Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Page too long, too hard to get the big picture

I find the current page really long, too much detailed, to get the big picture of the life of Queen The band. Do you think we could build other pages for albums? The same way "countries" have their own "Culture" sub page. That would be a great change of this page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.213.23 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1970-1995?

Somebody edit active years from "1970-present" to "1970-1995". I think, Queen still exists. Or we have to say - now are Queen + Paul Rogers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.153.1 (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to decide whether Queen exist today as a group, because the article says 1970 to present, but that the band has no members. Unless theres any feedback I'm going to add Taylor & May to current member status without Queen + Paul Rodgers addendum. GiantSpider (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Queen + Paul Rodgers should be listed as a different band entirely. We should say that they broke up because nothing has been released by them, and nothing has been planned to be in the near future. Appart from some compilation albums, that is. Though, they never officially broke up, so do we have to say that they are still active? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The death section of the page lists that Freddy Mercury's family was Zoroastrian. It sounds highly suspicious to me. If it's false, it needs to be removed; if it's true, it needs citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.232.195 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is true. His parents were Zoroastrian. Plus, his funeral was one of the Zoroastrian faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebfan1993 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First non-blues based heavy metal band?

Citation 64 says Queen was the first non-blues based heavy metal band. Wasn't Black Sabbath the first? I think they started in '68 or so, and they weren't really blues based.75.32.145.7 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what this editor is getting at...Black Sabbath was tremendously blues-based. The intro to the solo section of Iron Man is a downward traverse of the blues scale, for crying out loud! The verse of War Pigs is done in an acapella "blues hollar" style as well. Queen was also heavily blues influenced, from "See What a Fool I've Been" on Queen II, to "Sleeping on the Sidewalk" from News of the World. The fact that most of the band's members were big Hendrix fans also strengthens my assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not really sure what citation 64 is getting at.75.33.139.116 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's 49. I'm terribly sorry. Just do a find for "non-blues" and you'll find it.75.33.139.116 (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but aren't those songs (the first of which was only a b-side and was esentially a cover) the only blues songs Queen ever did?Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

They wrote and recorded another one called "Lost Opportunity" during the Innuendo sessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobertj (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that song available? - Tim, 14 May, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera Statistic

The stat in the "Breakthrough Era" section about A Night at the Opera being ranked 230 out of 500 really doesn't seem like the best way to demonstrate how popular of an album it was. In fact, the fact that it was ranked so low seems rather ridiculous. Does anybody object to its removal? 75.18.197.236 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not. 75.33.139.116 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar to say, "The band are..."

It is grammatically incorrect to say, "The band are the highest-selling act." Since the word band is singular, this requires a singular conjugation of the verb. Trust me, the Freddie Mercury article conjugates everything correctly. The Freddie Mercury article is also the only Queen article with Good Article status at them moment. On the other hand, it may be ok to say, "Queen are a great band." That is more a matter of preference.Boab (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There was already a lot of talk about the is/are problem. It is basicaly a US/UK english problem. It is specified in the article, that being that the band were from the UK, we should use the UK version, which treats the band as plural, or we could say as all the memebers together, rather than a singular entity (although they were an entity of sorts :)). Donny (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been some severe vandalism on Queen albums and songs lately, mostly by [1]. Can somebody just... Block him/her? I think I've removed all of the spam, but this is the second time he/she makes the exact same changes...

Main Picture

Would you please change the main picture at the infobox? This is Queen. The greatest live act on the history...you're putting dow the band when using this photograph with a drug-addict, psycho-pseudo-athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.125.62 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Although my feelings aren't as strong, I also agree that we could use a different picture. This really doesn't seem representative of Queen in general, if there is such a thing. 75.18.197.236 (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Maradona needs to stay out of the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.172.69.11 (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I listen to a multitude of bands and genres, but having said that, Queen has been my favorite rock band for over 18 years. I love their style, their genre-jumping, their sensitivity, and their power and elegance. Freddie Mercury was one funny guy. Having said that, Freddie himself was known for heavy partying, as well as using large amounts of cocaine. Therefore, a picture featuring the band posing jocularly with a star footballer is hardly out of context with the kind of band they were at that time. Like many Englishmen, they were fans of football.Their song "More Of That Jazz" even includes the sardonic line: "Only football gives us thrills, rock and roll just pays the bills." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One might get the impression that it is a five piece band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.15.159 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using the famous pose used in the Bohemian Rhapsody video and on the cover of Queen 2. Or we could put the updated version of the famous pose used in the music video for "One Vision" in 1985. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebfan1993 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rebfan1993. After all, Bohemian Rhapsody was one of Queen's greatest hits. --Hqwerthqwert (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Genres

