Talk:Queen (band)/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Recommended changes

  1. Inline citations shouldn't be bulked together
  2. Explain terms "arena rock", "hard rock", "glam rock", "heavy metal" and "progressive rock"
  3. Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive"
  4. Do not use terms such as " later in the article", either use "see below" or link
  5. Explain the term, "commercial music video", explain that it means "music videos"
  6. Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction
    1. Prose band members and "As instrumentalists" into paragraphs
    2. Replace terms such as "(e.g. "Sheer Heart Attack")", via prosing using words like "such as" or "including"
    3. Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs
    4. When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing
    5. Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual".
    6. Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there".
    7. This is a very poorly written section " he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part.[11]"
      1. The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s)
      2. Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead.
      3. Don't use words such as " kicked off".

(I'm not attempting to dig through this paragraph, I guess you can get the idea).

        1. Prose these findings or ad in a Wikitable.
        2. Don't stockpile inline links.

Further Points

  1. Convert chart numbers into a wikitable
  2. Remove "fansite links", example "one of the biggest Queen sites "

This article still has a long while to go, but keep working! --Highway 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the suggestions...you do makes some good points. I'll try to improve the grammar. Some of those mistakes are accidental; people do occasionally come and add personal fansites that I miss. I do disagree with you on a few points - it would be inappropriate to add the definitions of "glam rock" to the Queen article, for example. TheImpossibleMan 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First 'animated' stage group since The Beatles?

I did edit or qualify the reference to Queen being the first group to be animated in their stage performances since The Beatles. This seems rather strange as The Who, Jimi Hendrix, et. al. had gone a considerable distance down the road of stage pyrotechnics. Often literally!

As the person who removed the Beatles reference, rather than get into a drawn-out edit war I'll try very hard to explain why I removed it and will probably do so again (unless you can provide a convincing argument otherwise).
Let me quote from the neutral point of view policy:
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, video games, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is, we can agree, out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not all be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest bass guitar player in history. But it is very important information indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public, by reviewers, or by some very prominent experts.
Now, where the hell does your assertion fit in to the above? It doesn't say who makes the assertion. Is it in terms of record sales? Is it by the public perception - if so, can you point me to some polls? Has Rolling Stone or another prominent pop music magazine said so? Has the British recording industry association said so, perhaps? Any prominent music historians, perhaps?
If you can't provide any of the above, I'll delete the comment again. --Robert Merkel

I know it was a long time ago, but you were right. vaganyik

POV

This article reads like a band bio from their corporate website. I really like Queen, but it needs to be far more objective!! (ricjl 11:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I agree with this. We need to work on POV even now in 2006. 66.116.19.7 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think that in the Queen (band) article the musical progress section's annotated album list is very clumsy. Opera and Races should definitely be in the same group, and I do not think Queen ever played punk, and even if they did, then definitely not on an album from 1974. The rest is all right with me. Actually, I'd rather not see that annotated list. What about deleting it? user:vaganyik

Actually, Queen did make punk in 1973 with the song "Modern Times Rock 'n Roll", which could well have been a Ramones-tune. 62.238.92.181 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Annotated lists can be useful if done right. I don't know enough about Queen to comment on the usefullness of this particular list though. You seem to be more informed about the history of Queen so please do make any changes that you think improve the article and still adhere to our NPOV policy. --mav

Prophetic Queen speech

I just wrote: The Wembley concert, part of a UK tour in 1986, attracted 150,000 people over 2 nights. A memorable and prophetic moment occured when Freddie Mercury told the audience: "There are a lot of rumors lately about a certain band called Queen... that we are gonne split up. What do you think?" Audience: "No!". Freddie: "Forget those rumors, were gonne stay together till we fucking will die, I'm sure!".

It could be mentioned that the number following this was "Who wants to live forever" (but I didn't, because I think it's a little bit overdone).

Pascal 05:36, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Which was at the time their new single....not very phrophetic, but quite a promotional speech.

Also, on the opposite disc in the Live at Wembley DVD set, there is an interview with either Roger Taylor or Brian May (I'm fairly certain it's Brain May) in which he talks about the quote.

User:MAGCOT just so u know im a huge huge queen band and no they did not play punk ever they were far from it the only thing was the fact that they started doing live shows to compeate whith the growing poulatrity whith punk

R&B?

"Queen are widely recognised as pioneers of R&B, glam rock, and stadium rock." But they really aren't R&B, are they? Expert opinions anyone? Rdsmith4 00:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I would describe them as R&B. Some of Freddie Mercury's vocals are reminiscent of 50s crooners and pop singers, but I certainly would not describe them as "pioneers of R&B". Tuf-Kat 05:28, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Songwriting

User:68.100.46.45 has twice changed the content of the "Members" section from calling members of the band "creative equals" to giving Freddie Mercury all the credit. While Mr Mercury may have been an excellent songwriter, I must take issue with the assertion that he was the driving force of the group, as this user has asserted both times. The first time I reverted the edit because two grevious spelling errors coupled with the removal of relevant information made it look rather like hasty vandalism, but instead of reverting the second edit I'm just going to reword it to make it agree with the general consensus about the band's songwriting, and re-insert the sentence or two that the user removed unnecessarily. FYI. Rdsmith4 | Talk 04:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

70's?

I remember that Queen was rather slow in getting mass audiences. Much of their early work did not get much air play (in U.S.). They did develop a very loyal following in the early and mid 70's. Their sound was unique, classical vocal harmonization with heavy electric guitar work. It may have been that people during this time were somewhat homophobic and didn't wan't to readily associate with a band called 'Queen'. With Bohemian Rhapsody, people just couldn't dismiss them any longer. 'Killer Queen' is still my favorite. --69.5.156.155 06:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am from germany and i loved Queen music so much. Every record is great. My absolutly favoriet songs are from the first record. I grow up in the 90's with "Great king rat" and "My fairy king" (from the early 70's). This i had to explain you. Queen lives all over the world.--145.254.32.85 10:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bo Rhap, not "first true music video"

The Beatles made music videos in the 1960s for hit's such as "Paperback Writer", "Rain" and "Hello, Goodbye", long before Queen even made a record, let alone a video!

...and Bob Dylan made one before The Beatles did, but that's not the point. The issue here is that Queen were the first to make a music video intended to actually promote a newly released single rather than add something extra to a song released some time earlier 62.238.92.181 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Beatles were the first, just they did it (a long time) before Queen. Infact, The Big Bopper made one before Bob Dylan. However, you are wrong. The Beatles made their videos to promote their singles at the time of release and went to this fact in depth on "the Beatles anthology", saying they didn't want to have to do countless TV shows the world over, so they made videos to promote the music! 205.188.117.74 19:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Who got them to Knebworth Park?

Someone just changed the article to say Jim Beach arranged the last concert at Knebworth Park, whereas the text originally said it was Roy Thomas Baker. Both the original text and the edit were by (different) anonymous users. I can't find any information about this one way or the other. Could someone who has the appropriate books check whether the edit by 24.88.44.169 or the one by 62.6.136.109 is correct? Thanks.

--fvw 15:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I made the change to Jim Beach before quite knowing the rules here, sorry. I'm not entirely sure of the facts as to who arranged the Knebworth gig, but I do know for certain that Roy Thomas Baker was their producer until 1975, never their manager and by 1986 they were produced by themselves & Mack, so if anybody would have arrange an extra gig it would've been their managment (Jim Beach) not Roy Thomas Baker.

User:MAGCOT 2004 Oct 27

It was Gerry Stickells, Tour Production Manager, who got them the gig at Knebworth.

--Magcot 12:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Full History?

I think the subtitling of the Decades worked, but it seems to be missing large chunks of important info, like albums following Day of the Races in the 70's, which spawned 'We will rock you' & 'We are the champions' etc Their touring history also seems a bit thin and the strange claim that they only made money on the 1986 tour...these chaps were multi-millionaires by the mid 70's and toured places that had never seen western groups before (1st Band behind the Iron curtain, 1st Band in Argentina before & after the Falklands conflict) Obviously it depends on how detailed it should be, I'm currently reading their own Biography, I'll get more facts and add them on for discussion.

--Magcot 10:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the piece concerning John Deacon's involvment with Queen in the 90s section. Whilst the previous piece says that he is quick to pour cold water on any Queen reunion, he seems to be happy with the current 'Queen' situation, see www.deaky.com/weekly/2003/dw11E.html The comment that he has retired and yet is happy with what Brian May and Roger Taylor are doing also pops up from time to time on the Queen and the Brian May Official Websites.

--paulburgin 24:00 , 8 Mar 2005

Queen-bashing

It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out.

Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. — Dan | Talk 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Popular in the 70s and 80s?

I don't thik Queen was only popular at that time. I think there are many people who like Queen until today. So why not to change that?

How Come I Can't Find A Site Telling Me The Dates For When Greatest Hits I Came Out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They Are Very Good And I Am Only 11 And Like Them.

No synths?

It was the first Queen album to use synthesizers, which the band had previously resisted fiercely.

Can anyone provide any evidence that the "resisted fiercely" bit is true? According to a 1995 interview with Roy Thomas Baker and Gary Langan, it is not:

"There was no stipulation that we wouldn't have any synths, but the statement 'No synths' was printed on the album sleeves because of people's lack of intellect in the ears department. Many people couldn't hear the difference between a multitracked guitar and a synthesizer. We would spend four days multi-layering a guitar solo and then some imbecile from the record company would come in and say, 'I like that synth!'"

I'd like to tone down or remove the phrase if there are no counterexamples. — mjb 03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Moot point. From the inner sleeve liner notes to "The Game": "This album includes the first appearance of a Synthesizer (an Oberheim OBX) on a Queen album". Since I was already correcting the factual error, I took the opportunity to remove the unsupported phrase. If anyone finds documentation to warrant it, I have no objection to someone re-adding the language. Until I read the interview excerpt you provided, I myself always thought the band had an artistic objection to synths in their early days. Skyraider 23:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


From my point of view, I would have assumed that the band had resisted the tempation to use synths as well. The words "no synths" and "still, no synths" gave me the idea that they were boasting. It's not such a far fetched assumption. I wouldn't completely trust Baker's statment in 1995. It could be a defensive statment of the fact that they broke down and used them in The Game (the really didn't have to if they made it that far). 67.184.150.126 09:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Dragon Attack Tribute

To say that Dragon attack has "no musicians of note" is extremely biased -- not to say insulting. Just because someone doesn't know the musicians that play on the Album, it doesn't mean the musicians are "of note". As a matter of Fact, Dream Theater, Yngwie Malmsteen, Glenn Hughes, Rudy Sarzo, Marty Friedman (to name a few) are not only very talented musicians, but also appreciated by Brian May himself.

Hi!

But I think 'of note' means here, that the musicians are not so famous like others.

Anna Makievski 12:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No interest??

Hello!

Is nobody interested in Queen? Because in the discussion is very seldom written something...

The article is quite good, I think.

And has anyone seen Queen live? Did anybody watch the WWRY concert or their tour with Paul Rogers?

Anna Makievski 12:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anna, the "discussion" section is a bit misleading. It's intended to provide a discussion of the article, not of Queen itself. As you say, the article is now quite good, and as Queen are no longer recording or touring there will be relatively little to change, so it's not surprising that the discussion is quiet.
Occasionally, the rules on the talk pages get bent a little bit, but we try to avoid running a general discussion site to avoid flame wars.
If you're interested, the Queen article and related ones, while good, I'm sure they could be improved. I think you mentioned somewhere that you're German - is there material here that you could add to the German-language Wikipedia articles on Queen?
If you are looking for a general Queen-related discussion site, there's a link to one in the article. --Robert Merkel 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)


Hi Robert,

sorry I didn't answer for a while, but I've been on holiday.

The German Queensite has improved very much and there have been very much informations, and the article changed very fast, but now it's quite good and I'm going to read the whole one. Then I'll look if there are good things to add to the English page.

But I have to tell you, the English page is better than the German, because on the German the informations are too detailed.

Do you think such a wikipedia article should be either detailed or not?

And a question by the way: Are you British, American or what? Because your name sounds not really English.

Regards,

Anna Makievski 14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If...

if F.M. wasn't dead we would still be rockin' to queen. I am a long person. He died a year before i was born, so i could witness anything queen.


Hi!

And I was born a year before he died. And?? Aren't you supporting Queen because of that? I think Queen's music is immortal. It's a real pity, Freddie Mercury's deaath, but you can still 'rockin' to Queen. I do as a real fan.

Anna Makievski 18:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

PS What do you mean with 'long person'? Sorry, I'm German...


Hello people!

As a person who was born a year after Freddie Mercury's death I didn't really grow up listening to Queen. In fact, it was quite the opposite; I listened TLC, Biggie and Tupac. I was more of an R&B and Rap person. It wasn't until about three years ago that my brother brought a Queen CD home and told me to listen. He told me that I would like them and I didn't believe him. I had never even heard of the band Queen, although I knew the must-know Queen songs, such as We Are The Champions, We Will Rock You, and Bohemian Rhapsody. So I listened, said a couple of "Hey, I know this song! They sing this?", and I was hooked. I began to listen to Led Zeppelin, P.F., ACDC, and some other classic stuff. So, thanks to Queen, I now consider myself a rocker! Because I am getting off topic I will say that I DO wish that Freddie was alive. Although, if he was I would wish that Queen did stop making music, because, really, in the words of Neil Young (another favorite) "It's better to burn out than fade out". You have to admit though, Freddie Mercury's death did help Queen's sales, and afer being critically panned for years, it helped them finally get great reviews. Many Queen fans look at Freddie as though he is immortal, and he earned this title by dying in this prime, not when he is an 80 year old man in a wheelchair directing musicals. So, I believe that if F.M. didn't die, they wouldn't be as successful as they are right now.

Sabreen Shahin

Hi SoothingR, I tell you what, I'd sure has hell like to take a crap in your lemonade! The way you said that wiki was not a chatroom was very rude, and I'm just returning the favor! So, mind your own damn business!

