Jump to content

Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

The Cosmos Rocks in discography section

Should The Cosmos Rocks be included in the main discography section? I think it should, as it was a major release in Queen's history, their first studio album in 13 years. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But wasn't it only two members? And if we use, for example, P!nk's article, her album on You+Me is not on there. Or Justin Timberlake who released nothing major from 2006-2013. His 2010 compilation album 12" Masters – The Essential Mixes wasn't included. Or Drake Bell, who released nothing major from 2006-2014. His 2011 EP A Reminder or his 2008 video album Drake Bell in Concert wasn't included either. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Those examples don't really hold up. EPs are almost never included in main discographies, and compilations and videos never are. The Cosmos Rocks is a full studio album. Rose ave. (which is the name actual name of the album, You+Me is the artist) does hit closer to the mark. However, I would draw the line at the fact that it is not P!nk + whoever, but it is released under a completely different name. The Cosmos Rocks is clearly Queen. A situation that is actually like this is The Velvet Underground & Nico, which is included on the Velvet Underground's mamin article. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, why does the collab with Queen have it's own article anyway? Lady Gaga's discography includes Cheek to Cheek (with Tony Bennett), but they don't have their own article. Don't see why Queen does for their collab. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The same reason Macklemore & Ryan Lewis does; they're both long-term collaborations with multiple major releases. Q+PR had a studio album, two tours, three live albums, and a number of singles. Its notability separate to Queen is well established. Besides, this isn't the place to discuss this. If you want to discuss the Q+PR article's status, do so on its talk page. We're discussing the inclusion of an album in this article's discography section. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, then seeing as on Macklemore's, it says The Heist (With Ryan Lewis), I guess it can be the same way on here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm not being very objective here, but while The Velvet Underground & Nico is clearly the Velvet Underground plus a guest singer, The Cosmos Rocks is clearly NOT Queen as we know it. No band without Mercury can be called simply Queen. They're Queen+Paul Rogers, as they labelled themselves, and that's not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
But yet Macklemore & Ryan Lewis counts? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. It's not exactly the same case, as Macklemore is a person, not a band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that it was agreed some while ago that if Queen had wanted the album to be regarded as a Queen album, they would have called it an album by Queen, and Paul Rogers would have either been a temporary member of Queen, or just a credited session vocalist. But they specifically made it an album by "Queen + Paul Rogers". So while it certainly merits a mention in the article, it is not part of the Queen discography. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a "see also" could be made in the discography section, linking to Queen + Paul Rodgersthen putting the album under that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add this thought to the fray. The band isn't Queen without Deacon either, yet Taylor and May identify themselves as Queen. In my mind, the more important factor is how the musicians choose to identify themselves, not what we, the fans/observers/editors/etc., think of that identity. I also see the validity of "Queen+Paul Podgers" being considered a unique group. The comparison to VU+Nico seems valid. On a separate note, I would also add that this article is quite well done. Kudos to the editors involved!THX1136 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Article needs updating

correction of tense for 2014 material from future to now in the past - and no mention of activity in 2015. 68.231.25.212 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Queen (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Original line up"

@Escape Orbit: - the original line-up on June 27, 1970 was Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor and Mike Grose - source. Or maybe it was 18 July 1970? source. In any case, it lists the same line-up. Therefore saying John Deacon was in this-line up is factually incorrect. Please revert and do not put factual errors in high-traffic articles. I had a similar argument towards The Who some time ago, which were performing under that name some months before Keith Moon joined, but due to the vast difference in the two bands' relationship with the press, sources for them are more forthcoming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The line up prior to Deacon is not of significant importance to be worrying the lead with it. It was for less than a year, the band release no records, were unsigned and played a few gigs. Complicating the lead paragraph for it is needlessly confusing and detracts from the essential brevity and focus required in a lead. And describing the line-up with Deacon as "more commercially and critically successful" is an extreme under-statement. Essentially what the lead is really trying to do here is cover the far more significant difference between Queen with Mercury, and post-Mercury (and to a lesser extent post-Deacon). So, perhaps an agreeable compromise would be to use the wording already in the section below; "classic line-up"? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, obviously just a Deacon fan, the founding lineup "is not of significant importance to be worrying the lead with it" Ritchie333 and the references they provide are correct. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Only an idiot or a troll would not say the only personnel in the lead should be those who played on all the studio albums, and if anyone can play the bass intro to the The Millionaire Waltz as well as Deacon I'll eat my hat.... anyway, "classic line-up" sounds good to me, as what The Who's article uses and it's a similar problem - as is just about every band ever (quick wave to Pete Best, Dick Taylor, Doug Sandom, John Mayhew, John Start etc etc). The problem about the "best known" line-up is more to compare with all the "Queen + Harry Lambert" stuff that's appeared since then. While I'm here, I don't really think Grose is notable, so I'll redirect his article here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"Queen + Harry Lambert" LOL Brilliant! Rodericksilly (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

Damselflies species was described to each member of the band, a tribute heading was included in the pages of Dr. Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon, including the etymology of the name, I wish include also in the band page. The paper can be found at http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2013/f/z03685p080f.pdf.