I changed the information box a bit, now it says "Hard rock, glam rock, progressive rock" and various others, wich links to the "sound and style" part of the article. I think it's quite a good solution. Also added some more on sound and style, feel free to add wathever you want.--85.224.81.128 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "Sound and Style" part because it is very poorly written and is extremely unverifiable. There are no sources. It's also very POV. So...it has to go. XXSaifXx 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not going to remove it without consensus...We have to figure out a way to improve it...XXSaifXx 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good thing you cleaned up the lyric themes part. My english isn't perfect... But Queen didn't just wrote dark lyrics. All of those 80's pop songs, are they about death and alienation? I know that most Queen fans are ashamed of the 80's, but they can't be ignored just because of that.--85.224.81.128 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that's funny, when I created the Sound and Style section, it had quite a few sources to boot and an explicit request for expansion. The infobox used to contain all those genres and that unnecessary bloat seems to be creeping back. Let's keep this contained, shall we? The purpose of these boxes is to provide essential information fast, throwing half a dozen (or more) genres at the reader does quite the opposite. - Cyrus XIII 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well anyway I cleaned up a lot more than "Sound and Style" only...I cleaned up all the references. Yay...that was a lot of work :P. XXSaifXx 10:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "pop rock" at the sound and style part, for some reason. Most people are completely unaware of Queen's metal in the early '70s, and only know of songs like Another One Bites the Dust, I Want to Brea Free, Radio Ga Ga, A Kind of Magic etc.. To say that songs like Liar, Ogre Battle, Son and Daughter, Sweet Lady, White Man and other early metal songs are more famous for the ones who are not into rock is just a lie. I added a little section on how the band changed over the years, feel free to add and change but NOT delete. It is just too important.--85.224.82.231 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To the above poster, I say, "Right on." the songs Ogre Battle, The Hero, Battle Theme (from Flash Gordon), White Man, Father to Son, The Prophet's Song, More of that Jazz, and Let Me Entertain You are either completely heavy metal based, or contain metal sections.

Oh, and I changed the introduction with the genre exemples. I changed heavy metal into speed metal, as heavy metal is one of their "usual" genres, and rockabilly, opera and my added funk is not. Queen have composed two songs that I count as speed metal, Modern Times Rock n' Roll and Stone Cold Crazy. They have only made two rockabilly songs as well, Crazy Little Thing Called Love and Man of the Prowl. I think that this was quite a good change.--Gustav Lindwall 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why pop\pop rock keeps getting removed from the infobox and is not even mentioned int he sound and style section. Queen produced lots of pop material throughout their career, among other genres. – Zone46 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A common solution to genre disputes is to cite every genre change to the article. Try finding reputable sources and if more than one genre is stated, as is to be expected, then pick the ones that show up the most for the info box and mention the others in the article in the time period at which they occur. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody have put heavy metal back there. Keep or add (I don't it being there)?

Excuse me, but why the English article is the only one which doesn‘t put rock on the list of their genres? --Chargin' Chuck 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I linked genres to the sound and style section for the moment. That way, we can cover them all without disagreement. Please discuss if anyone thinks this is a good or bad idea. – Zone46 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Now, people who have never heard of Queen (if those exists) will know that they're a rock band when they enter, and just a click away you'll get additional info on subgenres they've covered.--Gustav Lindwall 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro is so bad that it is embarrassing!

Please fix the intro! It is so bad that it is embarrassing to all Queen fans! Here is an example of a better alternative:

"Queen was a British rock band noted for its major worldwide popularity. Although the band rose to prominence during the mid-to-late 1970s, it continues to retain a large international fan base. The band is noted for its musical diversity and........"

This is an encyclopedia article!!!! Do not include obscure information in the first paragraph. The point of an encyclopedia article is to be accessible to the average person, even if he/she has never heard of Queen! Imagine writing an article about Queen for your grandmother to read. That is how you want to write here.

By the way, why in the world do you refuse to correctly conjugate your verbs here? The word "band" is singular. In Spanish, you use "es" for singular nouns and "son" for plural nouns. In Latin, you use "est" for a singular noun and "sunt" for a plural noun. Am I correct here? Since when does the English language not follow the basic rules of grammar!!!! 138.67.44.86 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding grammar, this article is written in British English because Queen are a British band. (see American and British English differences)— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's British English, it's "Queen are" and if it's American English, it's "Queen is", right? Just wondering because I normally say "Queen is". Jedi feline 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 10:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of the League of Copyeditors, and am reviewing this article at miketm's request. I reviewed the page regarding differences between American and British English, and did not see a direct reference to the verb "to be" in terms of singular or plural tense. Could you please provide a link to the relevant section of that page? I'm want to be consistent and correct throughout the article. Thank you! Galena11 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC

The article failed it's FA nomination (Who didn't see that coming?). The article should first have a peer review, then it should be nominated for GA status, and if it is listed, it should then be considered for a FA nomination.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Influence

In the editing of the article, many of the bands that were under the influence section of the article were deleted, probably due to lack of reference. However, is it not best to put them back in the article and put a 'citation needed' next to them, instead of just deleting them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.60.183 (talk • contribs).