None of ya business

  • Actually, Wikipedia can be edited by everyone and is therefore everyone's business...so my business as well. Furthermore, I don't really see how the way I said that Wikipedia's not a chatroom was rude. I didn't use insults, vile language and I even linked you to the page where the policy is laid out. Having said that, I'd like to point out another widely accepted policy..Please remain civil at all times..We don't want a bitchfest in here now do we -- SoothingR 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, please, people! Just drop it. You don't know how immature this section looks. Irunwithscissors 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I dropped the subject a long time ago. Note that that discussion dates from October.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 11:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Massive Re-Wikification and Cleaning Up

I am beginning the massive re-wikification of this page. In recent months, this page has been bogged down by POV and choppy sentences, as well as unneccessary passages and info stated two or even three times. If anyone would like to help or revise my revisions, your help is welcomed, but please do not revert this page to the mess it once was. Thank you.

CinnamonCinder 00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Yeah, I saw that, too. I'll help if I see something.

Anna Makievski 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just replaced a section that was removed, perhaps for reasons CinnamonCinder stated, but I NPOVed it and removed some unneeded pieces. I felt the section is at least temorarily useful the valuable information that it included.  —siroχo 10:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Something fishy is up with the main image at the top.. Freddie's name is replaced with Brian Waller (???)--Drowse 04:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sun City

...really needs to be mentioned if this article is to be considered worthy of an encyclopaedia.

Would you care to tell us what Sun City is? I've never heard of it before… Jon Harald Søby \ no na 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It's in South Africa.. Queen performed there with all the apartheid problems going on in the 80s.. and were shunned from most major music organizations after that. --Drowse 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that. I'd heard of the event, but not the name of Sun City. And yes, if the article doesn't mention it now, it definately should. Jon Harald Søby 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's in there now -- I noticed that too, and I did my research. Although it pretty much only lost them about a year, until they brought the house down at Live Aid from Wembley.   PitShig | @   01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian?

I notice that many of their earlier songs seem to be Christian orientated, could they be considered a Christian band?

I would say no... some of their early stuff did have some Christian themes (such as "Jesus" on their debut album), but such songs are very few in number. – ClockworkSoul 06:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, in the same album, the lyrics of one of the songs go "don't believe all you read in the Bible…". So they're not consistent either, hehe. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 08:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Roger was rather vocal in his distrust in organized religion.. Nothing springs to mind at the moment but I know there are quotes out there... --Drowse 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. F.M wasn't even christian.

Freddie Mercury had an interest in Christianity (and religion in general) in the early days, but was never a practicing Christian, Muslim, Jew, Satanist or anything. He WAS born a Zoroastrian and had a Zoroastrian funeral, but most probably to please his parents.
John Deacon married a strict Catholic, but nothing is known as to his personal religious views.
Brian May is technically speaking an agnost, but he does have some Christian and Buddhist views.
Roger Taylor is a fanatical anti-religious person, saying "religion tends to fuck people up" and, in the song 'The Key' from his solo-album Happiness? "a sensible religion's just a contradiction in terms" 62.238.92.181 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency about break-up of group

Over several months I have seen the infobox slowly oscillate back and forth between the viewpoint that the band broke up in 1992, and the viewpoint that it's still together. I don't know which is "better", but we should really pick one and stick to it. Stevage 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as they went on a world tour, though with a different singer, I'd say that they're still together.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why is Freddie Mercury listed as a band member? It has to be consistent. Either he should be listed as an ex-member, and whatever stand in singer is being used should be listed, or it should represent the Queen that ended when he died. It's having a bob each way at the moment. Stevage 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(a) Queen never broke up. (b) Paul Rodgers is not a member of the band: "Queen + Paul Rodgers"... --62.47.179.196 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So is Freddy a member or an ex-member? Perhaps there are only three members: May, Taylor and Deacon, and several ex-members: Mercury, and the various bass players before Deacon. Stevage 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
An ex-member is a member who quit the band. Freddie never quit the band. Jon Harald Søby 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well regardless, he's not able to perform with Queen anymore..Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Every site to which I have been, including the official queen fan club (http://queenworld.com/), has them listed as: Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor, John Deacon... Freddie may not be able to play, but to take him off the list of band members would be a disgrace and a dishonour to his name. It was he, afterall, who mainly sang lead vocals. He was the charisma of the group, and he deserves to stay...Billvoltage 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Fred is a member in spirit. ;) --CJ Marsicano 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
So I think the general consensus is to keep him listed as a member? Billvoltage 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Mercury and Deacon should of course be listed as members. -- Candyfloss 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good article, but too polish...

Hi! I have been read the WHOLE article and find it very good written and well documented, but at last, not very objetive. I suppose it was written for a fan (or a group of fans) so it feels so very comfortable, very kind with the group and in my particular opinion, their last years (from 2000 to the present day) are very objetable.

Why? because May & Taylor becomes a pretty pair of vampires. One thing is put all the music in new audio formats, launch DVD's with concerts and videos and other, go on tour with another singer exploding the nostalgic feelings of the Queen Fans. I love Queen, but i can't stand to see him on a gig without Freddie!!!

And of course, all the histories had their dark sides ... and Queen's history, of course, are not the exception. So in order be honest and objective, i think it will be nice to put these things on the article, whitout rubbish and press sensacionalism ...

Best regards


Smile..?

I am not clear why Smile redirects to Queen's page here.. They are two seperate bands.. Smile only featuring Brian and Roger with Tim Staffell. They broke up following his departure and then Freddie, Brian and Roger started a project called Queen..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drowse (talk • contribs) .

Note that Smile (band) is a disambig page, not a redirectpage. And in regard to your comment; probably because there wasn't enough to write about for the time being. If you can turn Smile (United Kingdom band) into a decent stub, I say go for it.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 09:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap you guys are fast, I created the Smile (Queen) page and 2 minutes later there was a merge request on it! I think there's a lot that could be said about Smile which would be too specific for this article. Have a look at [1]. The article may be short at the moment but it could be expanded a lot. And the 18 months before Smile became Queen are really not Queen at all - it only had May and Taylor. Stevage 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one seems interested in pursuing the merge suggestion, so I'm removing it on the grounds that they were two completely separate bands, and there's easily enough material to write a complete, interesting article on Smile. Stevage 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What genre are they?

What genre are they? Glam rock, Arena rock, Hard Rock, or Glam metal! Make up your mind already!

  • They're all those genres...keep in mind, Queen recorded in many different styles, including hard rock, heavy metal, disco, funk, blues, progressive rock, and ragtime. TheImpossibleMan 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "POV" section

This text was deleted from the 1982-1983 section.:

In hindsight, it seems that most of the negative reaction has proven to be slightly exaggerated as the album still contained many traditional Queen songs such as the heavy Brian May-esque rock of "Put Out The Fire", the poppy "Calling All Girls" and the gorgeous Latin ballad "Las Palabras de Amor (The Words Of Love)" (which was a UK Top 20 single). Furthermore, the album included "Under Pressure,". Die-hard fans were reassured during live concerts in 1982, and the band demonstrated that they had not lost their hard rock edge, and even the songs from "Hot Space," had a heavier, rock-feel when performed live. A live highlight of these years was their concert at the Milton Keynes Bowl, which was filmed and subsequently released on DVD.

Perhaps someone can "de-povify" it and put it back in. Stevage 13:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I was the one who deleted it...I removed it not only because it was very POV ("it seems that most of the negative reaction has proven to be slightly exaggerated"), but also it was very opinion based (describing songs as "poppy" and "gorgeous"), had choppy sentences ("Furthermore, the album contained Under Pressure"), and didn't cite anything ("The band demonstrated that they had not lost their hard rock edge" needs a citing). Queen's article is very good, but it still needs cleaning up, and paragraphs like that aren't helping. TheImpossibleMan 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Queen in Film" paragraph

In 2006, a short movie titled "Journey of the Dead" was released on various websites, including ifilm.com and youtube.com. The movie is about Steve Perry (former lead singer of the rock band Journey) saving a couple from an attack by rock star drummer zombies, and then fighting Freddie Mercury in order to save the world from a plot to unleash hell on earth. Freddie is depicted as a Dr. Doom style villain in the the B-movie/classic rock tribute/comedy, and became popular among Journey fans and classic rock fans as well. It can be seen here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XnFwBhaAcWo

Does anyone else think that that paragraph should be deleted? It strikes me as the kind of thing that the creator stuck on here just to self-promote. It doesn't really add much to the article and appears to me to be completely irrelavent. Yea or nay for it to be removed?

  • I've deleted the above paragraph.

I want to add a reference (This website) but I'm not really sure how to do that properly. Someone help? TheImpossibleMan 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I also combined "Queen in Film" and "Documentary".

References

This article should really use the Wikipedia:Footnotes footnotes instead of plain external links. The external links method is really annoying, disturbing the text. Jon Harald Søby 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I would be happy to convert the links to footnotes myself, but I really don't know how to. Please do so - I am trying to get this article to become featured, and every little thing helps. TheImpossibleMan 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do it as soon as I have time for it. Jon Harald Søby 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Jon Harald Søby 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Queen as Instrumentalists"

I'm considering simply deleting this whole section. It seems very juvenile and doesn't really add much to the article. I've tried to wrangle keeping certain parts - I do like the idea of including the Brian May quote about how Freddie would write on the guitar - but much of it seems unnecessary and pointless. Thoughts? TheImpossibleMan 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The information about who is able to play what instrument is interesting, and should be in the #Members section; but all the details in the section aren't necessary, in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby 07:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I could move the most interesting/important parts of the section to a separate Trivia section; it would allow me to remove most of that section while still keeping the most important parts (i.e. Freddie on the guitar).
I have never seen anyone argue before for moving information *to* a trivia section :) IMHO, information about what each member played *is* interesting - I had no idea Freddie could play piano, or that May was so well-rounded, for instance. Stevage 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

History year subheadings

Since the person doing the peer review recommended removing the bolded years from the history, they were removed. However, I don't realy understand the rationale for turning the history into a massive chunk of prose. Generally on Wikipedia, lengthy sections of text without subheadings are discouraged. That's why I originally addeded the subheadings, breaking 1970s up into 1971, 1972 and so on. It's just out of control otherwise. So, I'm rather inclined to add them back again. Anyone have any objections, thoughts, etc? Fwiw, I'm proposing putting them back to this style:

1970s

1971

Queen brought out another album in April...

Rather than:

1970s

1971 - Queen brought out another album in April...

Stevage 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I actually perfer the second style - the first style greatly inflates the size of the table of contents. TheImpossibleMan 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, agree with you there. I really wish there was a way to use heading styles without them blowing out the table of contents. Any objections to me re-instating this second style? Stevage 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Evaluation of Queen (band)

This evaluation was done on this version of Queen (band) at 2 PM PST on 29 March 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.

Criteria:

Well-written
This is the criterion I tend to be harshest on, so try not to be offended. Diction is nowhere near the level expected of a featured article. The multitude of contractions and unnecessary parenthetical asides does not help readibility, and can be distracting. The article has a distinct voice with a penchant for mild hyperbole and a lack of logical continuity in creating precise truths. Grammatical errors and Manual of Style errors are sparse, but not completely removed. At risk of repeating myself, the writing style demonstrated in this article is not worthy of featured article status, and not of good article status either. Songs should be wrapped in quotes, and there are misused participles, ugly contractions, bothersome parentheses, and plenty of other writing gaffes.
Factually accurate
Overall, nicely done. There are a few slightly outlandish facts, such as Brian May's paragraph of Section 1.1, that could be verified, but otherwise the article looks pretty solid. You should definitely find all of the weasel words, per WP:V, and consider rewriting all occurrences of said weasel words.
Broad
While focused as an article should be upon the band, its members, and its music, Sections 4-8 cover a very broad and comphrehensive slice of popular culture, examining the presence and influence of Queen in other disciplines. Well done.
Neutrally written
Amazing. This is typically the hardest criterion for an article to qualify on, and this article excels at being neutral. Sections 2.4-2.5 are very neutral and honest for the subject matter. Deaths of notable people tend to be steeped in slant, but this article somehow rises above.
Stable
Comparing the previous 15 edits on the page rounded up to avoid vandalism, it appears that all changes on this page are slow and steady improvement and growth. In those 15 edits, the most major change was the addition of an interwiki link to another version of this article in another language. This article is decently stable.
Well-referenced
References appear solid. Most of them are from news websites or musician interviews. References to chart positions and song popularity are from organizations in good standing with the music industry (Rhapsody, VH1). The citation from Reference #9 was informative and pleasing to read, and was a good choice for inclusion. Reference #20, to sing365, is probably the weakest reference on the page.
Images
One of the images on the page, Image:Queen3.jpg, does not have a good fair use rationale. All other images are used under fair use. I would like to gently remind this article's contributors that album covers are usually not considered fair use anywhere besides the articles covering those albums. While technically all images are tagged, Image:Queen3.jpg might as well be not tagged if it has no rationale for why we as a community are allowed to borrow it without permission.

Summary:

  • Well-written: Fail
  • Factually accurate: Pass
  • Broad: Pass
  • Neutrally written: Pass
  • Stable: Pass
  • Well-referenced: Pass
  • Images: Fail

Better luck next time. - CorbinSimpson 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • TheImpossibleMan has asked me to fix grammar and Manual of Style issues. I agree and will do so. I also retagged the offending image, Image:Queen3.jpg. I will renominate this article for Good Article Status in one week. - CorbinSimpson 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
On images, none of the several freely available photos are used. Some of those could be used instead of fair use equivalents. (By the way, this was an excellently done review, Corbin!) Jon Harald Søby 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeepers, I think you're setting the bar *way* too high for a "good article". It's not a FA yet, sure, but "good articles" are simply meant to pick out some of the better articles of our collection, not to set the standard for all other articles. I really like your review, I just disagree with the "fail" for not being well enough written. :) Stevage 13:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sales and Popularity

Queens sales info now resides in the "historical success" section, which gives an in depth discussion about their music sales. It was out here and removed from the introduction because Queen fans kept removing the lower numbers, wanting to just have the high numbers in. That's not wikipedia, that's a fan site. This is an Npov article. Also, someone keeps changing the intro to read "IN England, Queen are second only to the Beatles in popularity". The source for this is a poll in which less than 1% of the population voted, and as such, like in other wikipedia music articles, this is not considered concrete enough and therefore once again I have reverted that line to read that the came 2nd in a poll conducted by Channel 4 television, which is a fact based statement, rather than one that assumes the other 99% of the population agrees with the minority that voted.

