then they are not prog metal. One last thing Kamelot's songs on there CD's earch as far as 4 to 5 mintues. Some do earch beyond that. But guess what it's the same thing with Nightwish to. I will also add that there are other metal bands that have many of the same factors but are not Prog Metal one such band is Ram-Zet Also let's look at DragonForce on there new CD's they have really really longs songs yet you don't see them being listed as Prog. truemetalfan Jan 10th 2007

Well I did take a look into the Nightwish Page and you did edit it and put them as Prog Metal. Do you have any proof to back that up? Becuase there is not one thing Prog about them. They don't have long solos or odd time signatures. They do have long songs on there CD's but you find those on WishMaster which has only one longs song. CC which only has one long song. Then Once which has two long songs. But it's not enough to put them as Prog Metal. The fact is there are Metal bands that use much of what you listed but that does not out right make them Prog. Having a few songs that are really long does not = Prog Metal. Having one or two concept albums does not = Prog Metal. I can go on and on with this. truemetalfan Jan 10th 2007

meh kamelot is progressive, if somone can expalin to me what makes them not a progressive power metal band i'll gladly listen --E tac 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are just a melodic power metal band. The fact they don't sound like classic power metal (because they are melodic) does not make them progressive.

Sources:

--Dexter prog 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look i can list sites too--E tac 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you reall want to go at this yet again. Fine then. here we go yet again. complex compositional structures>>> Many many many different Metal bands use they yet that does not make them Prog Metal. Just to name one Ram-Zet.

Odd time signatures>>>> Again same thing with the last one intricate.

Instrumental playing>>>> Oh jeez there are Power Metal bands that do that to. DragonForce any one? How about Nightwish I can list more if you want. So that means they are Prog Metal to I guess.

The high level of musical proficiency is often combined with a lyrical counterpart in the form of epic textual concepts>>>> Wow you can find that in some Power Metal, Black Metal and a few Gothic Metal bands to. ;)

Resulting in lengthy songs and concept albums>>> Ram-Zet Escape is a concept album with songs longer then anything Kamelot has. Kamelot has like three long songs and that's it. You can say four but one of them does not even count. Any other Metal band Cradle of Filth Damnation and a Day: From Genesis To Nemesis the whole thing is a concept album. Want me to keep list bands that does some of the things you listed?

Becuase a lot of band do thost things but that does not make them Prog metal. All of those things have to be going on or at lest more then two of those things. Yet if it was up to you, you would start listing ever band as Prog Metal. Look ever Metal band takes a bit from Prog, Black, Trash, Power, Death, Gothic Metal, etc but they use one more then the others. Exmaple To-Meta has a bit of a Death Metal sound in there do to the drums. But it's not enough to list them as Death Meatl. Heck look at Children of Bodom. They have a bit of Death metal, Black Metal, Power Metal, Nu-Metal, and what ever else you can think of and yet not one person really knows where to list them. Then there is After Forever they are one point were a Death Metal band and then became a Symphonic metal band. Then there is Emperor who are Black metal but used a bit of Symphoinc elements in there music which made them part Symphoinc Black Metal.

There are so many bands that crossover into the other groups and will take a bit from others sounds. But it's never enough to then just go and list them as such. Nightwish has like at lest one or two songs that can be placed in the Gothic Metal side. But it's just not enough to list them as Gothic Metal. Which is why they are listed as Power Metal and Symphoinc metal or what is called Symphoinc Power Metal. turemetalfan Jan 18th, 2007

I am not trying to have their power metal tag removed, but they are more progressive than your typical power metal band and that really can't be denied.--E tac 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have yet to show how they are Prog metal. You have not even listed any songs or any bands that you think they are like. You just keep listing them and ever time I or any one else asks you how they are Prog metal you just say read what it says on the list. I have read it and they don't have long songs even with the only CD of there's that comes close to a concept album ie Epica. Which may I add only has one long song though not long enough to be put into Prog metal. On top of that I have pointed out that concept albums are not something that is done just in Prog Metal.