Biography

There is a realy great and detailed biography on Queen at rockdetector.com (http://rockdetector.com/officialbio,7124.sm)12.65.54.156 10:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

QueenZone forum and FAC

OK, this is really not necessary, someone over at the QueenZone forum is basically asking people to vote in support of the article becoming a FA. (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Queen (band)/archive3, http://queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=963642)— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I wasn't asking people to vote in FAVOUR of the nomination, I was asking for them to take part, point out mistakes and if vote according to what they think. And I asked only people who had existing Wikipedia accounts to vote but I guess no one heeded that... XXSaifXx 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Are pictures of each album necessary on the band page? I think that maybe one or two of their best-known albums should be on the band page and the rest of the pictures should go to the album page. Tell me what you think about this. Jedi feline 10:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the bands albums are well known, and all but three (Q #24, QII #5, SHA #2) have reached number one on numerous charts. Also the covers are small, only 125px compared to the normal 180px.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 10:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should put more pictures of the band in the article, along with selected album pics. – Zone46 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the album covers serve a double purpose because they include photos of the band.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about a less stylized picture for the infobox? (I know, I'm obsessed with that thing.) The Queen II cover is a good photograph from an artistic point of view but a more leveled portrayal might still be more suitable to introduce the band. Something like the covers of The Works or Greatest Hits (I). - Cyrus XIII 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the Queen II picture for the infobox. It is one of the band's most well-known photos. – Zone46 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And also, the covers for The Works and Greatest Hits are terrible. This got to be one of the best covers ever, and also serves the purpose as a band portrait. Keep it.--Gustav Lindwall 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A note on GA status

I see that this article was at one time a Featured article or FA candidate. However, the article is not listed as a Good Article . As part of the Rock music WikiProject, it is suggested that an article achieve Good Article (GA) status before having it's candidacy re-newed. So be sure that points from any previous Features article candidate (FAC) archives and peer reviews are taken and applied to the article, and shoot for a GA nomination. Good luck! -- Reaper X 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See also #FAC— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What

No Trivia about one of the best bands ever!!! Surely there must be.

• Trivia sections are usually fancruft. – Zone46 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Queen Films

Should the Queen Films DVD get a mention somewhere on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.84.224 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

That would most likely go under the Queen videography. – Zone46 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Meddows-Taylor

There is currently a discussion over at Roger Meddows-Taylor on weather or not to move the page to 'Roger Taylor (Queen)'.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers

I would like an opinion about removing some of the album covers from the article as per the peer review.review/Queen (band)/archive2 I would like some ideas as to which ones to remove. For example, is the cover photo for Hot Space nesscary? It is one of the lesser known, and it only had one major hit and one lesser-known one (Under Pressure and Las Palabras de Amor). Just want to put the idea out to get a feel for the general consensus.--Fg1234567892000 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User anonymous(unsigned post)--To me the obvious one to drop is Flash Gordon as it was really a sound track...then drop the Smile photo as it is already on the Smile page.

I think they should all be removed as their use here constitutes a breach of fair use. --John 16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo

I suggest that the Logo section is moved off the main page in much the same way as the Fan Club section was. yup yup fo sho

Grammar

"The band are noted for their musical diversity"? Yes, I'm sure it are. Singular nouns (even when they refer to more than one person, like "Queen is a English rock band", not "Queen are an English rock band"; we don't say "The group are happy" even though there's more than one person in a group. -Silence 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. The article is written in British English. It just takes some getting used to it. – Zone46 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that people think an article would make it to FA and frontpaged if this were a grammatical error. Chris Cunningham 09:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, British articles are written in British English. In all honesty, British English is superior in many ways IMO. This isn't one of them, but whatever :) — Deckiller 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in this topic, but I'm British and I would argue that it should be "is". I won't change it because the general consensus seems to be pro-"are", but I object to the argument that appears to have silenced many American dissenters, which is that it should be "are" because the article is in British English. In my British English, certainly, the word to use is "is". I agree with Silence: it seems to me that the sentence means "The band 'Queen' is an English rock band" - we're just understanding "the band". The sentence as it stands is wrong to my (British) eye. Cardiffajax (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is grammatically incorrect to say, "the band are...." Wrong! This is not a matter of British versus American English. This is a matter of grammar. Furthermore, if you want a Good Article (not to mention a Featured Article), then I think we need to use correct grammar here. I also find it hard to believe that there is any kind of "consensus." Just looking at the comments above, it appears that most people agree that singular nouns require singluar verb conjugations.Boab (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this ia lenghty discusion. But once again it seems that we should point out that British and American english do have different grammar rules. So Boab, it depends on what grammar you are reffering to. Rules that apply to this case are collected here, toghether with sources. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. It does say that bands tend to be in plural (example is The Clash). It also says that sometimes they can be used in singular, and I am guessing that this is what Cardiffajax was thinking of. So yes we could try and say 'Queen is' when we are referencing the 'band' as a unit, and say 'Queen are' when we talking about what the memebers together did. But I think that this would make more confusion. My proposition would be to make a template that would be at the top of the page (and all BrEn pages) that would say that this article is written in british because that and that, and please look there for rules, and here for discusions. Though I am not sure where should I put the proposition. Probably on the community portal. Donny (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