  • I moved the sales info to the "Historical success" section because the sales info, since there was no agreed figure, simply cluttered up the intro. However, I continue to alter it to say "In England, their popularity remains second to the Beatles." because, not only is that sentence more succint and to-the-point than the other sentences that have been used, but because the poll really is comprehensive. 600,000 people voting in a poll is massive, truly massive, and I see no better way to determine popularity of a given band than simply by asking the people. TheImpossibleMan 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There are 60 million people in the UK, only 600,000 voted. That leaves 59.4 million peoples opnion uncounted for. To say that 600,000 can speak for 60 million is ignorance. 600,000 is not "truly massive" compared to the other 59 million plus. Therefore the fact is Queen were voted 2nd best band in a poll by a small section of "the people".

Listen up, and listen well. Statistics has a way for a subset of the population to represent a larger population. It's called sampled error. You see, they randomly select a certain percentage of the population, and then poll them. Then, they use the original sample size and its ratio to the whole population's size in order to create a margin of error. So, you see, the poll results can be considered reliable, just as long as we keep in mind that a second polling will have slightly different numbers. On top of that, nobody voted for anything. A poll is a gathering of opinions, not a casting of votes. Voting refers exclusively to the democratic process of determining majority opinion, not a statistical analysis. If you have anything more to say, say it on this page first, because otherwise one of us will more likely than not be reverting any other changes that you make against consensus. Sorry for sounding condencending, but it had to be said. - CorbinSimpson 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So because "Revolver" by the Beatles has been voted "Greatest Album Of All Time", then does that mean it can be said bluntly on the Beatles article "Their 1967 album Revolver is the Greatest Album ever recorded" so long as a source/link is next to it? No, that is the kind of thing that would get removed, so why is this any different? People did vote, if a poll is taken and people send in something, that is a vote system. If less than half of the population voted in a general election for example, that would still be considered a voting process. If say in another poll The Rolling Stones are found second to The Beatles, then would that mean that claim can also be made on their article and contradict this one? That then represents problems and no encyclopedia would word it in this way at all. So you listen up and listen well, the channel 4 poll was one in many polls conducted. If a sample of people was taken and the result found something other to the facts (I. e 60% of the public want the Tory party in power, but Labour win the election) then it is not simple fact and as other polls would place the top 10 bands. A good example of this is found on this very page when it says two Queen songs have been voted as the best in the world. It dosen't say "We are the champions" is the best song in the world and so is "Bo Rhap". Wikipedia says articles should be written from a NPOV, so therefore, we shouldn't just "Queen are 2nd only to the Beatles", when this is just one of many polls that have been conducted that find different "facts".

(Please note that the preceding comment is not mine) There is also a flip side here - I would be more inclined to read into a poll carried out by a polling organisation such as MORI that only polled a limited number of people (spread geographically around the country, with a cross-section of ages, gender, classes) but came up with an accurately determinable margin of error. 600,000 people is far, far more than any organisation like MORI would poll, even for a general election! Instead it is the kind of figure that you tend to see during phone-in votes and the like (and "vote" would certainly be an accurate term). When this happens there is no real way of calculating the margin of error. You often find that the vote is biased, that people vote multiple times, and there are flaws with the structure of the vote. I find it odd that a relatively minor Channel 4 programme features so highly in the lead section for an entry on one of the world's "biggest" rock bands ever... I guess the reason is that it helps source the claim (which is valid) that the band retains great popularity in Britain. TheGrappler 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In any poll most resources will just print it as a fact, but this is an encloypedia, not a tabloid newspaper or an entertainment magazine, therefore Npov should reign supreme. That's all I am saying. By all means mention this poll, but put the facts. I mean, if a poll has 700,000 voters what then? This become invalid because it asked a greater section of the public?64.12.116.74 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • In the spirit of democracy, we should decide what we want to do, rather than just have an edit war. Do we use "In England, their popularity remains second only to the Beatles." (which I perfer), or "In England, they were named "second best group", next to the Beatles in a Channel 4 poll." (or something similar)? TheImpossibleMan 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As that poll is not conclusive I stand by the latter. 205.188.117.74 19:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A person interested in knowing the evidence behind the claim will take a look at the associated reference. Keep the former. - CorbinSimpson 15:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But it's not just about a person being intrested looking at the source, the main thing is Npov and factual information in the text of the article. The point stands, if we used this poll to make a bold statement, all polls for all bands and everything can be used to do the same, resulting in many bands claming "2nd most popular" or "most popular", this is not suitable for Wikipedia.
  • How about you use "In the UK, their popularity" etc etc. Or are you saying that in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, they're not rated much? If you're talking TV polls, they do not exclude Scottish, Irish or Welsh voters. One day I'll throw a chair over the England/UK usage. BTW I live in England, but I prefer the UK. 146.87.152.8 15:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're correct, it should be UK, that's where the voting took place. TheImpossibleMan 17:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Channel 4 is an English station though, it does not broadcast all over the UK, in Wales they have S4C, which is a diffrent channel, even if they have some simularities.
  • The problem is - it was just a poll. There are loads of polls (and, this one being a TV poll, is is surely not the definitive one). We could end up making the same claim about as many different bands as there are polls! This way madness lies. I think that a false dichotomy is being presented: why are there only two options here? The poll could be mentioned later in the text. The reference to being "second only to the Beatles" could be adapted... I am not sure that popularity can be unambigusouly statistically measured at all (what if the people that liked the Beatles also liked Queen, but liked the Beatles more so wouldn't pick out Queen as their favourite band? What if lots of people really really hate Queen - should that count as unpopularity and somehow be deducted - in a way a "favourite band" poll doesn't? There is no definitive answer, surely?). What about - "in the United Kingdom, the band retains a strong following" ... or "in the United Kingdom, Queen are one of the most popular and successful bands in musical history" - there, the reference makes sense. Whatever you do, please have a look at the (featured) The Beatles article, which shows how a top class article on a band can and should be written. Then ask yourself - would that article be improved by referring to a Channel 4 poll in its leader, however it is phrased? I can't help thinking that the answer is no, and that this article would in fact be radically improved by stealing the basic format of the Beatles leader, and editing it to fit the facts about Queen. At the moment, both versions of the article lead are really quite poor, and fail to do the topic justice. (Most recent FAs have extremely strong leads, as it is such a focus of the featured article criteria. Browsing recent FAs is probably the best way to see how to write a great lead... at the moment, this one isn't) TheGrappler 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looked at the Beatles article, the first line says, "... from Liverpool, England"... there goes a chair. --81.97.8.81 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Journey of the Dead" reference in the "Queen in film" section

Hi, my name is John, and I made a movie entitled "Journey of the Dead". The movie features Freddie Mercury as the main villain, and has Queen songs in the soundtrack as well. It was released online a couple of months ago and has been seen by thousands of people so far. I realize that it is a fan film, but it is growing more popular everyday, and even was played in a theater in Kansas City, Missouri (where I'm from) last month. I put a reference to it in Wikipedia recently and it was removed, because I included a link to the film and the editor of the page didn't feel it was worth mentioning. I was unaware that I couldn't include a link, and now I know. I apologized for putting the link there and didn't mean to put "spam" in the article. But I still feel it deserves a small mention in the "Queen in film" section. I feel that if "Wayne's World" is relevant to the section, then a movie with both Queen music and Freddie Mercury as a main character should be as well. I would want the reference to read like this:

In 2006, a movie entitled "Journey of the Dead' was released on the internet. The movie features Steve Perry (former lead singer of Journey) battling a villainous version of Freddie Mercury.

That's it. Two sentences. For voting purposes only, you can view the movie here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XnFwBhaAcWo

If you like it and feel it's relevant to the "Queen in film" section, simply type "Yes" below my name. If you don't like it, or like it but do not feel it's relevant to the article, simply type "No" below my name. No hard feelings to anyone. I know the editor is just trying to make the page as good as possible, I just feel it deserves a mention. Thanks to everyone who votes!

John

Hello. See Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Setting up a vote without discussion is really not the way to do things around here. What makes you feel it "deserves" a mention? It's been played in one single cinema? There are a *lot* of fan references out there to Queen, and they're mostly not that interesting. If your film was more notable, you could create an article on it, and link back here. But it just hasn't achieved that much success (yet).
Note also that the massive blockbuster musical "We will rock you" only gets two paragraphs, and the films "Wayne's World", "Flash Gordon" and "Highlander" get even shorter mentions, despite being very successful and having strong Queen connections. No hard feelings. Stevage 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

YES!!! ~ Mistress

Stevage summarized my feelings exactly. The film is simply irrelavent to the discussion. The info doesn't belong here. And the comparison to Wayne's World isn't legitimate; Wayne's World was directly responsible for Bohemian Rhapsody going to #2 in the US, an even higher position than when it was first released in 1975. TheImpossibleMan 14:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

YES! The film absolutely deserves a mention on this site, even if only in brief. Perhaps it isn't a commercial Hollywood film, but Mercury is the primary antagonist in this, and their songs are featured, much like the mainstream movies you mentioned. There is no slandering of the band or defamation of Mercury's character. I would also think that Queen fans would be happy to see a film in 2006 that honors the group. This film is elevating its status to that of cult popularity and will probably continue growing. It is gaining in this popularity due to the technological innovations of sites like Myspace, YouTube, iFilm, etc. And if it were a "mainstream" film, would that then fit your criterion for allowing it on this page? Is the criterion for this simply having A-list stars and dazzling special effects? If this is simply not being included because the creator didn't like the film, then there are thousands of Hollywood-manufactured films that are not worth mentioning, yet they are, because without them, there would be an incompleteness. Without mentioning Journey of the Dead, there is an incompleteness. Wikipedia is created for independent contributors to add verifiable information. This film was not generated by a Hollywood star, but still a talented low-budget filmmaker. The information is wholly verifiable, it is entertaining, it features the band in question. What more do you need? -Shelly Storm

YES!! Keep it! :I disagree about the "relevance" issue altogether. The fact is, Journey of the Dead may be a fan film with a low budget, but it still portrays a valuable homage to the works of Queen. More importantly, it is gaining a following through an entirely new medium: Myspace. Freddie Mercury has been dead for 15 years, and yet his music lives on via the internet on the most rapidly expanding website on the entire net. Wickpedia should embrace this facet alone, if anything. Aside from that, it's an enjoyable movie that most Queen fans won't find out about unless given the chance to track it down. People come here to find information, whether it's obscure or not. This is a resource, and therefore, it should be as complete as possible in the information it provides. [Sean:One-Legged Champion of Ass Kicking Contests]

YES! YES! YES! The argument for mentioning this film, stated above, I feel is quite valid. I can personally attest to the increasing popularity level of this film, in that I work at a comic shop in South Florida( a respectable distance from this films point of origin) and have had customers inquire about it's purchasing availability. I forsee the patrons to this site shifting the focal point of the question at hand from "should this film be included" to "why isn't this film included", as long as the proper mention goes unmade. A point which , as far as I'm concerned, would be considered an incredible shortcomming for such a valuable information outlet. -Manijeh

Hi, my name is Corbin. I, unlike the four "YES!!!!" paragraphs above, am not a meatpuppet. This movie is not worth inclusion in Wikipedia yet. If you really want it to appear in Wikipedia, I can submit it to LUELinks and Something Awful for you, where everyone will get a good laugh from it and perhaps decide that it is a notable meme. - CorbinSimpson 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's any way that your video is going to end up in the articles. Sorry, John. On a related note, I finally understand why voting is discouraged. We put it to a vote and WHAM four people with an axe to grind show up and tell us why it is neccessary to include a fan film in the article. TheImpossibleMan 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is John. Corbin, you don't have to insult people just because they liked the movie and felt it deserved an entry into the section. And to TheImpossibleMan, can you give this discussion at least a week before you decide? This discussion has only been up for a couple of hours, and not all people who visit Wikipedia (and more specifically, the Talk:Queen page) do so within the early hours of a Friday morning. I don't want the video in the articles, I just want a mention. Are you even reading the statements made? None of them had "axes to grind" with you or with Wikipedia. You are the one who suggested to me to bring this to a vote, remember? I asked for help, and I'm getting it, what's the problem?

Journey of the Dead should stay. Not only is the short film funny and enjoyable, but its increasing popularity attests to the fact that Queen is alive and well in the psyche of loving fans. YES! Please keep the film. I love it. --Paul

I still maintain that the "Journey of the Dead" entry should remain, and even more movies should be added. Any publicly-available movie containing information about Queen should be included in an online encyclopedia such as Wickpedia. So not only do I feel that "Journey of the Dead" should remain, but MORE movies should be added until it's a comprehensive list. [Sean]

YES--I fell the movie "Journey of the Dead" should be mentioned. This movie will surely become a cult classic---JENDHI

Meatpuppet is an incedental label. I would not use it if it were not evidently true. The above comments are not signed. Edit history tells me they all come from IPs, not registered members. Anybody who is acquainted with my style will tell you that I attempt to be impartial and truthful when dealing with new editors, but these are not new editors. They came here to support a film, not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia. As for the film itself, I am perfectly serious when I say that your film stands a good chance of being discovered by SA, LL, YTMND, or many other memetic communities, and being assimilated into meme-based Internet culture. - CorbinSimpson 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so your implying that I am making the statements and signing different names. First of all, I'm not a liar and I'm not doing the "meatpuppet" thing. I'm an honest person and I wanted this to be discussed in an honest way. Besides, you guys can check the IP numbers to all of those contributers, and you'll see that they all come from different computers, and if the IP tell states and locations, you'll see they are different too.