So are you ready to show some good sold proof. You know pointing out songs and albums and links to major sites. Or are you just going to keep listing them as Prog Metal and not back it up with anything. truemetalfan Jan 19, 2007

I did listt several links including the bands OFFICIAL myspace which list them as progressive, and try listening to the black halo, oh that is also a concept album, and you don't have to have 15 minute long songs to be prog--E tac 08:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that non-independent sites are not reliable sources, not to mention that THEIR myspace is not trustable (any band can call themselves whatever they want...) --Dexter prog 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah and the sites you list are reliable, how is metalarchives any more reliable then progarchives? metal archives is all fan submisions...--E tac 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have you ever tried submiting a band to metal-archives? It takes weeks and sometimes months before a band is aproved. They have a very exhaustive criteria for new bands added, they check if the band has albums released, if the genre coincides with the one provided by the submitter,etc. It is not a non-reliable source. Progarchives nowadays has gone a little too permitive, they even categorize "Between the buried and me" as prog metal, and this band is nothing but another technical metalcore band... --Dexter prog 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd trust a site that specializes in prog over a site that is a general heavy metal site anyday, the same thing you said goes for progarchives, have you ever tried submiting a band there?

No, I haven't, but if anyone can submit bands to progarchives then why did you stated this: "metal archives is all fan submisions". You have just proved that progarchives is a "fan submition" site as well... Apart from this source, do you have any other reliable sources that support your opinion? --Dexter prog 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reall Etac you would trust a site that lists Nightwish as a prog metal band. Ok forget about Kamelot for just a minute. Explain to me how Nightwish is Prog Metal? Show which song or CD of there's has something that is Prog in it. No really show me beucase after seeing them listed on progarchives. Also Myspace is not a reliable source at all. On top of that:

As wiki states prog metal is "Progressive metal is a genre of heavy metal music which shares traits with progressive rock including use of complex compositional structures, odd time signatures, and intricate instrumental playing. The high level of musical proficiency is often combined with a lyrical counterpart in the form of epic textual concepts, resulting in lengthy songs and concept albums. As a result of these factors, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs, much due to that the length of the songs are not suited for those medias."

Next time you say something to the effect of they don't need to have long songs to be Prog then please do not post this. Becuse you are the who first posted it. Last edit proggnosis.com is also a joke of a site. Epica is not Prog Metal. Within Temptation is not Prog Metal. Yet what do they list them as Prog Metal. If they are a site that want's to list Prog metal bands then Epica and Within Temptation should not be anywhere on the site. truemetalfan Jan 20th, 2007

As wiki states prog metal is "Progressive metal is a genre of heavy metal music which shares traits with progressive rock including use of complex compositional structures, odd time signatures, and intricate instrumental playing. The high level of musical proficiency is OFTEN combined with a lyrical counterpart in the form of epic textual concepts, resulting in lengthy songs and concept albums. As a result of these factors, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs, much due to that the length of the songs are not suited for those medias."

Note that it doesn't say always, I suppose Dream Theaters first album shouldn't be considered prog since it's songs were no longer than those of Kamelot. Also the site that you posted to prove they aren't progressive metal, http://www.last.fm/music/Kamelot?q=kamelot tags them as just that...--E tac 08:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuas

I'm adding Kiuas to the list. They have many progelements in their music such as concept albums and odd time signatures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.40.180 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Umm...

I'm unsure if this lists progressive rock bands as well... as there is no list for them. --CircafuciX 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the addition of this band from Brazil would cancel out the British band but I just noticed all they have is a demo. --CircafuciX 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format for citation

