Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 3

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, glam rock, heavy metal, and progressive rock.[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. 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." 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. <br\>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.” 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.”. 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
QueenThis 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. [1] 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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)

• It's under the history of Queen article. - Zone46 13:49, 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: [2] 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)