YES! (again) Journey of the Dead should stay. Paul [email: pmw@unm.edu]

Um, a meatpuppet is, by definition, a real person. However, they serve the same purpose as a sockpuppet, involving themselves solely for the purpose of affecting a discussion. This, this, this, and this are what I'm talking about. I did in fact check the IP numbers, and also their contributions. I'm not saying you're dishonest. I'm just saying that we are all aware of the nature of these contributions. - CorbinSimpson 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • John, you might support your argument by posting some online press coverage you've gotten. Like, a national newspaper, or a well-respected online news source. You've told us that "tens of thousands" have seen your film; surely then there has been some news coverage of it. Having your friends come here and tell us that your movie is made out of sunshine and kittens and smells like fresh-baked cookies isn't really helping your argument. TheImpossibleMan 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a Reference section for Queen in film, right? So therefore, Journey of the Dead qualifies, whether the movie was seen by 10 million people via Warner Brothers, or 1000 people via Myspace. It is a film containing homage to Queen, and me being a fan of John's and the film itself has little to do with that fact. I feel that any resource should be as complete as possible. [Sean]

  • You've gotta be kidding. Yes, we should really list every movie that mentions Queen, no matter how obscure! What a wonderful idea! Thank you! TheImpossibleMan 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what resources are for? I'm not saying that you should go out and track down obscure films, but if a film is made known to you, then all you have to do is list it as a reference. [Sean]

  • As condescending as it sounds, you clearly don't know how Wikipedia, or an encyclopedia, for that matter, works. I encourage you to join Wikipedia, read the policies, and find out how stuff works before you start telling us how we should run the website. TheImpossibleMan 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is John. I'm not trying to undermine your authority over this particular webpage. I'm just doing what TheImpossibleMan told me to do. You told me to set up a vote, right? That's all I wanted to do. And I understand that you and Corbin are just doing your job. But you both fail to address that you could maybe do a better job. Who's to say that there couldn't be more info? Why can't each film that has their music featured prominently (like Flash Gordon or Wayne's World) have their own sentence. You seem to think that simply no one on earth could do a better job of editing this wikipedia page than you. It seems like there's 2 or 3 Wiki-users who have a problem with the reference. Was it pointless for me to set up this vote? Why did you tell me to do it? I'm trying to do it your way, okay? And I never said the film was seen by "tens of thousand" (I said thousands) nor did I say it was "made out of sunshine". I'll be the first one to tell you that it's flawed, and ridiculous, although the ridiculousness part was intentional. Have you even seen it? You've never addressed that. If you don't like it, that's (of course) okay, because it's your opinion. But if you're using this as a way to say you don't like the film, that's wrong. What more do you want? Yes, it's a fan film, but so is Sandy Collora's Batman: Dead End flick, and that has been entered. I'm trying to work with you, I'm not insulting any of you, I just think it should be allowed a mention, that's all.

I vote yes to having Journey Of The Dead featured in this section. Had it not been on wiki in the first place I'd have never found it, and I don't think a little bit of musical satire would hurt.~Sarah

No. I personally don't feel that this film is noteworthy of being mentioned. I haven't seen the film, I'll probly watch it later as I am a Queen fan but whether I like it or not doesn't matter. Also it appearing in one theater to me isn't enough creditblity. I used to be friends with someone who owned a theater who if I would have made a film he would have played it. Also it seems you want it more for your own advertisement and gains. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your own personal advertisement. Also from what I've learned since I've been here is that unregestered or new users are generally not counted very highly in votes. My main point is that I feel that from what has been given to me about this film that it is no where near the same level as the other films mentioned. (Revo 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

  • I wasn't sure if I was going to post on this article but I must put my 2 cents in as I was slightly disturbed by this. May I point the experienced editors to this page?? I am quite certain each and every one of the users were newcomers (not experienced editors) and made their comments in good faith especially since they are not aware of official and "unofficial" policy. Attacking new editors definitely does not help. It seems patience is a vastly scarce resource indeed. Now to address why JOD may or may not deserve mention in this article:
  • The main issue being brought up by veteran editors is that of "relevance". Basically it comes down to this: how popular does a film/band/public figure/<insert whatever you want here> have to be in order to deserve any kind of mention in this wiki? Obviously Queen and Wayne's world are virtually household names. It is clear that if a vastly popular film like Wayne's world references Queen that it should go there. But it gets hazy with less popular items.
  • If you have a movie that references Queen that is extremely popular but only in say, Poughkeepsie, NY, (did I spell that right?) it may deserve mention in that city's wikipedia, page, but if every such movie was listed as a reference in this article, then the list would have tens or even hundreds of entries which would detract from the quality of the article.
  • With JOD, concrete statistics will definitely help your case (as in how many times the movie has been seen, number of movie festivals it has been presented in and their caliber, and if it's been mentioned in any major news outlets -- I'm thinking "Star Wars Kid" here,) but it is no guarantee. Given time I wouldn't be surprised if the movie achieved that level, but until a reasonable level of popularity is achieved, I don't think it would be prudent to add the reference to this page. The following guideline articles also give a general idea of what to expect of articles: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Those guidelines are primarily aimed at scientific articles, and it gets hazy for pop culture, but it still gives a general idea.
  • Here's a quote from the aforementioned "not bite newcomers" page: Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. So I hope this is again, another call for civility.
Well, I hope this helps clarify things. --Stux 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very intelligent and logical post, Stux. I commend you for all that you say above, and for keeping emotion out of the equation. The fact is, having seen the way that the other Admin treat new members, I will never join this site now. If they cannot moderate without attacking, then they shouldn't moderate at all. You all are free to run your website any way you choose, but if you do so, I hope you follow the direction of quality members like Stux. Again, I feel that the film has merit in a topic area called "Queen in Film." That's my opinion, and I never called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me. The comparison to the "Star Wars Kid" video is also a good point, and is similar in scope. If there is any diffence, it is that "Journey of the Dead" was intentionally made to pay homage to Queen and entertain like-minded fans. [Sean]

Revo, I'm not using Wikipedia to advertise the film. There's a difference between a single mention of the movie, and saying the name of the movie, who made it, and where it can be seen. I'm not using the page to advertise, I just wanted a mention. If enough of you feel that it still needs more popularity, okay. But I do have a problem with the editors insulting myself and the people who want the mention in the article. Revo and Stux didn't necessarily agree with me, but they never insulted anyone, became overly sarcastic, or called someone a "meat puppet". And the fact that this has been the longest discussion on this Talk page, and has been up for less than 24 hours, should say something about the validity of my argument. (John)

  • Please point out where any of us insulted you prior to this post. We have kept it civil. If we have been short with you, it is because you have simply stated the same arguments again and again while clearly having no knowledge of how Wikipedia works. That's why I said you should join and read up on the articles. Your arguments are as baseless as ever. "I got a bunch of buddies to show up and go on and on about how great my movie is. Therefore, since this discussion is long, my argument is valid!" Nice logic.
Honestly, I'm done with the fucking conversation. You clowns really have pushed my buttons, whether it is with the way you've beaten your head against a brick wall to your telling us that JOD is the bestest movie of all time to the way you called up a bunch of your friends and got them to stump for you to this silly martyr act you're trying to pull. It's not biting the newcomers if the newcomers are acting like fools. Your movie isn't getting mentioned. Fucking deal with it.
I'm not apologizing for any of those past statements because I just don't care any more. Go cry about how unjust we are somewhere else, you pansies.
...and on that note, I say we archive this talk page and start a fresh one, where the stupidity on this page is out of sight. TheImpossibleMan 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
XD, Stux is so much better at talking to people than I am. That was actually a fair amount of awesome. - CorbinSimpson 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, don't mention the movie. Not notbale enough for inclusion. Betty

Let's make this a featured article

Queen is a great band, and they deserve some extra recognition. I see Pink Floyd is a featured article, and this one was formerly a candidate. Let's clean this one up and sharpen it with more info and useful things. Maybe make a new section on Queen+Paul Rodgers would help.Nick41388 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for good article status

The page looks great. I put the compilations and other small lists at the bottom in tables, and the rest of the article is top-notch. I re-nominated the page and think it deserves Good Article status by now. (But others may beg to differ) Oh well, we'll see. - Zone46 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kick ass! It's a good article now. - Zone46 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up "History" section

The most important question facing the Queen article right now is how to handle the History section. Left as is, the section is vast and difficult to get through. Stevage, Corbin, and myself have all expressed concern over not only how big the section is, but how un-broken up it is; it's just pages and pages of prose without and divisors. In my mind, there are three things we could do:

  • Create sub-headings for each year, i.e.

1974

Blah blah blah. The drawback to this is that the table of contents will baloon in size.

  • Bolden each year.

1974 - Blah blah blah. We could also work year into the sentences. In 1974, blah blah blah.

  • Lastly, we could create a separate article called "The History of Queen" or something like that, which would let us cut down the size of this article while putting in anything and everything about Queen's history in the separate article.

We should reach a consensus. I personally perfer the idea of creating a separate article for the History, though the second option does hold some appeal. I am strongly against the first option - it would make the Table of Contents gigantic and will artificially inflate the size of the article. TheImpossibleMan 04:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am against creating a separate article - the history section should be part of the Queen article. My proposal: Bolden the Queen album titles as well (and terms like Live Aid or Highlander, but not the titles of solo albums):
  • 1977 saw the release of News of the World, an album that was critically panned at the time but has gained recognition over time as being one of the stand-out hard rock albums of the late 70s, as well as being one of the albums most influential in creating stadium rock. This album had many songs that were tailor-made to be performed live, including "We Will Rock You" and the famous rock ballad "We Are The Champions", both of which combined together reached number 4 in the U.S., and both of which would become enduring, international sports anthems. [.....] In 1978 the band released the Jazz album, including the hit singles "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "Bicycle Race", being a double-A-side single.
-- Candyfloss 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
One of my favorites is the definition list trinity. Wikipedia automatically makes it happen. View wiki source to see how I did the following:
1977
1977 saw the release of News of the World, an album that was critically panned at the time...

Something like this might work, yes? It looks like an h5 heading, but it's actually a definition list heading, which doesn't appear in a ToC. - CorbinSimpson 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at Bob Dylan and Miles Davis- this is how we should do this. Both are featured articles, and so doing it this way (splitting it by events, not by "dates" so much), should pass better muster. Alternatively, we could get rid of dates altogether (The Beatles), but it seems there's not that much support for doing so. In any event, the history needs to be split; minor things go in "History of Queen", and a not-too-long overview of their career should stay in the main article. Ral315 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not convinced that the articles on Bob Dylan and Miles Davis (without bolden years/album titles etc.!) are really good examples. Stevage wrote [2]: "However, I don't realy understand the rationale for turning the history into a massive chunk of prose. Generally on Wikipedia, lengthy sections of text without subheadings are discouraged. That's why I originally addeded the subheadings, breaking 1970s up into 1971, 1972 and so on." I fully agree with him. -- Candyfloss 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Bolded years do not follow the Manual of Style, and should not be used. I agree that we shouldn't have massive sections of text, but the way it's been done on Dylan and Davis is generally fine with me- it splits them up into sections, but emphasizes it by event, not by date alone. Ral315 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think that making a separate History article is for the best. However, breaking it up into sections ("Early Years", "Introduction of Synthesizers", "After the Death of Freddie" etc.) would be good as well. TheImpossibleMan 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think I have a preference for years. It seems more encyclopaedic. You can look up the article to find out what they were doing in 1975. But having to look up "First success" or something would seem more in the style of a book than an encyclopaedia. But I wouldn't fight over it.
On the other hand, moving the history to a history article should only be done when the length is out of control. That's really the only reason - to keep the size below some desired length. I feel at the moment that the length is acceptable, and there's still room to grow...Stevage 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What this article needs.

I was actually planning to make a featured article push on this article, so it's great that you guys have already started. I think there are a lot of things in this article that need to be changed in order to achieve featured status, of which the following are key:

  • Better sourcing. DigitalDreamdoor does not count as that great a source; I'm sure we can do better. Also, our lack of sourcing on other issues is almost painful.
  • Better coverage of Queen + Paul Rodgers. While I don't think it should dominate the article, I think it should be a decent-sized section, given that the tours are their first major thing in nearly 15 years, and rumors of a Q+PR album have spread.
  • Better organization. I think the "Members" section could be removed entirely and merged with "History" (see The Beatles, which covers its members in the intro and the history section).
  • Cut down the number of external links.

I'm going to try to fix some of these at Talk:Queen (band)/Sandbox (using a temporary page since my changes will mess with the page a bit, and I don't want to put it up until they're ready); anyone who wants to help is welcome. Ral315 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles article can get away with not having a members section because much of that bands history is simply common knowledge. Does anyone NOT know that McCartney was bass, Lennon was rhythm guitar, Ringo drums and Harrison lead guitar? On the flip side, much of Queen's member info isn't common knowledge - I'm absolutely positive that there are a lot of Queen fans who don't know, for example, that Freddie routinely wrote on the guitar, or that May and Taylor would often play piano and guitar, respectively, on their own songs. Add that onto the fact that Queen really isn't that huge in America, and I think it's clear that there should be a "Members" section that describes what instruments they played and gives a brief synopsis of their involvement with the band. That being said, the "As Instrumentalists" section needs to be cut down. TheImpossibleMan 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Extra: Oh, and the citaion of DigitalDreamDoor is fine - we only used that site on opinion things, like "Some consider Mercury the best singer in rock history" or "Some consider them one of the best live bands ever." We're not using the site for cold hard facts.
On the history, I think you have a good point, but it needs to be shortened significantly. We can say it in a lot less words; right now it weighs down the article significantly. On DigitalDreamdoor, the problem is that citing a random website seems sort of odd. DigitalDreamdoor is not a significant site by any means- it's not much better than citing some GeoCities page where some unknown Queen fan says that Mercury's the best singer in rock history. I'm not saying that it's not true, but if we could get it from a book, or from Rolling Stone...something along that lines. Hell, I'd be willing to bet we could find some good newspaper articles from the tour calling Mercury the best ever. If we can do that, it makes the article that much reputable. Ral315 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I found a decent quote from the St. Paul Pioneer Press (I disagree with the rest of the article, but the quote is good): "one of the most flamboyant and charismatic frontmen of the rock era." [3] That's a lot better than a DigitalDreamdoor quote. Ral315 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly understand your reasoning. I'm hoping to get a flat out "Mercury is the greatest" quote or assessment, though. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks we need a separate History article. Please add you opinion in the above discussion. TheImpossibleMan 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I have renominated the article for GA status. The list looks long enough that I should be able to take time tomorrow to make one last pass over the article and make sure there are no glaring errors in the writing. - CorbinSimpson 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, the crest info is still there, the history is still a wall. And the singles still aren't in a table! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong about the crest info? Jon Harald Søby 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Things wrong:

  1. Unsourced
  2. Doesn't refer to the picture in question
  3. Shouldn't be in the introduction Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone fails this for as a GA and mentions the history section as a problem, then I'm making a separate "History of Queen" article. TheImpossibleMan 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure

Queen (band) was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:

  • Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive"
  • Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction
  • Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs
  • When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing
  • Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual".
  • Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there".
  • Improve "he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part"
  • "The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s)"
  • Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead.
  • Don't use words such as " kicked off".
  • Prose these findings or ad in a Wikitable.
  • Convert chart numbers into a wikitable.