Because genres are often subjective, I will suggest adding only bands with at least two independant sources suggesting that the band is indeed a progressive metal band. This will help weed out controversial additions by fans. For the time being, I would suggest using ProgArchives, MetalArchives, and RockDetector as sources (none of which are very good sources, but nothing better comes to mind, considering that band pages are often not reliable in this regard -- Season's End claims to play progressive symphonic rock, but they're always tagged as goth rock), but better sources should be found in the future when possible (I still don't trust AMG with anything). Do not source a band's MySpace page or anything of the sort. Keep WP:SOURCES in mind when choosing sources, as another editor may challenge your source and remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.160.15 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that I plan to start removing uncited controversial entries. I will do a quick search for them beforehand, but if I can't find anything to save them, they'll be removed as unverifiable. I'd like to do this one-by-one to prevent this from really turning into a giant mess like some other mass deletions have. I'll be starting with Mudvayne. Since I don't have any reliable source calling them prog metal (not even one, let alone two), I'm removing them from the list. Feel free to cite two reliable sources and re-add. --Anon 121.209.160.15 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm starting a conversation with myself or anything, but I'm going to edit the page notes not to make more additions without citing sources. Agalloch was re-added and reverted again without any source to back it up (though I have seen some). I'd like have this follow the possible model of two independent sources from the Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards for now. If you have citations for whatever your favourite prog band on here is, please add them. I cited Orphaned Land with 3 sources. As a temporary measure, please place any bands you delete as unsourced here. I have included the two previously-mentioned bands as a start. -- Anon 121.209.160.15 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave neo-classical power metal shredder Yngwie the axe. Pun intended. --Anon 121.209.160.15 07:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user decided to undo my edit regarding citations. The fact is, if you don't have any source claiming it's progressive metal, it's going to be deleted. Keep in mind that genres are subjective, but that doesn't mean you can post your favourite band everywhere. Make a citation of some source to claim that it is indeed progressive metal. If you think there are not any sources which can make this evaluation, you can nominate the page for deletion under WP:V. --Anon 121.209.160.15 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current list of deleted bands:

These should be eliminated from list too:

Tool have already discussed in their page's discussion/talk-section as NOT being metal at all.
Tiamat have HARDLY ever played prog metal. Wildhoney has Pink Floyd-touch of course but that does'nt make it progressive at all. That influence has nothing do with structure of music of that album. It rather gave an atmospheric touch with typical Floydian semi-ambitious keyboard-lines.
Wintersun are JUST extreme power metal. It has prog influences/elements, but as we all know that's NOT enough to being progressive metal.

And how come Agalloch are back in list?

I'm citing everything listed at ProgArchives as one massive source, one for each of the three prog metal sections(which were once a single page). Does anyone have a way of mass-referencing AMG? I'm going to note them when I'm done with PA and then start hunting more sources. Individual pages would get messy, so I'm hoping to get a list on there of all prog metal artists. If all else fails, individual pages would work fine, but I'm not too keen on going line by line. Copy-pasting a ref name is much easier. --Anon 24.98.234.43 (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Devin Townsend Band

Should they be added on the list (along with Devin Townsend), since they have a seperate article? Bloodredchaos (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue not. Devin Townsend is the Devin Townsend Band. I can see for practical purposes why the DT Band would have its own page (lineup differences and because Devin has his DevLab work), but they don't exist beyond Devin and they don't have their own reason for existing (they were dissolved when Devin gave up touring, for that matter). Not to mention that Devin only created the band as a permanent team to play his solo work, and they only did two (Accelerated Evolution and Sychestra). --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonata Arctica

Is progressive?, i thinked was power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.106.174 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people contend that their latest album, Unia, is progressive. I certainly agree that the progressive influence is there, but I'm not sure I consider them full-fledged prog metal. Still, I'm not going to remove them straight away, but you are welcome to until they are cited. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mergelist

00:32, 8 March 2008 CircafuciX (Talk | contribs) (22,396 bytes) (rv, see: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates -lists can coexist together | let's convert it to something along the lines of the thrash metal list