Odonata 1970 (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I know what this user wants done. The paper mentioned quotes: "Heteragrion is the most speciose and complex genus of neotropical Megapodagrionidae, with 47 species and onesubspecies, and many of them are poorly defined. To improve the knowledge of the Brazilian species of the genus, 179 specimens of 13 of the 17 described species were examined. Four new species are described in tribute to the 40th anniversary of the rock band Queen" and the names are listed: Heteragrion rogertaylori Heteragrion freddiemercuri Heteragrion brianmayi Heteragrion johndeaconi They think that needs to be referenced in the article. --67.8.227.76 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Queen (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

clarification on "six-night stand"

"After the band's six-night stand at New York's Uris Theatre in May 1974..." What does that mean? They were there for six days? They performed for six days? I think I'd collapse too, if that was the case, but this is not good writing. I'd like to know what I could replace this with. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A six-night stand would typically be multiple performances over six nights at the same venue. I agree it could be written better. Piriczki (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queen (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing/Plagiarism

Though it may not have been intentional, the first sentence very similarly resembles in structure and word choice the wording of the sixth cited source on famouslogos.net It would benefit the article to rephrase as best as possible to avoid going against Wikipedia's Plagiarism guidelines Cmsaunders0906 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Wording

When speaking about the computer game Queen: The eYe, when saying the "game experience was hampered by poor gameplay" It is important to assert whose opinion this is in attempts to remain neutral. This statement comes off as the authors opinion of the game as having poor game play.

Cmsaunders0906 (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Queen (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

John Deacon sang backing vocals on live performances Supreme0123 (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo?

Seeing as how the Queen logo is very much a part of their brand, and an entire mini-paragraph is in the article explaining how Mercury created it, wouldn't it make sense to have a picture of the logo somewhere in the page? 82.203.24.1 (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Queen (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

To change "British" to "English" on the very first lines of the article and to add periods to the descriptions of the images shown in the article. 97.87.240.178 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury was not English. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

British rock should be changed to English rock as well as adding periods at the end of sentences in image descriptions. Dean12065 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

To correct the errors i found 2001:569:74C0:5B00:69F7:D47D:96A4:6042 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK Discuss 01:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Other guest vocalists

   David Bowie (1981, 1992)
   Axl Rose (1992)
   Annie Lennox (1992)
   Lisa Stansfield (1992–1993)
   George Michael (1992–1993)
   Elton John (1992, 1997)
   Zucchero (1992, 1998)
   Robbie Williams (2001)
   Kris Allen (2009)
   Jessie J (2012)
   Nate Ruess (2013)
   Lady Gaga (2014) [392]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtp656 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2018

Change {{Genre>Hard Rock|[Arena Rock|Arena Rock]]|[Pop Rock|Pop Rock]]|Progressive Rock}} Taylor1260789 (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. First off, a band's genre is taken from sources describing the musical genre of the band, and you have not provided any sources. A band's genre does not automatically derive from a combination of song genres or album genres; if a small number of songs might be called prog rock, that does not mean the band is prog rock. Sources don't exist describing the band as prog rock, and only some Queen songs are arena rock. Your hard rock genre suggestion ignores the many Queen songs that are not so hard. Second, the current "rock" genre is wide enough to encompass all of your suggested genres. In any case, the complexity of the band's genres is best described in prose in the article body. The infobox should be generic. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock?

"The genres they have been associated with include progressive rock, symphonic rock, art rock, glam rock, hard rock, heavy metal, pop rock, and psychedelic rock."

First of all, should arena rock not be added there as well? There are plenty of sources that state Queen was an arena rock band, including the Allmusic reference used multiple times in that same paragraph. Second of all, can they really be considered a psychedelic rock band? They do have several psychedelic rock songs (Get Down Make Love, etc) but that doesn't make them a psychedelic band. They have an entire disco album but they aren't considered a disco band.