Well that's 12 full errors that I found last time that haven't been fixed (out of 21.) Which isn't counting my preferred style issues which I omitted. I am impressed the refs and external links being sorted out, but 12 mistakes that were pointed out isn't acceptable. Copyedit please, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Before I get shouted at for "holding my previous opinion against this article", reviewers can and should use previous nominations in their review and as part of their evidence, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
What I find amusing about en: is that people will write lengthy comments complaining about minor errors rather than fixing them themselves. Some of the errors you mentioned are easily fixed (and some aren't; those could be mentioned here). Jon Harald Søby 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I do want to say that, while I understand where you're coming from, saying "I failed it because there were points where a comma was misplaced, or where wording could be different" is missing the point. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia that is error free; siezing upon a few instances and declaring that some poorly worded sentences and a misplaced modifier are ruining the article is silly. Take your own advice - be bold! - and simply edit those minor mistakes yourself. TheImpossibleMan 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would, but I have a strict policy against doing so. When this gets nominated, the nominee is leaving an article in a certain state, which he or she believes to be of GA standard. Nominators are people within an article, like the players in an orchestra. Reviewers are like the audience at a concert. By editting what you find, you're no longer the audience, you become something else.. like a conductor, you're both within the article and outside. And being a conductor and the audience complicates things quite a bit. Hopefully you understand that. The point that I was trying to make was that it wasn't just the grammar mistakes AGAIN, it was the fact you had been told they were there and you never fixed them. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Started the tables in teh discography for now. Also re arranged teh history a bit into more logical parts - not just by decades... feel free to propose new titles for the sections - but I think that this is teh rigth way to separate. I would liek a better title for the 1970-1980s period. Maybe split into begining(1970-1974) and sucess(??)(1975-1980)... Donny 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the history move is an improvement, good work :) The lead is still weak (as for "world's favourite song", I have my doubts about the veracity of a poll where Britney Spear's "Toxic" came second... and although both were "global" polls, that really just means "mildly international" - it is a leap to declare them "world's favourite songs"! Why, with such a great, world-famous, massively influential band is so much of the lead devoted to the results of three tacky opinion polls?) and I feel the lead should actually summarize more information from the article body. For instance, the sound of Queen progressed over time, they didn't just play the same mixture of styles throughtout their existence - this should be reflected in the lead. What is concerning me most is the quality of references. There isn't even a "References" section at the moment, just "Notes", which consists of a bunch of weblinks. Have a look at WP:CITE! There is loads of quality, reference-worthy, published material about Queen, and some properly cited references to that material would be reassuring. Remember that link-rot will kill many of those weblinks over the next few years, whereas published material (e.g. you could cite a particular contemporary music magazine's review to indicate their critical reception at the time, or from a biography of a band-member) is always going to be verifiable since it is archived in the library systems. Further, the weblinks are themselves not up to reference quality yet (they are almost there, but it would be good if individual authors if the content could be identified - if they can't be, it is unlikely to be an encyclopedic source! - and also the last date the URL was accessed should be recorded). The sectioning is getting there, I still dislike the lead, but the referencing needs serious improvement before this gets up to FA standard, and probably should have significant improvement before getting up to GA standard.TheGrappler 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (As a side note, I think I could have inserted [citation needed] into the text on at least 15 occasions - this is a sign that referencing really needs improvement! TheGrappler 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

You make some good points. One reference that should be added is the book "Mercury and Me", by Jim Hutton. I don't know how to cite books as references - would someone else be willing to do so? Additionally, some of the sites used in the footnotes section are merely internet versions of work that was published in magazines - for example, the Rolling Stone review of "Jazz" was originally printed in 1978, in the magazine itself. If someone knows how to cite that, that would be good as well. TheImpossibleMan 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now put the singles section into a table, as requested, but I'm not sure if it looks better. Jon Harald Søby 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the singles look nicer - neater if nothing else, so I would say it was not in vain ;) Donny 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


  • What about the crest thing? why is it a problem to be in the top ? it is a part of the bands 'image' right? Should it be more commented?
And I would propose then if it can't be in the top then that it should be in a section of it's own... like==Logo==
Donny 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And so I did the logo section being that no-one said no ;) I think it is important and if it can't be in the top then it deserves a section of it's own, not just to be mentioned while talking of the albums.
Donny 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

New History design

  • I don't mind the new way that the history section is being broken up, but some of it isn't being done well. Calling 1970-1981 the "Hard Rock Years" is misleading because every Queen album includes hard rock tracks. Saying that Queen's "New Sound" began in 1982 is likewise misleading; Queen's new sound began in 1980, when they introduced synthesizers. I think we should create a separate article, where we can title the sections thing like "New Sound Era" and stuff like that, while the History provided here should stay divided into decades. TheImpossibleMan 22:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is getting rather large, but it should still contain a summary of the history even if a different history article is created. Now, the precise way to break the history down doesn't have to be the same in both of them, but in general breaking down by decade is really arbitrary and should be avoided, especially if it possible to identify phases in the the history. The stage prior to the existence of Queen, for instance, would be such a stage, and similary the stage after Mercury's death. It's how to break up the middle that seems to be the sticking point here - there are multiple ways it could be done. You are right that the current titles of the sections are misleading, so they should probably be changed. However, their main thrust seems to be sensible. If the use of synthesizers constitutes a major change in Queen's sound (seems fair comment to me), then why not extend the "New Sound" section back to 1980? That would make more sense, rather than reverting to decades again. As for referencing, WP:CITE does a pretty good job. One possibility is to split footnotes and references (Corinthian War does a good job on that) - give your main reference books in full citation format, then use a <cite> footnote with a page number to say precisely where you are getting the information (and just abbreviating it e.g. "Fine, The Ancient Greeks, 556-9" would be the footnote to say you got the fact from pages 556-9 of "Fine, John V.A. The Ancient Greeks: A critical history (Harvard University Press, 1983) ISBN 0674033140" (which is how you would write it in the "references" section). There isn't any magic to citing a magazine, I'm sure it would be acceptable to write: "Rolling Stone, 29 Foobruary, 1978, p.19" (where the review is, obviously, on page 19 of the 29 Foobruary edition, 1978). ISBN and publisher can go out of the window really, but if you are citing Hutton's book you'd need it (and remember to give which edition you are using in case different editions have different page numbers). If you have a reference that is quoted online, you might (for the convenience of readers) append something to the effect of "Quoted/available online at queen.musichall.cz (URL accessed 9 April, 2006)" but it would probably not be a great idea to link to a copyvio. If you have a newspaper story (e.g. the Scotsman one) then it would be good if you could identify what "dead tree" copy the story was printed in - this won't necessarily be the same as the date listed in the online edition. Then you can give: "Queen closer to King as UK chart-toppers", Sherna Noah, The Scotsman, 29 Foobuary 2005 (available online at scotsman.com, URL accessed 9 April 2006) - citing sources in this kind of manner adds to credibility, as well as verifiability once the link stops working! TheGrappler 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that is always a problem - spliting up the ages - I made new sound since 1982 because 'the game' is, for me at least, more to the first phase of Queen - it is somewhere in the middle, but still more rock, while the later albums 1986- are simply Queen phase 2. Hot Space is then the ground braker - as teh worst album and being unseuccesfull - it made them search for something new, since it wasn't near the fenomen of Game.

propositions : call 'finding..' -> 'early years', or 'early albums'. I think that is nicer.

'worldwide success' is ok I guess - but as above I think 'the game' should be in that section... and then we need a new title for the 1982-1991 section - which is 'phase 2'? 'new sound'. 'synths' are problem since they start at 'game'.

Let's hear the ideas Donny 12:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Less flowery descriptions tend to be best, because there is less chance of them seeming "POV". Also, section headings should have sentence capitalization (i.e. Not Like This). Also, I like the new lead a lot more. How about altering it slightly, to something like:
Queen is a British rock band formed in 1970, consisting of Brian May, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, and, until his 1991 death, charismatic frontman Freddie Mercury. [You may disagree with this ordering, but at the moment, the first mention of any member is when it says Freddie Mercury designed the band's crest - if you didn't know he was a member of a Queen, that wouldn't make much sense!] The band came to popularity during the mid-1970s, amassing a large ["enormous" doesn't sound encyclopedic] worldwide fanbase [weasel word and probably inaccurate: are they big in Africa? India? China? Eastern Europe? That's well over half the world's population! However, "large fanbase in the United Kingdom and United States" or "large fanbase in North America and Western Europe" or even "large fanbase in the Americas, Western Europe and Oceania" - whichever is more appropriate and citeable! - would be better] that persists today. Although traditionally panned by critics, especially those in the United States [don't abbreviate to "US", it gets on people's backs here, for some reason!], Queen's critical stock has improved considerably as they have more recently been recognized as pioneers of arena rock, hard rock,[1] glam rock, heavy metal, and progressive rock[2].[Could this section be rewritten to take account of changes/progression in Queen's style, and perhaps to give a better impression of the distinctiveness of their sound?]
The group has also been cited as influential to many later artists, including [name some later artists influenced by Queen, preferably who have talked about the effect of Queen's influence on them, and cite some sources to back this up e.g. an interview with the artist concerned or a review noting the influence of Queen] In 2001 the band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio[citation needed]. As mentioned at [not "in", surely?] their 2004 induction into the UK Music Hall of Fame, Queen's promotional video for Bohemian Rhapsody is credited with "jump-starting the video era."[3] Bohemian Rhapsody and We Are The Champions remain two of Queen's most popular/well-known songs [cite using those two "global" opinion polls; preferably backing them up using sales figures - if Queen had any better-selling songs, then this sentence could be adapted].
The band's crest (pictured) was designed by Freddie Mercury and includes the zodiac [why not wikilink?] signs of all four members surrounding a phoenix. [umm, is this right? It looks to me that the Phoenix is on top of the zodiac signs, not surrounded by them?]

Somewhere in the lead - not sure where - it ought to mention what post-Mercury Queen has been doing. It's probably true to say they are no longer pioneering very much. That would be the place to mention Deacon's retirement. (In fact, there seems to be an edit war going on here - you need to sort out Deacon's status, guys! If he is "officially retired" then a citation would be good.) Just a general thing, and I probably haven't corrected it as such, is that some more consistency with wikilinking years woud be good. In general, years should be wikilinked if they are felt to be "relevant" but I'm not sure how that's determined... TheGrappler 16:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know I think that "worldwide" is just OK, we don't say the whole world loved them just that they were popular on many places - yes UK and US, but also south america - with the pioneering concerts in their stadiums, Japan was very fond of Queen, west europe, but as far as I know east europe too - the concerts in Hungary for example gave them a lot of credit. I for one am from Yugoslavia, and maybe they weren't the top group for everyone, but they still have their not-so-few audience, and earlier it was bigger - look for the 'Mustapha' single that had a special issue in Yugoslavia, and I had the "Seven seas of Rhye" single in my hand - YU issue. And I think I recall someone mentioning south africa, though I'm not sure about that.
the pool links were somewhere there don't know when they dissapeared. there were some cutings of the article on demand...

Donny 20:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But Africa-excluding-South-Africa, China and India make up half the world's population and we haven't got on to them yet :) I take the point. What about "including Europe, North and South America and Japan" - concise but completely verifiable, and not a sniff of POV (record sales/concert figures would cover all these for references)? To put this in perspective, if a band was wildly popular in Africa, India and China alone we almost certainly wouldn't call them a "worldwide" success, although in terms of numbers they'd have exactly as good a claim as Queen... TheGrappler 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deacon's retirement

TheImpossibleMan wrote: "Deacon retired in 1997, when he recorded 'Only the Good Die Young' with Taylor and May. I challenge you to find something he did afterward)"
(1) Deacon did not retire in 1997. I challenge you to find any interview or any official statement by Deacon stating he had retired in 1997...
(2) In fact, we don't know exactly when he retired. There is no evidence that Deacon was not involved in decisions regarding Queen projects in 1998 or 1999 etc. He wrote articles for the official fan club magazine until 1999.
(3) I made one mistake (sorry!): The Five/Queen collaboration single WWRY was, of course, released in 2000 (and not in 2001). Bass guitar was played by Brian May.
(4) That does not mean Deacon had officially retired until 2000. In 2003, Roger Taylor said in an interview: "John really has retired. (...) He wrote us a letter in which he said 'I fully endorse whatever you are doing or what you do and you have my wholehearted support behind it but I feel I don't want to be involved' basically." (Undercover magzine, http://www.deaky.com/weekly/2003/dw11E.html)
(5) But we don't know when Deacon had written this letter. As the Five/Queen single was the first project where Deacon was obviously not involved, we should say: "retired circa 2000." -- Candyfloss 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Deacon was also not credited as involved in the creation of the "Under Pressure (RAH mix)" which was released in 1999, which suggests that he had retired from Queen projects prior to the Five/Queen project in 2000.--12.162.189.80 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason I have always said that he retired in 1997 is that his last involvement with the band (or an band, for that matter) was when he recorded No One But You (Only the Good Die Young). Writing articles is not the same as touring or being involved in decisions for the band. And the letter Taylor said he recieved from Deacon has no date - who's to say he didn't recieve it years earlier? I still maintain that we should said "Retired 1997", as oppossed to "Circa 2000". But let's avoid an edit war; what do you other people think? Let's reach concensus.TheImpossibleMan 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with citation?

