Talk:The Cosmos Rocks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Queen, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.QueenWikipedia:WikiProject QueenTemplate:WikiProject QueenQueen articles

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Lack of consistency

The first line of the article says "Queen + Paul Rodgers album titled, "The Cosmos Rocks", but the article name implies that there is no title. Should we move the article back to "The Cosmos Rocks" or edit the first line? I think as per wikipedia rules the article can be titled the cosmos rocks as many internet sources (including the BBC) are saying that The Cosmos Rocks is, in fact, its title. [1] AceKingQueenJack (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The album title has yet to be announced. Cosmos Rocks is the name of the tour. Why is it being applied to the album? Aula ^TPN 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC) BBC Has said that that will be the name of the album, and yes it has been announced.http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7306006.stm AceKingQueenJack (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmos Rocks → Untitled 2008 Queen album — Queen's official website states the album is untitled.[2] —72.9.20.251 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It DOES appear to be the working title and the one most likely to be recognised by readers. And we would need to rename it AGAIN when the final name is published. So I'd be (mildly) against renaming at THIS point. Martin Packer (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cosmos Rocks

Is it confirmed that there will be a song by the name of "The Cosmos Rocks"? 85.243.128.112 (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually called "Cosmos Rockin'".Sposato (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed tracks

There's a bit of a discrepancy with the confirmed tracks. Only the following have been officially confirmed by anyone: "Say It's Not True", "C-lebrity", "We Believe", "Call Me", and "Whole House Rocking". Del Shannon's "Runaway" is the cover version that was going to be on the album, but isn't anymore.

"The Cosmos Rocks" is most likely part of "Whole House Rocking". I don't see anywhere on Brian's website where he hints at "46664 The Call" being on the new album, apart from a vague reply to a fan letter ("Well, this is certainly worth thinking about ...maybe you will start a landslide !"). To me, that doesn't say anything about the song being on the new album, except that he might think about it. He may also just be saying that to placate the fan -- who knows. But it's unconfirmed all the same. "Warboys (A Prayer For Peace)" and "Take Love" have also been hinted at being on the new album, mostly by Paul, but they are still unconfirmed. One of the more recent interviews with Paul said that "Take Love" hadn't been recorded yet, and that "Warboys" was offered to Q+PR but wasn't recorded yet either. And I have no idea where "Hopefully" came from.

I'm not saying that these songs won't end up on the album, but until otherwise reported and confirmed, the aforementioned five tracks should be placed under an "Unconfirmed / Rumored / Wishful thinking" category so as not to confuse fans. Or, at the very least, someone should cite their sources and confirm them. 68.37.95.196 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

I think we're very light on citations for authorship. And in some cases authorship might be disputed. Cosmos Rockin' is a case in point - as I've not hear the "they all did it" :-) claim before. Martin Packer (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ... the only "confirmed" authorships are: 'Cosmos Rockin' (Roger; mentioned in a radio interview), 'Warboys' (Paul), 'Call Me' (Paul), 'We Believe' (Brian), 'Say It's Not True' (Roger), and 'C-lebrity' (Roger). Everything else is unconfirmed, and shouldn't be passed off as truth when there's nothing substantial to back it up. 71.224.53.203 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song Information & 17th Studio Album

I vote we get rid of the song information stuff until there's more information. There's just not enough to go by, in terms of who played what; it relies more on speculation and irrelevant opinion (for instance, under 'Some Things That Glitter': "This is a love song written by Paul Rodgers. It features him on piano, and is very similar to the Bad Company song Silver, Blue and Gold, also penned by Rodgers, from their album Run with the Pack." So what?).

Also, what's the point in having the "17th Studio Album" section? The band haven't even finished the tour yet and there's already speculation for a new album? What does that have anything to do with the album? Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to delete this. 71.224.53.203 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures

I've just fixed the broken sales figures table and while I was there I thought I'd double check the Silver/50,000 status for UK sales with the BPI [3] as there was no source cited. According to them, there is no data available for this album yet so I've removed the figure until it can be verified. Aula ^TPN 10:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

I'm sorry, I pressed enter before I finished typing my edit summary. It's still Queen + Paul Rogers Zazaban (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track Listing

Two things: First is the enormous blank space above it. I have no clue how to fix that, could somebody do it?

And second: The format is completely different from every other album track listing...not that it's that bad in itself, but it is not consistent, and provides less information than desired - something similar to this is normally seen for smaller albums, which this album isn't. Zayniac (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews/reception

Who keeps changing the reviews?

"Largely negative" is supposed to be "mixed."--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has received largely negative reviews, it is one of the worst reviewed albums of all time. Largely negative does not mean exclusively negative. Matt lobster (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it one of the worst reviewed albums of all time smacks of WP:OR and particularly WP:SYNTH to me. While I may or may not agree I think it's safest to leave it as "mixed" from a verifiability point of view. Aula ^TPN 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that calling it on of the worst reviews albums of all the time would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - mixed to me makes it sound like it's had average reviews. My argument was to say it had 'largely negative' reviews - a phrase that is used in numerous comparable WP entries. Matt lobster (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pains me to say that the negative/mixed war is starting again although this time from a couple of anon IP accounts rather than actual user accounts. While it's fair to say that the album received its fair share of strongly negative reviews it also received a roughly equal number of strongly positive reviews as well as a healthy batch of ambivolent ones. On average I really think you have to stick with mixed rather than largely negative because it's simply not true. I'm getting tired of reverting these edits so if it continues then I'll ask an admin to put a temporary protect on the page so that anon accounts can't edit it. Hopefully that will encourage the editors to come to the talk page and discuss the issue properly. Aula ^TPN 21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm more than happy to leave it at 'mixed' (It's not worth changing), your assertion that this album has had just as many positive reviews is rediculous or Original Research. Metacritic(which collates reviews) ranks it as one of the worst reviewed albums ever. Not mixed. One of the worst ever. 86.162.38.254 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's very generous of you, thank you. And thanks also for "rediculing" me. However if you actually bother to read metacritic [4] it quite clearly gives it a critics' score of 42 which equates to Mixed or average reviews. And it gets better as the user score is 6.8 out of 10!Perhaps you could check your facts before insulting people in the future? Aula ^TPN 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MetaCriticCosmosRocksReview.JPG

I'll get my coat. 86.129.215.18 (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]