I'm adding arena rock there, but I'll wait for consensus on the psychedelic rock issue. UndoubtedlyMe (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

Suggest adding Tim Staffell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Staffell) to 'Associated Acts'. Tim is already referred to multiple times in the '1968–1974: Early days' History section of the article. Justiceforcedave (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense, since Queen is listed as an associated act at Tim Staffell. RudolfRed (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Queen's album/record sales

According to the BBC, Queen have sold 300 million records.[1] Need I say more? --Bobtinin (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-21669973

can someone make queen 1 tour page

I am tired of the tours section being incomplete so could someone make queen 1 tour page — Preceding liam n roses comment added by Liam n roses (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liam n roses: You can request an article be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Too many references

Hello, there are too many references in the article. The sources are enough I think, no need to put a reference to almost all sentences... Kapeter77 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We tend to provide sources for every sentence as this helps to ensure text-source integrity. --Izno (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
A fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Whole point of Wikipedia is to find researchable material.--Moxy (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Point of Wikipedia is to inform people on the basis of sources. Just count how many refs are in one single paragraph...Kapeter77 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information for research and educational purposes.--Moxy (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
'introduce readers to a topic' yes, you are right and not listing references...Kapeter77 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 19 November 2018

Suggest editing a sentence in the second paragraph of the section titled "1985–1988: Live Aid and later years". The sentence currently reads "The show's organisers, Bob Geldof and Midge Ure, other musicians such as Elton John, Cliff Richard and Dave Grohl, and music journalists writing for the BBC, CNN, Rolling Stone, MTV, The Telegraph among others, stated that Queen stole the show." This sentence is hard to follow because of all the commas; readers have a difficult time discerning which of these people are the organizers and why the non-organizers are being mentioned. I suggest replacing some of the commas with semicolons as follows regular English grammar rules, or rewording the sentence entirely. Edelweiss888 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Edelweiss888

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-rock genres

I notice there has been some discussion of rock genres in the archives. What about their non-rock material? Queen seem to have strayed into quite a few others especially on the Hot Space album. I'm not sure "Another One Bites the Dust" is rock music, "Somebody to Love" is halfway into Gospel and "Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy" barely qualifies either (I'm not sure what genre it qualifies as but their early albums contain a lot of it)

The article seems to describe them as a rock band but their range of material is pretty diverse. -2A01:4C8:1409:861C:1:2:3DA9:7359 (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed they have, but listing dozens of genres in the info box is not helping the reader get a brief overview of what they are mostly. Rock has always seemed the best over-arching description. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over correct wording (and source)

Rodericksilly seeks to insert a comment from Edddie Trunk that Queen was “not as fully recognised in the United States” because elsewhere they “often played to much bigger crowds in stadium venues”. This is the source. In it Trunk states, “in the mid to late 70s, Queen had strong US arena tours, but overseas they often played to much bigger crowds in stadium venues”. Queen didn’t play any stadiums until the 1980s. Their arena dates in the US were as big (if not bigger) than elsewhere in the 1970s. Earls Court, Hammersmith Apollo (both London), their US dates more than matched them: they played three sold out dates at Madison Square Garden in 1980. What I am seeking to specify is that it’s the 1980s where Queen played to bigger stadium venues. By leaving out the period when their crowds were bigger is a clear omission; it doesn’t tell the reader when this occurred. Beauden Crotty (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I searched for - and added - the Rolling Stone source which mentions that they continued playing major arenas and stadiums after they'd finished with the US. That's precisely what Trunk is getting at. Queen disappeared off the map in the US during the 1980s but remained very popular elsewhere, which is why he considers (correctly) that Queen are "not as fully recognized" in the US, and he says that as a US hard rock and metal fan, so he should know. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
you are deflecting the point. This issue is the time period. It’s specificlly the 1980s when Queen played much bigger stadium venues; their US dates in the 1970s were every bit as big as elsewhere. I’m seeking to clarify that it’s the 1980s when the difference occurs. Any reader looking at that sentence would not know what period is being referred to. Beauden Crotty (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The time period is the issue that you are obsessing about, but Trunk is making a more general point that they played bigger crowds in other countries. They played HUGE shows in South America in the '80s, they did a stadium tour of Europe in 1986, while they didn't even consider it worth going to play the US anymore. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
you are obsessing about not specifying the time period. When exactly did they play to bigger stadium venues? That it’s the 1980s seems a relevant point, and denotes the period in which the difference occurs. Beauden Crotty (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the time period is especially relevant, and certainly shouldn't be added to sources that don't mention it. The point is that Queen's mass popularity in the US did not last as long as other territories, which is why he thinks they are "not as fully recognized". Trunk acknowledges in his book that Queen had strong arena tours in the US for a while, but makes the point that they "often played to much bigger crowds in stadium venues" elsewhere. It's because they maintained a much bigger following elsewhere that he feels they are "not as fully recognized" in the US, and I say again, he speaks as an American who specialized in hard rock and metal, so he should know. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Biographies

This is just a suggestion. I think that there should be a section with short little biographies for each of the 4 original band members that has links to the persons actual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.39.214.65 (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_(band)/Archive_10&oldid=1142325435"