I added the following bit to the article a long, long time ago:

'At the Knebworth concert held with some 150,000 in attendance on August 9th that same year, Freddie makes the following statement:

"...and earlier on, there were rumours of us splitting up, but I mean, fuck 'em! I mean, really, look at this! (cheers). I mean, how can you split up when you have an audience like this, I mean, really! We're not that stupid!"'

Since it is now marked as Citation Needed, I'm wondering if someone could help me with the format of it. The quote can be heard on Electric Magic, a fairly well circulated bootleg of Queen's Knebworth '86 concert. I'm currently listening to it through so I can find the track that it appears on. How should I format the citation, since I can't really link to any online source? Andymc 12:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Online source: http://queen.musichall.cz/index_en.php?s=ru&d=kneb_en -- Candyfloss 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You rule! Cheers...hope I've done it right...feel free to correct it if I haven't. Andymc 13:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Um, there are a lot of quotation marks in this article. Most of them are for song names. The correct convention is to place punctuation inside the quotes, "like this," but "not like this". I've fixed all of them twice now, but other editors seem intent on adding them back outside of the quotation marks. Can we please settle this? It's a real eyesore, and was one of my points for when I failed this article's GA nomination. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess most people didn't know (I know I didn't). I think that this point in the talk page will be good for the article... Donny 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The correct convention is NOT to have punctation inside quotes. That some kind of American shit (no offense intended), and is considered wrong everywhere else in the anglophone world, and in must other languages as well. Leave it as is. Jon Harald Søby 09:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You failed a GA nomination because the article follows a different convention than the one you're used to? FWIW, I prefer punctuation outside quotes, but I wouldn't fail a nomination over it...Stevage 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure what is better, but wikipedia HAS defined style conventions, WP:MOS, and as far as I got it it has to do more with how the text looks taking into consideration the italics that are made when the double quote is set.
Donny 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And to be more precise, in the Manual of Style, it says
When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations).
and some examples follow. So then not all punctuation should be in quotes, or am I missing something? Donny 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the correct convention is to place punctuation outside of the quotation marks: See Wikipedia: Manual of Style: Punctuation: Quotation marks : (...) quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotation". (etc.) -- Candyfloss 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Founding

Sorry I'm very new here, but don't change the founders or the foundation year please. John Deacon wasn't a founding Queen member, there were 3 unsuccessful bassists before him.

Yes, that is a problem, I think most of us are aware of those facts. But I think that althoug Queen got their name in 26 June 1970, an opinion is that Queen was whole only when John joined.
p.s. use ~~~~ to sign yourself Donny 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Influence on Modern Music; Minor Grammer Question

I noticed that User Page:Queenfan had changed a parargraph under Influence on Modern Music from “Queen is remembered for its never-before-seen theatrics, showmanship, camp and bombast so much that critics have since classified the band as a major player in the evolution of rock music. Queen is noted in particular for its musical eclecticism and ground-breaking live shows.[citation needed]” to “Queen are remembered for their never-before-seen theatrics, showmanship, camp and bombast so much that critics have since classified the band as a major player in the evolution of rock music. Queen is noted in particular for its musical eclecticism and ground-breaking live shows.[citation needed]”. I was unsure if this is correct. If it is, then Queen is not an entity itself, and as such, could not be sued (just an example). However, I was thinking that Queen was an entity, so can someone who knows the answer please respond? Thank you, Billvoltage 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the first one is correct. The sentence is referring to the group Queen, not the members of Queen. Jon Harald Søby 09:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, they were an entity Donny 13:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I thank you all for your input. However, Donny, as they are still an entity, your verb tense is incorrect. It should be "Agreed, they are an entity." Billvoltage 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, you were right. ;) just kidding a bit. I ussualy don't watch so closely what I'm writing in the talk pages as I am trying in the main pages.Donny 09:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 :P Billvoltage 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That 70's Show

Just thought i would tell everyone this. All the episodes of the last season of That 70's Show are named after Queen songs.

  • 179 – Bohemian Rhapsody
  • 180 – Somebody to Love
  • 181 – You're My Best Friend
  • 182 – Misfire
  • 183 – Stone Cold Crazy
  • 184 – Long Away
  • 185 – Fun It
  • 186 – Good Company
  • 187 – Who Needs You
  • 188 – Sweet Lady
  • 189 – Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy
  • 190 – Killer Queen
  • 191 – Spread Your Wings
  • 192 – Son and Daughter
  • 193 – Keep Yourself Alive
  • 194 – My Fairy King
  • 195 – Crazy Little Thing Called Love
  • 196 – We Will Rock You
  • 197 – Sheer Heart Attack
  • 198 – Leaving Home Ain't Easy
  • 199 – Love of My Life

Mtmtmt 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC) - Queen WikiProject

Hmm, maybe this should be entered to the article... under influances or something? Donny 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should be written a Trivia, with things like that (another reference would be the famous "Bohemian Rhapsody" scene in the film Wayne's World). In other articles it's really interesting and/or to read these things. - Joanberenguer 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Longest-Running Rock Group Fan Club

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54755 - Mtmtmt 16:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen (band)#The Official International Queen Fan Club - Mtmtmt 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

order

Members should be put in alphabetical order by last name
John Deacon
Brian May
Freddie Mercury
Rodger Taylor
Mtmtmt 19:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but to other bands I looked at (Guns N' Roses and The Beatles) were not in this format. Is this how it is normally done? If so, feel free to change it. - Billvoltage 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I see two logical orders, either dominance/popularity/name recognition, namely
Freddie Mercury (Farrokh Bulsara)
Brian (Harold) May
Roger (Meddows) Taylor
John (Richard) Deacon
Or order of joining, a bit less logical, but still acceptable
Brian (Harold) May
Roger (Meddows) Taylor
Freddie Mercury (Farrokh Bulsara)
John (Richard) Deacon
62.238.92.181 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove one member is more popular then another? - Mtmtmt 05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't thinkg so, I believe that alphabetical is the norm. Billvoltage 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"Can you prove one member is more popular then another?" in the case of Queen, yes. Nearly every single person on this planet will yell "Freddie Mercury" when asked what they know about Queen. "Brian May" is a little less known, but still a name that many people will recognize. Few will know the name "Roger Taylor" and fewer still "John Deacon". Apart from that, the dominance within the band can be derived from the number of songs each member penned, which would lead to the same order of names. 82.176.202.214 12:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

deacon

Deacon was the bass player with the group and is the only member never to sing vocals on a studio album (excluding "We Will Rock You" in which he only contributed to the band and crew's many-voiced power chorus).

He also sang backup for Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love, and many other songs.

Mtmtmt 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no official studio or live recording where you can actually hear him sing. -- Candyfloss 22:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
In the video for Somebody to Love you can see him singing around a mic with the rest of the band. - Mtmtmt 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your point being? Deacon never sang in the studio, period. Prove me wrong. TheImpossibleMan 06:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Deacon did not sing, if you don't believe us, try searching around a bit please, there are so many sources I saw this, including interviews from the band memebers...in short it goes somthing like this (as he said) he has a terible voice so he didn't sing not to riun the songs, the only song you can hear him (as far as I know) is the "bad news" version of borap, because it is parody of a song. trust me or search around and find out i'm rightDonny 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
never mind i found this
Despite the fact that a few videos show John singing, John maintains that he did not sing on any of the songs because he says he has a terrible voice and can't sing. The videos were done that way just for effect. In some concerts, he can also be seen singing into a microphone. Nothing specific has been said about this, but since John says he didn't sing, perhaps the microphones were not turned on or he wasn't really singing.
Mtmtmt 20:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. He sang alot with freddie and on his own and also at freddie's tribute concert. Many people think he sang in some recorded songs including myself. Also people are almost positive he sang in the recorded version on Bohemian Rhapsody. - 69.72.82.32 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
?? - Candyfloss 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Still I don't see you showing us evidence of what you say. And then an explanantion why does Deacon keep claiming that he didn't sing, I could imagine a reversed situation, someone claiming he sang and that he is not heard on the audio, but this would make no sence Donny 14:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
UM..... i was wrong if you would read what i quoted. - Mtmtmt 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
69.72.82.32 does not have a story based on fact; the truth of the matter is that Deacon sung on most concerts, but his microphone was mixed far lower than Roger's and Brian's (live the other two backing vocalists). 62.238.92.181 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-release of Bohemian Rhapsody

May I query the reasoning given for the re-release of Bohemian Rhapsody? I thought that it was done as a tribute to Freddie Mercury. I think that it raised money for the Terrence Higgins Trust, a British based charity that helps HIV/AIDS sufferers. That it features in Wayne's World, which was released around the same time, was not the reason for its re-release.

See "Bo Rap" below - Mtmtmt 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

past tense

Why exactly are May and Taylor referred to in past tense? Mtmtmt 14:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • for two reasons, first of all, it is the common way to do things in an encyclopedia article. Secondly, the places in which they are being reffered to in the past tense are about the past... Billvoltage 20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't "Roger Taylor was the percussionist for Queen" be "Roger Taylor is the percussionist for Queen"? - Mtmtmt 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Probably, when I said what I said earlier, I have no idea what specific spot we were discussin (or should it be we are discussin?). Billvoltage 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I think in all honesty this article is too long for the GA system. It will be quite a job for one person to review it in its entirety. From a quick glance, though, I think you're still gushing in places, have a little bit of POV, and aren't always writing in an encyclopedic tone. My main reason for writing here, however, is with regards to the discography: you have a main discography article, so why is the discog here so large? I would suggest removing live albums, compilations, tribute albums and possibly singles too. Alternatively, you could remove the discography section in it's entirety as the article is mighty long. --kingboyk 20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think the discography section should be removed and Queen discography should be more extensive. - Mtmtmt 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all but albums and singles and renamed it "Selected discography". My proposal for the next step would be to remove the chart data and tables (and move it to the discography article), and limit the singles to (say) top 10 hits. See The KLF and The KLF discography; The KLF is up for FAC and nobody has complained about the format I've used there. I think it's succinct and gives the casual reader an overview of the band's most important moments, with a tantalising link to the discog for the more serious reader. What do you think? --kingboyk 10:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (feel free to revert if you don't like the changes)
Sounds good. Your an admin right? Maybe you can help me with this i have uploaded Image:Qfm.jpg and it was deleted even though i provided a link to written consent from the site owner. I have re-uploaded it because I don't think it should have been deleted. What do you think? - Mtmtmt 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm an admin, but unfortunately I'm not an expert in US copyright law. I'd recommend asking around... Sorry I can't be of more help. --kingboyk 13:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. - Mtmtmt 13:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You've done a fantastic job with the discography. I'm very impressed (and also pleased to see that my idea was a good one! :)) --kingboyk 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bo Rap

"Bohemian Rhapsody" was number one in the UK for nine weeks, and another five weeks in 1992 when it was re-released after its appearance in Wayne's World. It originally reached number 9 in the U.S, and number 2 when re-released in 1992.

this needs to be rewritten

  • Bo Rap went to number one in the U.K. after the death of Freddie Mercury .
  • Bo Rap went to number two in the U.S. after being used in Wayne's World.

Mtmtmt 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I just got around to it. - Mtmtmt 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

my new userbox

what do you think? - Mtmtmt 04:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

{{User:UBX/Queen}}
Category:User Queen
Queen This user loves Queen!

and

{{User:UBX/Freddie Mercury}}
Category:User Freddie Mercury
Freddie Mercury takes this user's breath away.
Cool. I'm gonna use the first one in my profile. - Zone46 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I love them both, and, if I am saying correctly, I have them both on my lookup...Billvoltage 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody

I am rewriting parts of the Bo Rap article, adding OGG samples and lyrics. If anyone has anything to add please do so. It would be a great help. - Mtmtmt 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Influence on modern music Proposal

How about we list all of the bands that they influenced in alphabetical order? Just my humbloe proposal... Billvoltage 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should list these bands in chronological order. - Candyfloss 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Chronological by when they were formed? If so, I will work on that, right nowBillvoltage 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to sort them chronologically by their first released record. [4] Candyfloss 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that they are done, and we shouldn't worry about it until someone else states that Queen influenced them, or should someone check it?Billvoltage 05:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, someone should check it. (By the way, is there any proof that Katie Melua was influenced by Queen?) Candyfloss 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Dr. Dre has been influenced by Queen? The hip-hip superstar, influenced by the arena rock legends?