another link covering the topic. it is a part of the policy of Wikipedia, which (I guess) is not made without thinking about it. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Also looking at a few people commenting on the plural forms is not enough to say 'that most people agree' on something. Donny (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

lists

I see that both the listing of artists influenced by Queen and the listing of films that feature Queen songs are gradually getting longer again. Maybe separate pages (ala the bootleg page) that can be accessed from their repective parent sections in the main page are needed. The comprehensive lists can then be removed from the main page. In fact the listing of books on Queen could be treated in much the same way.

Not to mention the accolades section. Really, is this an encyclopedia article or an honours list? What to do, what to do. Chris Cunningham 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Even the list of hit singles is too long for my taste. WP:DIRECTORY. That list could be spun off into its own article, reduced or at least remade into a nicely formated table.--ospalh (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Number one singles: "Don't Stop Me Now"

85.241.100.65 added "Don't Stop me Now (1979)" to the list of number one singles. I fixed the "Don't Stop Me Now" link but the only reference that article makes to a number one hit was the cover by McFly in 2006 so I'm not sure this entry belongs in this list ... but I am not a Queen expert. Brother Francis 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't really think it should be on that list. After all, it was a cover that topped the chart.

External links

Why does somebody keep removing the links for queenconcerts.com and queenpedia.com?

Could you add this fan page: http://www.themarchofhteblackqueen.piczo.com ? It's a great resouce, with all the pics from 1960s 'till 1991, info, discography, lyrics & more! Thanks

Link broken - even fixing the misspelling ("hte" -> "the") doesn't appear to work. Ral315 » 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know how to update the references, but the number 64/ Classic Rock/2006 Should be this, i think:[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.0.242 (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Influence on other musicians

Who keeps taking out "The Killers" under musicians that have been influenced by Queen? I have even cited it from Rollingstones.com! There are like 10 other bands in there that don't even have citations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmis17 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 June 2007

Please, remember that at Wikipedia there will be no angry mastodons, so making shouting headers isn't really necessary. Furthermore, you can check who has been removing the phrases from the article by clicking on the 'history' tab. Lastly, I do agree with your statement.. Rollingstones.com is not a trivial source and should be taken serious.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 11:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to sound angry, although I kind of was. I changed the title. Thanks for agreeing with me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.242.106 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2007

Let me remove the capitals from the headers and we're fine. No problem, mate. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you do a search for "katy perry queen" you will find ample evidence that Queen influenced her rather a lot. Would it be a good idea to add her? 75.33.139.116 (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Muse is influenced by Queen.Please add it. The drummer Dom Howard is a big fan. If you need a citation, here [3] the bassist from Muse Chris Wolstenholme mentioned it.

In Nuce

I have an album by Queen called "In Nuce". The vocalist does not appear to be Freddie Mercury. Does anyone know when it was recorded and/or released? Perhaps this could be one of the band's first albums and was recorded before their rise to fame. Or maybe the tracks were written before Mercury's death and recorded afterwards.

Remastered 1995 release on Milestone Records, a collection of eight early recordings from 1969-1973. Features their very first studio recording under the Smile moniker, 'Earth', and the original version of 'Mad The Swine'. Freddie's voice was a lot higher back then, especially on "Going Back". – Zone46 01:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim Staffel is the vocalist on the Smile recordings contained on that album. --LeftHandedGuitarist 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That album contains songs by Smile as well as Queen under the name 'Larry Lurex'. The songs were recorded while testing a friend or associates new recording studio i believe. I found this link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Larry_Lurex 121.44.67.25 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Mercury as "Former Member" must be Removed

