Talk:The Game (Queen album)

message: Save me is absent in the singles' list. It should be added, this is not a list about the US only.VincentG 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save Me 

message: Could we get this song as a seperate page and put a stub on it?
There are more things that could be added on to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bansidh (talk • contribs) 17:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:I think only singles should get seperate pages (apart from "'39" and "Stone Cold Crazy"). --Candyfloss 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Attack 

message: The article needs sources and per Wikipedia's verifiability policy "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You tag that sort of content but you do not delete it without checking with the appropriate Project that covers these articles. I agree that the article is full of OR.. But it is OR that was merged from other articles by a Wikipedia Project so you must seek community/Project opinion on what to do next rather than using personal pov for progression. It is simple respect for the Wikipedia Project that covers this article. That's the Wikipedia way. Anger22  (Talk 2 22) 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you didnt read the policy: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed" emph added. The Queen Project does not get to over-ride policy. Please revert yourself until the analysis is properly sourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR|Original Research]] & Verifiablity 

message: The anonymous IP who keeps trying to return unsourced analysis to the article will continue to get reverted. All material in Wikipedia articles must come from published reliable sources. For descriptions of these policies, see: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, sufficient time has been given since this was first mentioned on the talk page for the users editing this page to find sources, so I removed it again.  Parts can be added but only with sources. --Snigbrook (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research not allowed 

message: You can swear at me all you want, but that does not constitute a reliable source and your disruptive edits will be reverted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "everyone" is you impersonating other editors. Such impersonation will get you blocked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can swear at me all you want 

message: The article has been protected wrong version :-). There is much unsourced material that is not supported by our policies regarding original research and unsourced analysis. I suggest that it be returned to a version that does not so blatantly conflict with our policies, such as  -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — Xy7 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No bitch, this page will stay at its current revision.--141.209.133.178 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I've changed the protection level to semi-protection for a one month period, since the only person who is contending that their edits are correct (despite what they say, as far as I can tell) is the IP, and those edits consist entirely of unsourced material. 141.209 (and anyone else watching), if the material you are wanting to keep is true as you say, then you should have no trouble finding sources for it. Do not continue adding unsourced material to any article when there are obviously other editors who disagree with those edits. As WP:V clearly says, any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a verifiable, reliable source. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit through protection 

message: The whole page seems "empty" without all the "unsourced" information.
I propose putting SOME of it back in (not ALL of it)
-We should revert the introduction back to the longer version
-We SHOULD NOT however add a headline to each song
-We should put some trivial facts in it
:We SHOULD include information that we can find published in reliable sources, we SHOULD NOT include information that has not been published in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the current article/proposal 

message: Watch out for imposters.--Thatcher (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: This is User:141.209.214.22, not User:Thatcher. E Wing (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation  

message: Are sites like "Songfacts" or similar sites considered reliable?
:Songfacts, according to the Wikipedia article, appears to be a Wiki/ community community forum with no editorial oversight / fact checking going on. So in and of itself, probably not. But those pages may refer and link to other places that would qualify. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songfacts 

message: Do we really need the George Starostin review ? I mean, there are plenty of other reviews by professional reviewers whose reviews are actually published by reputable magazines and websites. On top of that, his reviews were written with the benefit of hindsight, which makes them far less interesting, because they don't exemplify the critical response at the time the record was released. Just because his reviews are long-winded and often disagree with popular opinion doesn't make them any more interesting than those of the next person with a website. Also, his scoring system goes up to 15, so showing the score here as "8 stars out of 10" is misleading. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Do I need to say any more!? As soon as I saw that the genre had been changed to "pomp rock", I thought it was vandalism / someone trolling! I then found out it re-directed to "arena rock". I then realised that "pomp rock" is a negative term for "arena rock", therefore should urgently be removed from the infobox. It's literally a term meaning "pompous rock", which CANNOT be included in the infobox. 86.165.113.217 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I whole-heartedly agree. Seriously... pomp rock? Are people allowed to just add whatever peacock term a critic uses to an article nowadays? Furthermore, the redirect goes to arena rock which is not a musical genre. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Pomp rock" is cited in #Reception in case neither have noticed. The same source citing "pomp rock" is citing "pop". If you're suggesting we cherry-pick "rock" out of "pomp rock", then you'd be omitting a significant qualifier from the quote (WP:CHERRY-PICK). Find a source to support your change, or quit bellyaching. Dan56 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't care if it's cited. Citing something in a Wikipedia article does not necessarily validate something. Something to consider from your favorite guideline WP:GWAR: "A BIG RED FLAG should be raised whenever a GW adds a genre to an infobox which redirects elsewhere- a bit of a giveaway that either they haven't thought it out, or the 'genre' is insufficiently distinct to be worthy of a mention in its own right." Where's the critical discussion about this so-called "pomp rock" genre? What other artists fall under this genre? When did it emerge and what musical characteristics define it? What did this supposed genre evolve from? As for a source that calls the album just "rock", what about the Allmusic review? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 15:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course you "don't care if it's cited"--a reliable source is an "alien concept" to you. Did you read the review, or just notice the word "rock" scattered throughout? It says "most of the album is devoted to disco-rock blends", and "...a grand, state-of-the-art circa 1980 pop album that still stands as one of the band's most enjoyable records. But the very fact that it does showcase a band that's turned away from rock and toward pop..." Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text: So, this album is a made up rock subgenre, but it's not rock? Got it. It's funny to watch your thinking process in action. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  So "pomp rock" is a rock subgenre now? There's no reason for this tone, dude, especially since you didnt address my last point and still haven't cited a source. You cant cherry pick "rock" out of "disco rock" or "pomp rock" or whatever else you personally don't agree with. Dan56 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several high-quality sources refer to "pomp rock" as a genre, including Martin Popoff (p. 29). Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pomp rock" 