Probably not, but if he says so himself (which he did), it's not our job not to believe him. 82.176.202.214 12:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Free images

Hi, I just read this article and saw there are only fair use images included. There are quite number of PD or GFDL images on the german article. See here de:Queen (Band). Perhaps they could be of use. Garion96 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many images

Why does every album cover have to be on the page? It was fine the way it was with just five or six. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to change it back. - Zone46 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree compltelely, leve as is!Billvoltage 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Singular or Plural

A while ago I changed the opening section from "Queen is", "Queen has" etc. to "Queen are", "Queen have" etc. Someone changed it back to singular; now I have changed it to plural once again. To me singular just sounds plain wrong. Is it just me? What does everyone else think? Matt 01:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

If you will read the entire section entitled Influence on Modern Music; Minor Grammer Question ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen_%28band%29#Influence_on_Modern_Music.3B_Minor_Grammer_Question ) you will note that we discussed this before, and as such, it was concluded that it should remain singular, because Queen is one singular entity, and as such, should have verbs describing it as such. If anyone else has something more to say, please do so. Billvoltage 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
From the official website, www.queenonline.com: "Queen formed in 1971 and in 1973 signed their first recording contract for EMI." Do you notice the "their"? Thus, the name Queen should be treated as a plural. 82.176.202.214 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has changed it back to singular again, and I've noticed some further bizarrities like "Finding its sound, 1970-1974", where "its" presumably refers to Queen. This is not any sort of English that I'm familiar with... surely it should be "Finding their sound"? Is there some BrE vs AmE issue here? Let's have some more opinions please. Matt 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it is a BrE vs AmE issue. IIRC, Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't matter which convention is used as long as it's consistent throughout the article. It's also largely determined by the first major contributor to the article. So changing it from one style of usage to the other is not only unnecessary but also a bit impolite. Further, the WP:MOS specifically states that "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country." Since Queen is an English band it's appropriate to use the British usage in this article. In any case, I don't care as long as it's consistent. It's certainly not worth arguing about. :) --ElKevbo 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Have basic rules of grammar really fallen to the wayside so freely? I was the one who changed it to singular most recently, and there it should remain. Queen is a band, a singular entity. If we are to speak of the band as a whole, it should always be in singular tenses. Now, on the other hand, the members of the band are multiple entities, and thus, if we are speaking about them, it should be plural. Queen is a band. The members of Queen are a band. To be entirely honest, It's not clear to me how there is any confusion concerning this. DesertFly3 03:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it singular. The band is one entity. The people in the band are more than one entity. "Performing some of its greatest hits" doesn't sound quite right, and the page isn't very consistent anymore. - Zone46 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there is any "confusion" - there is a disagreement about style. I am a native BrE speaker and, to me, phrases like "Queen released its first album" sound most peculiar. I'm a bit surprised that anyone thinks this reads correctly. ElKevbo said there was a BrE vs AmE issue, but which is which? Matt 11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC).
Although I do not speak BrE, I believe that since Queen are British, it should be as such. I was unaware of the differences in BrE and AmE on this matter, when I defended the other side above. After hearing the facts, I must agree. Billvoltage 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"As Instrumentalists"

Shouldn't there simply be different sections for each member?--Hector 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, shouldn't it be accurate? This sentence is bullocks: "Due to the uniqueness of his guitar, the Red Special, which he built himself, May was often able to create strange and unusual sound effects. For example, he was able to imitate an orchestra in the song "Procession", the opening track of Queen II;". While Queen did not use synths until later in the band's career, it most certainly did take advantage of all available studio tricks -- flanging, multi-tracking, phasing, chorus, echo, etc, as well as footpedals used by May to alter the guitar's sound. Yes, the guitar's active electronics played a part in the sound, but they were not the whole sound, especially in the studio. •Jim62sch• 17:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Live Aid

As of 2006/09/22, there is no mention in the main article of Queen's command performance at live Aid. Why not? 213.202.149.45 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...and it is now mentioned in the live performances page.

Queen is/are

It seems people who change 'Queen is' to 'Queen are' never bother to change all the other "is"s to "are"s (or the other way around) in the article. I've come to the point where I really don't care anymore what form of English the article is written in, but I'd like to aim for consistency (my new favorite word when it comes to editing this article), so we should decide what we want it to be (is/are, finding their sound/finding its sound) and keep it that way. - Zone46 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should switch the article, Queen are from England where treating collective nouns as plurals is normal.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, even though, to me, it sounds odd. I believe that the group should be treated as they would be treated in their own country, and Queen are British.Billvoltage 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's just keep it consistent. - Zone46 17:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I intend, then, to change "is" to "are" (and make the other necessary changes, e.g. "has" to "have" etc.) throughout the article. My previous attempts to do this were all reverted and I got fed up with it, but now it seems there is some sort of consensus, right? If anyone feels they are going to revert my "is" -> "are" changes again then please speak soon, before I do it. Matt 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
Seems this has now been done - the ones I found on a quick scan, anyway! Hurrah! Matt 17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Why is Freddie Mercury listed as a former member?

Guys, it is pretty silly to refer to Freddie Mercury as a "former member." Among other things, this suggests that the rest of the band achieved some kind of notable success after his death, which is simply not the case. Let's face it, Queen is basically a defunct band, and I find the current designation to be very offensive. 67.190.44.85 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are very much right about that. Queen are still technically active but Freddie has never actually "left the band". He may have passed but he would most definetly still be in the band if he was still to be around today. 65.93.85.3 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, he's dead, and they have worked as Queen without him. We have to deal with facts not "what might have been". --kingboyk 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, as much as I'd rather not... He should be listed as former. Billvoltage 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article absolutely must state that Freddie is not currently producing music with Queen owing to his demise in 1991. It currently reads in parts like he's still alive and producing music with them! --Shockeroo 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Stop Me Now

maybe it should say in the article that "Don't stop me now" by Queen was voted greatest driving song of all time by UK TV show Top Gear. (and i think it is the best driving song :) )

yeah I guess it could fit into trivia or such... but first it will need a source for quoteing Donny 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's already written in the Don't Stop Me Now article, it really doesn't fit in here (this article's big enough as it is, apparently). - Zone46 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

spliting the article more?

there is now a new warning that the article is too long. Should it be cut more? We have separated the discography into a new article, which I think was both needed and better for viewing. But now what? makeing new "history" page, with just the summary here? posibly a "live" page also, with the lineups and maybe more detail?

Anyway I think it should be though of a bit before doing....Donny 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article is fine, as long as it doesn't get any longer. There are many other bigger articles, and although there is a lot of info here, but it doesn't need to be really short, either. I suggest trimming some of the 1980s section and just including highlights of Queen plus Paul Rodgers and other stuff in the 1998-present section. - Zone46 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree Queen has had a very long and interesting history and needs a long article!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.217.25 (talk • contribs)

(a) I think the new article on the History of Queen is not a bad idea. But I am not happy that Feureau has removed almost all content from the history section in the main article; see also Beatles#History. (b) What do you think about 'Live performances by Queen'? Is it a good idea or should we move its content to the main article? - Candyfloss 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I liked all the info on the main page, rather than on separate pages. So what if the article is long? It's not like it's going to get much longer (developments about new albums, performances, and wahtnot should really go under the Queen + Paul Rodgers article, anyway). See my previous post above. It's just my opinion, but I think this page looked a lot better before. - Zone46 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I still support the idea of a separate history article with all the details. But I think that the basic info still should be on this page - not just smile onto queen. List great successes and similar. main points: seven seas, killer queen, bohemian rhapsody, rock you, first synths etc... Then in history all of this can be explained till our mouth falls off.

I personally would like to see verything here - but I think this will help the featured article thing - it is easier to maintain the artcle quality... Donny 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "It's ok as long as it doesn't get any longer" are an indication it's time to split. We *want* more information, we just don't want this page to get longer. The right thing to do is create History of Queen, and move the detailed informaiton there, and create a 2-3 paragraph summary here of the key points from 1968 to current day - formation, major successes, Mercury's death, the musical, etc. However with any article like this it's always a bit debatable what is "history" and what is just the topic itself. Stevage 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Line

The opening line states that queen are arguably the most famous English rock band. 'Arguably' aside, it is quite ridiculous to say they are or were more famous than the Beatles. I'm no great fan of either, but I think this is just a plain false statement. Anyone agree? HenvY 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with fame, and yes Queen are britain's most consistently successful band of the past three decades. Just look at the charts. Thay had 5 number one singles and 4 number one albums in the 70's, 6 number one singles and 6 number one albums in the 80's, 5 number one singles and 2 number one albums in the 90's, and 1 number one single in 2000.(17 singles and 12 albums all together). That's not menchining the compilation and live albums or the DVDs. And there album sales keep climbing. The Beatles had 17 number one singles and 11 number one albums in the 60's.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
What you said aside, Top of the Pops has a page on them (I believe this should be made the refernce, not what is on there now) that says that they are "Arguably Britain's most consistently successful band from the mid-70s onwards, Queen began life as a glam rock unit in 1970." The link for this is here: [5] Billvoltage 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kira Yoshikage

  • Kira Yoshikage from the Japanese manga JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has a Stand named Killer Queen. Killer Queen has a tertiary bomb, called Another One Bites the Dust. This bomb is actually a distinct, miniaturized form of Killer Queen, which normally stays with someone who knows Kira's secrets. If someone tries to interrogate that person about Kira, the tertiary bomb will enter their field of vision, get into their eye that way, and induce an explosion.

How do we add that? - Malomeat 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I believ should be added to the Killer Queen and not the Queen one... Billvoltage 01:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I just checked out the article you were talking about, and we should mention its first bomb, Sheer Heart Attack (perhaps on the album, and the song (and Another One Bites the Dust on the song page for it also?) Billvoltage 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Members vs Former Members

Queen is listed as an active group. However, Deacon is retired and Mercury is dead, and both are listed as active members. Also a user moved Mercury from 'Former' to 'Current' recently, so there's obviously some dispute about that. This is an unusual situation as the group does not really do very much nowadays (there was the recent Queen+ work which was only 2 of the original members plus another, using the Queen name together) The group is generally thought of as the four original members, back when the groupo was actively making music.

I am considering the least confusing way to present this information. Here are some options:

1) List Queen as inactive (inaccurate?)
2) Move Mercury and Deacon to 'Former Members' (confusing?)
3) Add "(Desceased)" after Mercury and "(Retired)" after Deacon in the members box (unusual formatting for Wikipedia I think...)

Any more thoughts/ideas are welcome. --Shockeroo 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. I think that I am against "former" declarations. I believe Queen are the four. But it is still hard to say that they are over and inactive, when the two are using the name. I am not really against that either. Let them play I guess. especialy when doing charities and such. It is their band after all. so that should be covered on the Queen+Paul page.

Maybe an "intermediate" status with some nice name for it. Or maybe that link that was there for a while: "part of Queen+" or became part or somthing...Donny 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as much I wish it weren't so, one of those needs to be done, I either the first or the third, as the second would be confusing, implying Freddie was still alive. I think the first is inaccurate, as you said. So it must be the third Billvoltage 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. - Zone46 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
OK then. it seems we have at least a kind of an agreement. I shall change it and if anyone objects, please write your reasons and suggestions here Donny 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading this I wonderd why there is no mention on this or other Wikipedia Queen pages of former band members like Barry Mitchell (bass guitar), not sure who or indeed how to get this info up so ill put it here, does anyone want info on him as he usually does not talk about it The GFP 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See Queen live performances#Queen's line-up (live).— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence (Re: My Edits on 10/29)

Being a huge fan of Queen, and having read so much about them, I know which of the artists listed truly have cited the British band as an influence and which haven't. Thus, I've thinned the list down a bit, and also got rid of the more dubious inclusions. I also deleted the naming of the songs; anyone truly interested can check out the albums/do a bit of research. The naming of titles for each of the near-dozen genres mentioned just disturbs the flow and makes the section unwieldy and hard-to-read. I also got rid of the "source/cite references" thing, because of all the reasons stated above. A minimal amount of research on each of the bands can verify the claim that QUeen influenced them, however to do it for each of those individual bands would take a great deal of time and is unneccesary for an encyclopedia. CinnamonCinder 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, the article has Queen cited as a rap influence, how did that work out?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.91.96 (talk • contribs)

...it goes back to a Rolling Stone review of the Innuendo album where the reviewer claimed that Queen influenced the rap genre without justifying his claim. I personally think that any claim that Queen influenced rap should be dropped.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.217.76.77 (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think it has anything to do with the RS review. In 1980, "Another One Bites the Dust" was a very big hit in the U.S. This song certainly had some influence on hip hop musicians. For example, the classic 1981 single "The Adventures of Grandmaster Flash on the Wheels of Steel" used samples from "Another One Bites the Dust". Queen's music was, for example, also sampled by hip hop group Public Enemy. - Candyfloss 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Heehee...and this opens up the debate about how much AOBTD owes its existence to Good Times by Chic. I guess it is difficult to pin down what 'influence' means and whether sampling can be classed as an influence. Also, I dont think Judas Priest were influenced by Queen.

I agree with Judas Priest not being influenced by Queen, they were formed 5 years before Queen released their debut album. Queenfan4ever 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Judas Priest were influenced by Queen, but why exactly is it impossible for a band's later albums to be influenced by a band who became famous after they did? Knight of Ashitaka 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Metallica was directly influenced by Queen and recall the drummer saying words to this effect. He did say how they had great repect for them. Also I am curious how The Smiths/Morrissey are influenced by Queen - can anyone enlighten me.

I'm not sure that allmusic.com is a reliable source to support the claim that these bands were geniunely influenced by Queen. The reference/source links to allmusic.com don't lead to direct quotes from members of other bands stating that Queen had an influence on their particular sound, live performance, or recording process. - TJLink 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I read an article somewhere where Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins said he was influenced by (or a fan of) Queen II. EDIT: I found it on the Queen II page and will incorporate it into the main article. - Zone46 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article infobox.

This article, currently listed as an "example" article on the Template:Infobox musical artist page, does not properly follow the infobox guidelines:

  • The genre lists about a half-dozen different subsets of rock. The infobox specifically states to "aim for generality" (specifics of exactly what type of rock a band plays can be explained -- with examples -- in the text). A simple "rock" will suffice here.
  • Is Queen still an active group? My overview of the article didn't make this clear to me. If so, who is in the group, or do they play with only two people?
  • Former members belong in a "former members" section, even if they are Freddie Mercury. If David Ruffin can survive the indignity of being referred to as a former Temptation, Mercury will be just fine.

...and a minor gripe, which isn't part of the guidelines, but one of professional taste: is the logo really necessary to have in the infobox?

All that being said, I'm replacing this page on the template example page list with a conforming example. --FuriousFreddy 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think rock music and pop music (or pop rock) should be the genres to go in the box. - Zone46 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chart positions

I suggest that chart positions be keep out of the introduction as only a small sample of countries are available. Also, new bands tend to have a rapid rise/fall whereas older, established bands often have a more gradual path through the charts. Hence it is not a piece of reliable information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.123.159 (talk • contribs) .

Paul R. and singles in the box

I was thinking that maybe we should have Paul Rodgers listed as a member. Although he is a Queen+ project, they have been together longer then most other Queen+ acts. Also, some other band articles have the bands singles in the box at the bottom, should we do that with Queen? Queenfan4ever 12:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Rodgers is not am member of 'Queen'!
No, I don't think the singles should be added to the box. - Candyfloss 14:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Film & television

In this section, maybe there needs some mention of Starfleet, Metropolis, Biggles, Zabou, Hotel New Hampshire, and perhaps someone knowledgeable might tell us about Spiderman 2, and Pinochio which Brian may have been involved in.