It is utterly absurd here to refer to Mercury, easily the most famous member of the band, as a "former member." Let's face it, May and Taylor, although they may refer to themselves as "Queen," have not had any notable hits without Mercury. To designate Mercury as a "former memeber" is ridiculous, even to people who are not very familiar with Queen. 67.190.44.85 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's easily more famous than any other member of the band, but see.. he's dead. The band wasn't dissolved when Mercury died, so it is appropriate for him to be in the 'former member'-section.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Soothing, it is pretty hard to see our good man Freddie listed as a "former" member. Perhaps noting he is deceased would help. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have a hard time with this, he passed away, he didn't leave the band. Do you think Roger, Brian and John refer to him as a former member? I don't think death should exclude him from the band 121.44.67.25 (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the members (not former) section and include May, Taylor, and Freddie Mercury (Deceased) and perhaps Deacon under a former members section or perhaps as (Retired)? Can May and Taylor really be considered former members with the Queen + thing? RKFS (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect to Mercury, but he should be under former members section based on the fact that he's deceased. Example: Bon Scott from AC/DC is listed as a "Former Member", even though he, too, is deceased. - Tim, 25 May, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage of is/are

Wouldn't the correct way to begin the article be "Queen is an English rock band" or "Queen was an English rock band"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "are" used if it's plural, such as the band being called "The Queens"? Zchris87v 19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the English way of saying the same thing. KissMe666 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. See #Grammar. – Zone46 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

300 million

The worldwide sales figure is a sales claim, not a fact. There is no worldwide body tracking sales. The article should read that they are claimed to have sold 300 million albums worldwide, not that they have as though it is a fact. 74.77.208.52 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proofreading

I'm doing a proofread of this article as per the request at WP:LoCE. I will leave various comments here as I come to them.

• I think the quotations at the start of certain subsections are distracting. I think it's best to integrate these into the article where appropriate. Of course there's no standardization of this on WP so far as I know, so it's not technically wrong to have them. All I can say is that I'm not used to seeing them in FAs.
• The use of "the band are…" is standard British usage, but insofar as many Americans (ignorant of the difference) are going to come along and edit and/or change and/or add sentences with the American format, people working on this page will need to be very vigilant to maintain the British style throughout the article. I'll fix instances as I come across them.
• I notice the article generally does not use the serial comma. I'm standardizing it this way, and I apologize if someone intended the opposite method.
• I'm also going to standardize the abbreviation for United States as US, not U.S. I apologize again if I'm stepping on toes.
• Also at this time, the band's manager Jim Beach negotiated the band out of their Trident contract…" This is completely out of the blue. Give a sentence of background before this item, or include more info earlier on about who their management was (especially Trident, never mentioned before this sentence).
• The article says that A Day at the Races … may be mistaken simply as a companion album to A Night at the Opera. Why mistaken? The other info in the paragraph suggest strongly that it is a companion album – or at least a logical followup. The distinction should be made clear.
• Deacon also wrote his first Hard Rock song "Spread Your Wings", unlike in previous three albums, where he wrote pop songs. Was this on an album? A solo project? Please explain.
• "Bohemian Rhapsody" was re-released shortly after Mercury's death, along with "These Are the Days of Our Lives". Was the latter song also a re-release, or was it released for the first time after Mercury's death?
• The band also terminated their Capitol Records contract and signed a deal with Hollywood Records as their new U.S label. Why is this stuck into the section? What does it have to do with Mercury's death? At the very least it could be part of a paragraph explaining decisions the band made after Mercury's death.
• The "Historical Success" section should be (and probably much of it already is) integrated into the main body of the article. Also, the sound samples would work better as sidebars within the article. See Blues.
• Do we really need a list of every movie featuring a Queen song? It seems a little ridiculous. Just list four or five of the most famous (and maybe give some context if it's relevant).
• In March 2006, Queen + Paul Rodgers set out to tour the United States and Canada. This tour, apart from the two United States dates from the first Queen + Paul Rodgers tour, marks Queen's first full-on United States tour since Hot Space in 1982. These sentences are very confusing to me. Also, please note that the Queen+... projects section (like some others) reads like a timeline. Someone more familiar than myself with the band should try to rework it if possible to make it more prose-like.
• Some of the info (especially the quote from the lighting tech in the Queen+ section) reads like a fanzine. How much of that is encyclopedia-worthy?
• Queen's live performances were consistently at the forefront of rock shows from bands of their generation. What does this mean? Their style was notable? They sold the most tickets? This sentence feels a bit weasely.
• Bootleg copies of Queen concerts are traded on websites and through fanzines. I took a guess on this one. Just saying that they "have appeared" doesn't really tell the reader anything. Please also notice that the "Live performances" section doesn't have any sources.
• I'm sorry to say that when I reached "In the digital realm", I found myself unable to continue with this review. The structure needs some serious work here; I understand that both the video game and the audio remastering are done with computers, but they really don't belong in a section together. I mentioned the movie references above. Maybe you could have a separate page for them if you really want to include them all? I wish you good luck with this article, but beyond what I've listed above, I can't offer any more advice at this time. Please do let me know, however, if you have specific questions about anything I've posted here.