Neither of those lists presents any content but merely duplicates already existing categories, hence my request to merge. Your example, List of thrash metal bands, merely presents a summary of Thrash metal, which can easily be placed in Category:Thrash metal musical groups with the same effect. So what is the difference between this current list and Category:Progressive metal musical groups? Lists are used to present content that goes beyond that of a category. This list does not. The flag icons only serve to duplicate category sorting by geographical location. —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate suggestion, certainly, but I'm not sure what to do about it just yet, considering the huge divergence between the list and the category (not to mention the citations and additional information and the off-hand articles in the category such as the List of Ayreon guest musicians). But as a question, I would like to have your position on this matter as a whole: are you suggesting that all lists of artists are inherently redundant and require deletion? --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The redundancy occurs when the list duplicates or overlaps the category without providing any additional or relevant content. The best lists present some kind of content analysis or offer different ways of viewing the data. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Music. —Viriditas | Talk 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you didn't answer my question. The list of composers is as close as any featured list gets to a genre/band list, and it is built in such a way that it is not a list but a chronology (I may actually suggest a title change to that article). But more importantly, take List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees and Category:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees -- the additional information is category and year of induction. Considering that I already created those large ProgArchives sources, we might break the bands into category, add years of activity and releases (a-la the Pestilence entry), and possibly describe styles. Unfortunately, progressive metal is not a chronology, and categories are not so easily defined. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, as I said "no, not at all" in answer to your question. In answer to your most recent comment above, a chronology or timeline is another form of a list no matter what title you give it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, any encyclopedia article is a list of facts organized into category. A timeline is a list, yes, but it is a specific type of list. You don't say "sword" when you mean to say "foil" because a foil, while it does fit the category, is an important subset -- a katana and an epee have little in common aside from being "swords". As for whether lists of bands by genre are useless, the question is: if it's a list and not a chronology or a summary, should it be deleted? The thrash list doesn't have anything aside from a summary at the top, and nor does this article as it stands now (but it does look better with CircafuciX's efforts). Nor does List of nu metal bands or List of gothic rock bands. Without turning the article into an informative summary, should an article exist? --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are trying to go with this, however, I must confess my bias: I am not a deletionist. Therefore, I usually don't comment on these types of matters, except in clear instances where notability, references, and orignal research are a problem. I'm sorry. I am only trying to suggest that a category may be a better use of this information. If someone thinks this suggestion supports deletion, then that is their own personal opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait I am doing something right now to this list. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. Consider the format of a list like List of major opera composers, which presents the content in terms of chronological era, highlights the most notable work and artists, and illustrates the topic with images. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent changes merely duplicate the content from the main article per my first reply on the subject. You could add the same information to the category page and nothing would change. What you want to do is present the list in a way that adds value. Right now, it's just a copy of the category, hence my mergelist suggestion. —Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a comment that the list has shaded deletion because of the argument that it was well sourced. I will point out that many of the "sources" which have been placed as an argument to keep the list... mainly the progarchives links and the metal-archives links fail Wikipedia's reliable sources policy as they are nothing more than online amateur fansites. They may try to sell themselves as something more but in the end... they are not. And the argument to keep the page because of these failed citations is a losing argument. Unless the page (and others like it) take a drastic turn towards looking like the previously mentioned Opera composers page or the List of Telecaster players page then the page should go up for another AfD nomination. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is it's the best I could do for sources on progressive metal for now... −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I have not argued for deletion. The mergelist tag is only a polite suggestion to expand the list or merge it into a category. —Viriditas | Talk 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources fail WP:RS, and they do, then they aren't sources at all... just amateur spam. I have provided some assistance to Weltanschaunng on ways in which he can improve the list which he has taken on as a pet project. Those recommendations can be applied here as well. (see his talk paage) Aim the for "featured list" look. Add some cited prose... lose the useless flags... add some stiff criteria that makes the list a valuable companion piece to the prog metal article... not just a "list that looks like a category". 156.34.231.56 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave these decisions to you. I feel that there is a conflict of interest for someone like myself to add suggestive tags, and then turn around and argue for deletion. I know that people do this, and I have done just that only in clear-cut cases where an article was violating a number of policies and guidelines in such a way that it was impacting the quality of the encyclopedia. However, in most cases, I will only tag or argue/vote for keep/delete, not both. I feel that this keeps me honest, to some extent. —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources fail WP:RS though. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two that I mention fail. I won't comment on the others. The list can be made into a keeper as all lists can. Right now it's replaceable. A "band/artist" list should be a good companion piece to the article that they are linked to. Like the Tele player/Telecaster list. It should be a resource. Some featured lists are in table format because that's the best way to make them convey the information contained in them. Others... like this one should be... contain brief prose/pictures and notable details that turn the list into a resource that supports the main article that the list culled from. If it is just a bullet list (in this case the flags are decorative bullets that don't really do anything as far as the page title identifies the list and its contents) then it can be marked as replaceable by a category.... since it pretty much looks like a category page anyways. The challenge is to elevate it into something more. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am acutely aware of the inadequacies of the sources. Prog metal has a rather large problem: it is a genre born of the fans. MTV doesn't write articles about prog metal. Most sites just have tagging systems which end up calling something "progressive metal". That's obviously not a reliable source by any means. Hence, the problem: despite being a fairly large genre, it's very much an "underground" endeavour. Aside from Tool and Dream Theater, "reliable sources" on the genre are rarely forthcoming. Oh, and by the way, if you want to discuss reliable sources on the topic, we could start at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of that was a little soft. I do not mean to say that we should sacrifice reliable sources; rather, that a reliable source on the matter would not be the same as a reliable source on Linkin Park -- MTV would actually be a horrible source on the subject (and I have seen them make several grievous errors when speaking about music that is not mainstream). --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see on the list, its as the pro-merge/delete users are talking about. But if you check the history, Circa just did the intro edit (that is today). I am pretty sure Circa will make the list lot more informative, given the time and the assistance. The list of thrash metal bands is slightly more informative than its category, as it list the thrash metal albums of key bands from the scene. Of course it is only just above the deletion threshold (hope so), but creating it as such required work. I introduced the expandable list feature in september 2007, and since we have covered a lot of key bands in the area. I also have some plans to improve the list in an entirely new direction. A lot of editors including Circa and user:156.34.x.x are helping me on this. If such a direction is given to this list then it may also become a keeper. Considering that Circa has done that edit only today, I would say, it is atleast a step in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. Welt^anschaunng 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stratovarius