We only want to have things Queen did as a whole in this article.Queenfan4ever 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't work out whether or not the linkage between ANATO & ADATR and the Marx Brothers movies should get a mention.

Influence on Rap and Rolling Stone Review

Are we really going to say that Queen influenced the rap genre? Keep in mind, the Stone review that claims that they influenced the rap genre also completely trashes the band and, like most Rolling Stone reviews, shows that the reviewer doesn't really know jack about his subject. As a life long Queen fan, I think that claiming that Queen influenced the rap genre is ridiculous, and relying on Rolling Stone reviews for proof is self-defeating. TheImpossibleMan 12:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it after reading the article a few days ago, but someone reverted it. I vote on removing it again. - Zone46 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, whoever keeps adding it back should step forward and say why Queenfan4ever 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As instrumentalists

Is it just me or is the "As instrumentalists" section really ugly? What should we do with it?— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Make it pretty? - Zone46 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We should probably just remove it and put it in the band members seperate articles.69.68.160.160 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree too! Let us 'integrate' it into the band member pages. Can some brave soul hit the delete button...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.44.39 (talk • contribs)
The member pages need some work. If anyone is willing to do some major cleanup on the pages and merge this it to them it would be great.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

References

There have been many books written about Queen (ie.Queen: As it Began), if any one has any of these books please cite them in Queen articles. And remember to use {{Cite book}}.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

<ref>
{{cite book
|last=
|first=
|authorlink=
|coauthors=
|editor=
|others=
|title=
|origdate=
|origyear=
|origmonth=
|url=
|format=
|accessdate=
|accessyear=
|accessmonth=
|edition=
|date=
|year=
|month=
|publisher=
|location=
|language=
|id=
|doi =
|pages=
|chapter=
|chapterurl=
|quote=
}}
</ref>

Books

Should we try and give a more comprehensive list of books put out on Queen?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.68.233 (talk • contribs)

Yes.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Return of the champions

Should we really have return of the champions on this page or should we move it to the Queen+Paul page? 69.34.88.183 12:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be on both pages, a brief entry here, but a more in depth one there... It does, afterall, include Queen in it. It should also be on the Paul Rodgers page, if it is not. Billvoltage 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock?

This page says: "Queen wrote songs in many different genres ... For example, glam rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock, progressive rock, punk rock ..." Can anyone name one of these punk rock songs that they supposedly wrote?

Sheer Heart Attack.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly rephrased that opening sentence. We must remember that Queen were classified as 'dinosaurs' when punk arrived even though they were still quite a young band. Hence most punk bands of that time were a reaction to the established and passe bands. Moreover punk was openly against the monarchy and aristocracy and so if your band was named Queen...

  • I still wonder if this is slightly misleading to someone unfamiliar with Queen's output. IMO Queen are about as far as it's possible to get from punk rock while still remaining in the rock genre. They are the total antithesis of punk. I know there is a "tongue-in-cheek" qualifier, but even so I'd be tempted to remove the reference to punk altogether, or give more explanation if it's referring to just one song that satirised punk. However, I'm not an expert so I'll leave it in the hands of others... Matt 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Lets take punk rock out.

"Can anyone name one of these punk rock songs that they supposedly wrote?" Yes. "Modern Times Rock 'n Roll" from Queen (1973) and "Sheer Heart Attack" from News Of The World (1977). 82.176.211.33 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In Film and Television section

Where is Queen's music in the Super Mario Bros. movie? Lemmy12 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this question as I wanted to start a thread on this topic! What are the grounds for a song appearing in a film to warrant inclusion in this section? One Vision was used prominantly in Iron Eagle but Tie Your Mother Down was barely audible in Super Mario Brothers.

John Lennon

Can someone provide us details of what Lennon said about Crazy Little Thing Called Love in Rolling Stone in 1979/1980? I think we could include it in the 'Influences' section. Briam mentioned it a while back on brianmay.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.86.41.188 (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

John Deacon on At the Beeb

I was just listening to "Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll" on At the Beeb and I am certain John Deacon has a line. Its about 45 seconds in.12.65.48.88 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not John. That would be Mr. Brian May with pinched nose. 82.176.211.33 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this band is called Queen

Hello,

I'd like to see a word about why they decided to call their band Queen. Is this possible? Rosenknospe 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mercury named the band. They all agreed on it because it was a universal word that most everyone around the world would know. Or something like that. - Zone46 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag

I removed the England flag from this article according to WP:FLAG and a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Flags. I see an anonymous editor has replaced it. If there is no consensus here that we need a flag in the infobox, I will remove it again. --Guinnog 12:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well it has popped back up there. I wonder if there is a consensus that there should be a flag here (as far as I know Queen never represented England at Eurovision), and if there needs to be a flag, why not a UK one? --Guinnog 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Or even a Zanzibar flag to represent their late lead singer? --Guinnog 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Because the band is referred to as an English band in the first paragraph, the infobox (per origin field), the categories and so forth. You might also want to consider that suggestions like the one regarding the Zanzibar flag might not prompt people to take your efforts or intentions seriously. - Cyrus XIII 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point. However this just lets the flag agree with the infobox, and answers none of my questions. Do you think there needs to be a flag? Is it intended for people who are not familiar with England as a word, but need the added help of the little St Georges flag to recognise it? Or is it just decoration? And who decides on the nationality of a band? Did Queen themselves refer to themselves as an English band (rather than a British one)? If not I suggest this is original research. --Guinnog 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have already directed you towards my comment on that matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style during our short conversation via talk pages, but if I have to, I might just repeat what I have previously stated: It makes sense to combine textual and visual stimuli in places where people would like to obtain information fast (like infoboxes). If you do not feel that this is true or warrants the use of flag icons in infoboxes, then we should just agree to disagree. However you should also refrain from attempting wide-spread changes of the status quo based on an opinion, because that's what WP:FLAG is at this point and neither a guideline nor a policy. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well we can agree to disagree if you like, and I have of course continued to contribute to the discussion page. I just wondered if you had any actual reason to revert my change beyond your stylistic preference. I think from your lack of response to my questions above you have answered that too, in a way. --Guinnog 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Good article Review of GA status

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. This page has gotten progressively worse since the removal of the history section. – Zone46 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Should the history section be reincorporated? Someone has tagged it with {{merge}}.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We should merge it, clean it up a bit, and get rid of the brief summary on the main page (obviously). The live performances article could use a re-write, too. – Zone46 13:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reincorporated the history section and am doing some cleanup.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding pictures

I think the old layout was perfect. Having all the album covers clutters the page in my opinion and I guess I'm the only one who likes the picture of the band in 1990. – Zone46 17:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See Pink Floyd.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We can't use album covers in this way in band articles. It is a breach of the fair use conditions. See the boilerplate text on any album cover image. Sorry. --Guinnog 18:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Provided that the content of the albums is discussed and the covers aren't sheerly used as a decoration, then using albums in band articles is acceptable. See recently promoted FAs Pixies or Megadeth. Teemu08 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is so cluttered with every album cover on here. I was trying to go back to something similar to the layout that originally got the page good article status back in May, but whatever. And yes, I would say some albums are more important than others. Is "Queen II" as important as "A Night at the Opera"? I love both albums, but I doubt it. – Zone46 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Maybe some people think Sheer Heart Attack is better then A Night at the Opera, or Hot Space is the best album they ever made, but that doesn't mean they can remove the cover for ANATO or remove all the covers except Hot Space. Once the "Finding there sound" and "Breakthrough era" sections are filled in more it will look fine just look at Pink Floyd.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I downsized the images to 125px. I agree the images where cluttering the article, but its a bit better now.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

no need

I really don't think theres a need to have a huge list of people who feel they've been influenced. Just cut it down to several well knowns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.72.25 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Even though I find the quotes section quite interesting, I don't think it is warranted in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.201.47 (talk • contribs).

A Kind of Magic?

Why AKOM is not in the list of #1 singles?

A Kind Of Magic, released in the UK on March 17, 1986, reached #3 on its home chart but was a #1 hit in thirty-five other countries. While charting well everywhere else, it peaked at #42 in the USA and has been played on radios mostly in New England (Similar to their first single Keep Yourself Alive). Russell Mulcahy, director of Highlander, directed the song's accompanying video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.105.96 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

"was a #1 hit in thirty-five other countries." ...in which countries?? - Candyfloss 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to see in what "European territories" 'I want it all' topped the charts in (as stated in the booklet to the platinum collection).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatteusH (talk • contribs).

GA review

This article has been delisted in a 2 to 0 vote, for a, well, multitude of reasons, it might be faster just to check the review at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13 :). Homestarmy 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is a shame, as I've found it to be one of the most enthralling articles I've ever read on wikipedia. Hopefully the 'problems' can be fixed without carving out too much of the good parts. --139.142.212.129 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GA

All the members of the Queen WikiProject need to set a date and come together and bring this article back to GA status (or maybe FA), if we all work together it CAN be done. Who knows maybe this can become a regular thing and we can bring other articles to GA or FA status (e.g. Freddie Mercury).

Some things needing to be done:

  • Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
  • Expand the 'Finding their sound' section.
  • Add more information on the band's history not just information on each album.
  • Add many more references.

— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox issues

There appears to be a disagreement over the inclusion of the Queen logo (text only) at the top of the infobox. Now, looking around on articles about other notable bands (such as Led Zeppelin, Metallica and Nirvana), the practice of including a somewhat consistently used logo appears to have become rather common. Not to mention that every band name also constitutes a brand (for which a logos are used anyway, see Adidas and Microsoft).

Certainly not common is the practice of throwing no less than nine genres (!) at the unsuspecting reader. Right through the infobox and with references. A far more reasonable (and common) approach would be to trim this list down to two or three entries and then elaborate on Queen's stylistic diversity and development in a dedicated section. This would certainly enrich the article more than mentioning 30+ bands and musicians who happen to cite Queen as an influence. - Cyrus XIII 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The logo in already in the article under the section 'Logo' there in no reason to have two logos.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not referring to the full crest, but the text-only variant, which is used individually in several instances, i.e. the band's official website and posters for the musical. And I take it, you are not going to address the other points I have raised regarding the article? - Cyrus XIII 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of genres should be eliminated and dedicated section should be created then put 'See: Section name' in the infobox.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have created a respective section. At this point it is little more than a list, but it appears to be well referenced right away and I am sure people will turn it into a well-bodied text rather sooner than later. The "Various" entry in the infobox links to that section and I would suggest to keep the genres listed there down to two, plus the section link. To be honest, I am not entirely sure whether hard rock and progressive rock could be considered the two most defining genres, my experience with the group is somewhat limited (that is, listening to Greatest Hits 1 & 2 for like a hundred times). Now that the size of the box has been significantly reduced, there should be size-related concerns regarding the logo. A "Former members" slot for Mercury and Deacon has also been added. - Cyrus XIII 11:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It hardly surprises me that the article lost its GA status, if even minor changes which reflect common and sensible practice are being regularly reverted and have then to be discussed at length. I am referring to the recently removed distinction between "members" and "former members" in the infobox. Freddie Mercury died over 15 years ago, John Deacon has been retired since the late 90s. Aside from a romantic, yet certainly not NPOV compliant perspective, it makes no sense to still list them as members of the band. Queen, as of February 2007 are Brian May and Roger Taylor.

See also:

- Cyrus XIII 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Doors article doesn't list Jim Morison as a former member and the Grateful Dead article doesn't list Jerry Garcia, Brent Mydland, Vince Welnick, Ron McKernan or Keith Godchaux as former members.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither is John Lennon listed as a former member of The Beatles, apparently to reflect the group's lineup at the time of its dissolution. Yet the manual for the infobox template explicitly suggests to list all members of a presently inactive group as former members. - Cyrus XIII 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have come from your listing at WP:3O. I think that they should be former members, unless the band is no longer active and they were alive at the time of the bands disbandment. So, they should, in this case, be considered former members. ffm yes? 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Also from WP:3O. If the band is still active, and these people are no longer members, then they are quite clearly former members. Just my two cents. Luna Santin 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

3rd opinion Do you have any sources that called them either "retired" or "former members" how do these band members refer to themselves if they are still alive? I think it is important to make the distinction between people who left the band or died and people who stayed with it. The descriptive terms should reflect those used in music publications or by the musicians themselves. futurebird 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another 3rd opinion: It appears from the article that Queen post Freddie is considered to be a different band - Queen +. If that is the case then the membership of Queen should be as with The Beatles - no retired members. Some source material would be useful. SilkTork 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Open-ended question: would that indicate we might want to split the articles? Or is that a whole new can of worms? ;) Luna Santin 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sort of, I guess. Usually I try to separate style from content discussions and since the article's text considered the group as active ("Queen are..." as opposed to "Queen were...") the Queen - Mercury = Queen+ equation had not really crossed my mind. Now, I really don't think we are dealing with two different bands here, the plus sign is merely the group's way to denote collaborations following the death of their lead singer. Also, I have to agree with futurebird, a source confirming John Deacon's retirement status would really help clearing things up. - Cyrus XIII 00:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination

I've put this article up for nomination at the FAC. Please comment/support/oppose as you see fit at the nomination page. XXSaifXx 03:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Music samples

I've uploaded and added music samples from Queen's most well known songs into the article. They're fair use and almost every good music article has a few. The article is almost ready for featured article status... XXSaifXx 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice selection. May I suggest a few samples which rather cover later parts of certain songs, in order to represent them better? The opera/hard rock transition in "Bohemian Rhapsody" comes to mind. - Cyrus XIII 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the samples section. See List of songs by Queen.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with that, but I object to the removal of the amount of records sold from the intro. The Pink Floyd article, which by the way, is also a featured one, has this information in the intro. All featured article candidates should have three lead paragraphs which explain why the band is so important, so I'm putting it back in there, but if you can show me the logic why I shouldn't I'll undo it. XXSaifXx 14:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah nevermind, I won't bother reverting. But atleast please try to make a replacement paragraph. =P. XXSaifXx 14:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the reasoning behind removing the samples section altogether, as opposed to just replacing the new samples with the ones already linked to in that list? - Cyrus XIII 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)