– Scartol · Talk 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Because these issues are substantial and require more work from the authors, I've removed this article from the League of Copyeditors' active proofreading list. Please address the issues mentioned above and resubmit the article and we'll be happy to do a copyedit. Thanks! Galena11 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No Synths

I added a statement about the band's "no synths" disclaimer, before I realized I need to come here to the discussion page first. I'm a newbie, sorry! Bppubjr 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

template error

I've been trying to fix an error on the page. in the citation and ext links, the templates are not being recognized right. I've tried inserting templates all over the place, and they get unrecognised only after these last citations. Tried removing them but that didn't help either. So I guess someone with more expertise in the templates editing area should take a look. Donny 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be that there are simply too many templates on the article? --91.149.31.201 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a copy of the article in my Sandbox and I will fiddle around with it to see what happens. ... discospinster _talk 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm stumped. I've appealed for help at this page. ... discospinster _talk 17:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it is fine now, though I haven't been able to pinpoint what has changed. Maybe one of the templates had a sideeffect that is fixed now? Or did someone find out what it was? Donny (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rock in Rio dates

I just corrected the dates of the Rock in Rio concerts, which are January 11th (first day of the festival) and 18th. I know some websites credit the concerts as happening on January 12th and 19th, but that's a misnomer, due only to the fact that the delays all through the festival were huge and, on both occasions, Queen, who were the last to play, got to the stage well past midnight. If you bought tickets for both Queen gigs (as I did), you bought tickets for the January 11th and 18th dates. Trust me, I was there. If there's citations mentioning 12th and 19th, the citations are wrong - unless you wanna be so specific as to consider these dates correct just because Queen played on the wee hours. Cheers. JimboB 03:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If they played past midnight, that means they played the next day. – Zone46 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is being specific to the point of... pointlessness. The tickets say 11th and 18th. That's the official dates. It's irrelevant at what time they actually got to the stage. I went there to see Queen on 11th and 18th. Had I gone to the site on 12th and 19th, I'd have seen George Benson and AC/DC instead. To state the opposite is only nitpicking, and it only helps confusing matters. It's the same thing as picking Paul McCartney apart from all the other acts at the London Live 8 concert and stating he played the day after just because the concert overran. JimboB (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed it again and rephrased it, so the sentence suits both points being stated here. Please don't change it again, because otherwise you're gonna be in conflict with every official sources and Brazilian media ones, too. The way it is now, it's very clear the exact dates for which they were booked - and the fact that the concert overran. Cheers. JimboB (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See the final rephrasing, see it if suits both our points. Sorry for being rude before. By the way, I preferred not to touch that figure of 325.000, and I see there's a source for that as well, but the official info given by Roberto Medina, festival's producer, back then was that the Cidade do Rock full capacity was of 250.000. I interviewed him back in 2000 for an article on the 15 years of the festival and attendance for the 10 days was given to me and that wasn't the official number for any of the 10 days. But I only have physical evidence. Will fix it when I can come up with more info. Cheers. JimboB (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

References error

I tried fixing the error in the references (#43). Originally it was for the number of albums they sold in the History section. By changing that to "cn" it just moved the error to another citation. Can anyone fix this? --Rockfang (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed. I got some advice on my talk page. There are a few new "cn" tags now though. --Rockfang (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about Live Aid. When Freddie Mercury sang the first chorus we are the champions "We'll keep on FIIIGHTING" did his voice crack or its just that after hitting high note FIII he brough down the tone on TING? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.108.55 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't it say anything about the guy being gay?

Seriously it should say it somewhere 70.18.131.202 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to Freddie Mercury, his sexual orientation isn't mentioned because it isn't particularly relevant to the band itself. There's a lot of information about it in his article. --DearPrudence (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PAUL RODGERS

Should we add Paul Rodgers under member, since he is (sort of) currently involved with Queen nowadays under the moniker "Queen + Paul Rodgers"? -- Tim, 13 January, 1008

no, he wasn't a member of the original Queen really, and it is covered in the "Q+PR" article. It also has some mention in this article. That is enough. Donny (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed him from the members today. Brian is always keen to stress they are different, so they can stay on separate articles. GiantSpider (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I removed him once again... seems that someone wants to see him there... Donny (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had to remove him. If Paul Rodgers were an actual member of Queen, it would not be called Queen + Paul Rodgers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebfan1993 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Who Keeps removing Kurt Cobain?

Who is removing the my reference to Kurt Cobain as a musician influenced by Queen? There is no doubt about this. Just look at the source. Boab (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference

This edit removed a named reference which is reused for the same claim in the last paragraph in Queen (band)#Historical success. This resulted in a cite error in the reference section at [4]. I'm not judging the reference or fixing this but just pointing out the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

heavy metal? queen? what song?