I just can't imagine Stratovarius having anything to do with progressive metal... It's quite about the opposite! Plain simple power metal it is! BobHope88 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Stratovarius aren't prog. It sounds nothing like Dream Theatre or Opeth.

Proposal

I know many, (if not all of you) are incredibly tired of people adding bands with no articles to these lists, especially, along with links that are blue but are disambiguation pages or something else along with not even being the "x" genre of metal it's supposed to be. I was thinking of making a rule box or something similar like a section for it, instead of it being with the context/intro. For example, bands that are added because the editor wants an article on them very badly, people who just look over our (damned) comments, the people that don't check their links for the right article and those links that lead to disamb pages that don't have the band or you would have to make a huge search for the band and the bands that are not even part of the genre. If there was a "master list" that I know of where all editors that edit these lists would see it, then it would've been better to put this there and as there are many metal lists it would be insane to put them all over which I might want to do anyway if you accept my proposal or better yet show you here and you decide how we should go along with it and to fight those that add redlinks and remove bands they dislike, etc. Something must be done and I thought those hidden comments were enough and it's clearly not. I also think this would make a good explanation to editors who do this type of thing as a warning on their talk pages which is an action we can partake. Here is my proposal below:

This will be part of the introduction to an editor for his warning:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to add bands to this list, the last band you added was a red-link, was not the intended article or has notability concerns on it's article page. Hereby you must follow to these guidelines for band inclusion to this list:

Article rules/warning explanation:
Bands without articles will hastily be removed from these lists. This list is not merely the place for you to add bands of the style that you want an article for, this is a list of "x" bands with articles nothing more. You can do this exactly at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands but they must pass WP:MUSIC to be acceptable here. Also, please click the "show preview" button next to the "save page" button to check your article links before adding them here and that you also have the right band that plays the genre. This is not of your personal opinion of what the band actually plays, the band's genre must have been approved either by verifiability with other editors or sources stated in that respective article. Also, make sure a band is notable, if a band is being questioned for notability has a notability tag at the top of the page then it should not be added to this list, wait awhile and re-add them when the notability of the band has been established. Please make sure bands are alphabetised and that the formatting is consistent with the other bands before adding them. Thank you.

I hope this proposal goes well. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I like the idea man. But how is this going to trigger? is it like all HTML'd and stuff I don't understand or is it some person who catched the person themselves? I would like though, one thing, if the band added is a 'red' link and a death metal band...if that band is notable, I think we should create a 'death metal article to be made list' so that all the notable bands go on wikipedia. My last header, was saying this, I don't think we should just delete bands becuase the wikipedians before us haven't bothered to get information and make a dam article for them, do we?

Also, this way you get notable bands, becuase of wikifacists like speedy deletion service jeps the dam articles you make, just becuase you translate the biography into english and change a few sentences and that somehow interfers with G what the fuck O laws. Bullshit. Anyway, yeah nice idea, but ant going to work...you still going to have fags that think Bullet for my valentine are metal.

METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be like User warning templates, if you catch them you warn them and if they persist well... I never thought of that but they would keep on being reverted until the link is blue, that's for sure. And of course, if a band is surely notable we'll have a list here (wouldn't make sense to have a death metal band article to be made list anyways (and would have to start with "Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/. . .")) for them (which I'm not sure can stay up here, as this page would need to get archived within time) and also at the request article link I provided. Also, the amount of editors we will need will be like the size of a taskforce (albeit small one) for this to be carried out well. I've been thinking I should really add this to all the other lists.

All I ask for is for people like you and everyone who edits these lists help in notifying these type of users. If that can be done then that's the least you could do for these lists. Have hope, and let's make an example for them. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect edits

Glancing about, it seems the page has been inundated of late with dubious anonymous edits. Two of them made use of fake citations (borrowing the pa-progmetal tag), several had no pages, and I therefore am tempted to consider all edits in this period to be suspect. I do ask for help in auditing these more recent additions (and perhaps further back. It would also be good to start cleaning up the article, finding sources to cite or removing bands from the list so these questionable edits are easier to catch. --Anon 83.203.175.207 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could someone cite these pages for the band Isis?

http://www.decoymusic.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17786 - first sentence, http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/sharpdarts/070810/ - tenth paragraph, tenth line Revan ltrl (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the reference for the second one. The first is a forum post and is not a reliable source. The other appears to be reliable and is a valid citation for 3 bands. Anything else? --Anon 86.204.121.194 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you see the other bands are already on the list. Revan ltrl (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bands needing citations

I'm going to start a list here of the bands needing citations for which I could not find a source. ~~Remove~~Re-add them when you have a reliable source for them. I will add more as I get further in my citing efforts. ~~Since these are unsourced, any editor feeling particularly vicious can just kill them from the page.~~ 81.51.222.119 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have a better idea. As I go through, bands which I do not easily find sources get chopped and added to this alphabetical list of bands which have been removed. If you have a source for any of these, by all means, re-add them with a source. But for now, we're harvesting the grain and separating the wheat from the chaff. I'm also adding the cut bands from above. --Anon 86.204.121.194 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List of removed bands

Reliable sources

It's getting time we start figuring out what sources are good enough. I was looking at a page here and the question ran through my head: does it count? It's certainly biased, but not with regards to the topic, and I would otherwise consider such a large record company to be reliable. What do others think? 81.51.89.187 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ignore that; I have 3 other reliable sources for Porcupine Tree. What's really been on my mind are the ProgArchives sources and the one Sea of Tranquility reference. While I'm not going to remove ProgArchives ones until I have everything cited, I can't help but wonder if it will fly on our merry little way to FL status (ambitious, I know, but all in good time). Thoughts? Opinions? (I know, I'm hiding from the WP:RSN until I get everything cited). 81.51.89.187 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing C & C

Stop removing Coheed & Cambria from the list. They are definitely Progressive Metal. I've been listening to them for years, and I think I get the whole jist of their songs and guess what? They are Progressive Metal.

-Peace Out!-

mÆniac ^Ask! 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source it and you're welcome to it. I'll get back to hacking off all unsourced additions. I'll add Coheed to the list above for clarity. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conform to every other metal list

I know this list has been adding individual artists as well as the bands but this is the only list I've seen that does this. I think it would be better to conform this list to all the other metal lists or if it's possible make a section for bands and artists or (probably) much later on make a real progressive metal artist list for the individuals. If no one responds or agrees with me within 2 weeks then I'll just move the article. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of whether the person has produced solo work in the genre. For example, James LaBrie has generated his own, self-branded work; however, you won't find Andy Kuntz on the list as he has not done so (despite doing Abydos and Vanden Plas). It's mainly a question of the name behind the work rather than a conscious inclusion of both individual artists and bands. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that seems to make sense for individual artists if they have solo releases of their own, such as heavy metal artists: Dio and Malmsteen. We just need to make sure they have releases of their own and that the releases are not part of the band's discography. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note above my comments at Talk:List of progressive metal artists#The Devin Townsend Band -- Devin Townsend is a prime example of an artist whose work is under his name. Looking through the list, I only see one who does not have his own work, and that is Bobby Jarzombek, who is currently unsourced and will probably be removed in due time. Speaking of which, I should get on that. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]