God Damn-it, They were a Heavy Metal Band, I wish people would stop putting them as Rock, did they ever even hear their earlier stuff, like before their first album I mean come on people do some research stop giving false information on this site. They were Heavy Metal, enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.58.216 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not need referenses just name of a song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.167.158 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ogre Battle", "Dead On Time", "Let Me Entertain You", "Jesus", "Son And Daughter", "Death On Two Legs", "Brighton Rock", "Stone Cold Crazy", "Sheer Heart Attack", "It's Late", "Gimme The Prize"... and the list goes on. I can't believe people still ask where's heavy metal in Queen's music Trencacloscas (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 65.248.164.214

"White Man," "The Prophet's Song," "Battle Theme" (from Flash Gordon), "Flick Of The Wrist," "Princes Of The Universe." Queen is known for their genre-jumping, so sometimes, they will use a metal section for just a few seconds, to make a point musically. An example of this occurs in the epic "The Millionaire's Waltz" where they segue from a carousel waltz under the guitar solo, to a smashing, bombastic metal section, only to come back to a gentle operatic section. They return to the bombastic near the end of the piece. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget Bohemian Rhapsody also. That rock section seems very metal-ish to me, at least. Pippin the Mercury (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Innuendo 80.230.163.92 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Parts of The March of the Black Queen, Father to Son, Great King Rat, Liar, Sweet Lady; the list goes on and on. Krobertj (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheer Heart Attack, The Prophets Song, The March Of The Black Queen, Liar and Bohemian Rhapsody are NOT heavy metal. There more progressive rock / hard rock. Sorry. Tim, 6 May, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Discography/Videography

I think it would be logical to re-title the "Discography" section to "Discography/Videography", since it includes both. Would that be breaking some Wikipedia standard? I'm not sure. Threecheersfornick (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-singles songs

Not long ago someobdy began to make a lot of pages for the lesser-known songs to the general public, like March of the Black Queen, Ogre Battle and Prophet's Song. These have since been deleted, but I'm not sure why. Sure they weren't singles, but they were still very popular songs amongst fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.136.61 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Popularity amongst fans is not a criteria for notability on Wikipedia. See notability (music) for the generally accepted criteria for songs to have their own articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been common on Wikipedia as of late to delete or re-direct any non-single songs from many artists, not just Queen. It was long overdue. I have noticed all of Metallica and Iron Maiden non-single songs have been re-directed. There are many more to do. Most of these articles contained uncited original research and editors "personal reflections" on the music and lyrics. Far from encyclopedic. Even the Queen singles that still have articles are not written very well and need to have the bulk of the text cited or removed completely. All in due time. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The studio version of "Love of My Life" was never released as a single, but it was a crowd favoite, and that song has it's own page. So what's the difference? -- Tim, 10 December, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.63.99 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User 82.152.136.61, thank you for bringing up this point. I was actually the one who had created these pages, albeit when I had not set up an account yet. I've always been curious as to why some bands have articles for non-single songs (Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, for example) while others like Queen and Genesis don't, even though a good amount of information has been found on these songs. In fact, on each Queen album page, half of the page is devoted to facts about each song that doesn't have its own page. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this info in separate pages, where other facts such as cover versions and instrumentation credits can be allocated? I'd love to hear input from anyone. Krobertj (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You would think so (I think so). - Tim 2 May, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've noticed constant vandalism of this article, including more recently when someone put in bold on top "We'll never forget you Freddy" and suggest that this article should be locked. - Crazyconan (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What About Freddie Murcury Being Gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoponyboy (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He is gay. (Well, was.) Zazaban (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually he was bi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorylyng (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen "were" a rock band

Doesn't Queen still exist? Granted, Freddie Mercury died and John Deacon is not taking part of his own accord, but the tours they've done have been called QUEEN + Paul Rodgers. I think that Brian May and Roger Taylor still comprise Queen. Rodgers does not necessarily because the names of the tours I've said above are Queen + Paul Rodgers which implies he's not a part of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.73.210 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They have performed as "Queen +" even before Rodgers, but they do indeed still exist. RKFS (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The article used to say they were still active, but when the release of The Cosmos Rocks became imminent, it was speedily changed. I suspect they're some people who don't want to accept that Queen can exist without Freddie, which is understandable, but it was rather laughable when I had somebody claiming that The Cosmos Rocks 'had nothing to do with Queen'. Zazaban (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen 'Let The Cosmos Rock' To Hit US Theaters In November

Too lazy to add this one to whichever section, maybe there's someone who will. http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/news_view.aspx?news_id=5111 or http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/queen_let_the_cosmos_rock_to_hit_us_theaters_in_november.html Garik 11 (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhythm guitar

Who played it? 80.230.163.92 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Deacon, sometimes May... nobody of Queen are not classified as rhythm guitar player, because in general they used only one guitar. --87.110.112.134 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

what about freddy???

in the section describing the early days of the band, we jump from some guy named Farouk hanging around and giving the guys their name, to the albumQueen' being released with, I reckon, Freddy on the mic. When did he join the band?? When did the name change happen??>' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.68.75 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ah-- i see it does mention vaguely that he joined as a vocalist. but maybe a date would be good, and some mention about his name and the circumstances of his joining —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.68.75 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but who is "Freddy"?

92.15.48.19 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To adress everyone Farrokh Bulsara was Freddie's birth name. He gave Queen their name. Freddie BTW was a nickname from school that even his parents started calling him. And Freddie is spelled F-R-E-D-D-I-E there is no 'Y'! KissMe666 (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Song Pages

Some time ago, someone put forth the question as to why several pages on non-single Queen songs had been deleted. User 82.152.136.61, thank you for bringing up this point. I was actually the one who had created incarnations of these pages, albeit when I had not set up an account yet. I've always been curious as to why some bands have articles for non-single songs (Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, for example) while others like Queen and Genesis don't, even though a good amount of information has been found on these songs. In fact, on each Queen album page, half of the page is devoted to facts about each song that doesn't have its own page. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this info in separate pages, where other facts such as cover versions and instrumentation credits can be allocated? Krobertj (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a slow process to remove all non-singles from Wikipedia. Queen, Rush, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Megadeth etc etc etc have all been cleaned up. Black Sabbath is going through the sifter right now. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin will all get cleaned up in time as well. Re: wp:song... non-single/non-charting album tracks are non-notable. All will eventually be deleted. Getting Queen done was an excellent. But there is more deleting to be done. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen bootlegs

This is to inform any interested editors that the AfD mentioned above was found to be tainted by the participation of sockpuppets, see User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen bootlegs. As closing admin, I have no objection to a reevaluation of consensus with respect to this matter on this talk page.  Sandstein  19:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Which !voters were sockpuppets, what points did they raise, and how did they affect your judgement of consensus? I think the result was the best course of action, but if consensus doesn't agree with me then something might have to be changed. ThemFromSpace 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Progressive rock?

What songs by them are considered Progressive rock? -- Tim, 28 April, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"The March of the Black Queen", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Great King Rat", "My Fairy King", "In the Lap of the Gods", "In the Lap of the Gods... Revisited", "The Prophet's Song", "Innuendo", "Bijou", "Lily of the Valley", "White Queen", "Procession", "The Fairy Feller's Master-Stroke". In the seventies, they were considered to be a Hard Rock/ Progressive Rock/ Heavy Metal band. If you look at the writing credits, you can see that in the band, Freddie Mercury was the more experimental prog facet, while Brian May stuck more to the hard rock and heavy metal parts. However, both guys created music of various many genres.Krobertj (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget about "Somebody to Love." - Tim, 7 May, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Very true, I've always considered that song to be prog rock. But Wikipedia doesn't consider it to be, so that entry is subjective.Krobertj (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Power Ballads

While a power ballad isn't a real "genre," Queen had many power ballads when they were actually active, although I don’t think they were necessarily pioneers.

Does anyone else are with me? - Tim, 14 May, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really never sure what is considered a power ballad and what isn't. I always thought it applied to love songs that '80's metal bands wrote sometimes. But then I've seen it applied to bands far different from that, like The Beatles and Queen. Personally I hate the term. If it's a heavy metal ballad, then I just call it heavy metal. But that's just me. Krobertj (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What songs by them are considered power ballads? - ?, 25, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs re-adding that the band is active

Would the IP user who keep messing with the band status please stop. The band is no longer active as Queen. Brian May and Roger Taylor are still active as musicians. And both are announced as Queen members. Jimmy Page is still announced as a Led Zeppelin member and that band stopped in 1980. Queen ended a long time ago. Wether B (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen still exists.

I cannot understand why should we say that Queen broke up since there is no such an information... Can anybody give me a reliable source that says something like this? I don't think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As posted previously. No valid citation as been added to show that the band a reforming officially under the name Queen. Queen members are active... but they are not Queen... just members. If an official announcement comes up showing that there is going to be some sort of new product with a new singer and a new bassist... and that the name on it is Queen... then Queen is active. But band members performing on American Idol isn't Queen. It is just band members. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Married?

Was Mercury ever married? If so, then what children did he have, and who was his spouse? Please tell me ASAP. BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he was never married. He was very much in love with Mary, but it seemed he had a stronger sexual attraction to other men. Krobertj (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Album Genres

Why were all of the album's genres changed from a more specific despcription (ex. Hard rock, progressive rock, heavy metal) to simply rock? Krobertj (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific descriptions were unsourced pov. Rock is never wrong and therefore the best description for them all. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone attempted to change the albums away from the Queen project consensus by using allmusic as a source. According to previous discussions at the reliable source noticeboard this website is not to be used as a source for genres so the edits have been reverted to the parent rock genre as previously discussed and agreed on. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10