message: Which genres should be listed in this article's infobox? Content in the infobox is based on what is cited in the article; this aritcle's Reception section cites critics who call The Game a "pop album ... [that turned] away from rock and toward pop ... turning decidedly, decisively pop" and "disco rock blends" (Stephen Thomas Erlewine, AllMusic), and also "two slabs of Queen's usual symphonic and/or choral pomp-rock" (Steve Taylor, Smash Hits). Dan56 (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  , Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. And I demonstrated in my last comment at the above section that several high-quality sources verify it is a genre, including Martin Popoff. Does "pomp rock" sound any less formal than "neo soul", or "Jazz", which was named after a slang phrase. I dont see how it matters that genres sound formal or what relevance the language chosen to title these categorizations has. Another point, it would be straying from the source(s) (particularly from the one that's quoted as saying it "turned away from rock"). Dan56 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree that articles should be based on reliable sources, but this strikes as more of a formatting/style issue than anything else.  I think "pop, rock" accurately paraphrases and summarizes the reliable sources; I'm sure there are people who will insist on more specific categorization, but I am not one of them.  If we were talking about established sub-genres, such as progressive rock, I might be persuaded otherwise, but these are entirely too informal.  Like "cock rock" and "hair metal", I think "pomp rock" should be kept out of the genre field, though it is fine to quote in a reception section.  When categorizing media, there are also issues such as these.  When I create an article about a film, I'll often find contradictory sources that claim a film is obviously a zombie film and clearly not a zombie film, an American production or a Canadian-American production, or what-have-you.  There's no way to satisfy the demands of every single source ever written, and that's why we avoid writing in Wikipedia's voice ("the album turned away rock") and instead favor attributing the statements to their source ("according to [rock critic], it turned away from rock"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, "pomp rock" is synonymous with "arena rock", which pomp rock redirects to. Would "arena rock" be more appropriate to include in the infobox, ? Dan56 (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  I never said they weren't allowed. You're misconstruing what I said above; there is something in the article to support what's being discussed here about the infobox, so it is true in this case. Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  Erlewine said that "most of the album is devoted to disco-rock blends", so why do you suggest this genre be ignored? Would "Pop, disco rock" be more appropriate in light of what this source says? Dan56 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy! Because Erlewine was talking about "most" of the album, not all of it. When he talks about all of it he says "pop" emphatically. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why "most of" wouldnt warrant including it in the infobox. If the majority of the album is disco-rock, according to Erlewine, it wouldn't seem like undue weight to at least have it listed second to "pop", if that's Erlewine's primary categorization of the album. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of division and analysis of parts of the album, even major parts of the album, should be relegated to the article body, not the infobox. If there's an argument here for something besides "pop" then it's for nothing at all in the infobox genre parameter. The majority of reviewers assign no genre to the album as a whole. So my first vote is "pop" alone, my second and lesser preference is for nothing. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not really part of the album, like "some but not all of something". It's, according to Erlewine, most of the album, or nearly all of it. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Genres listed in this article's infobox

message: Think that genres listed in the infobox are not correct. It says "pop, disco rock". But why?
In the reality:
"Play The Game" - rock ballad;
"Dragon Attack" - hard rock with funk;
"Another One Bites The Dust" - rock with funk and disco;
"Need Your Loving Tonight" - upbeat rock with 60's influence;
"Crazy Little Thing Called Love" - rockabilly rock;
"Rock It (Prime Jive)" - definitely rock;
"Don't Try Suicide" - soul rock;
"Sail Away Sweet Sister" - rock ballad;
"Coming Soon" - definitely rock;
"Save Me" - rock ballad.
So, only in one song there are elements of disco, and there is no pop in this album at all (for example, Freddie Mercury's "Mr. Bad Guy" solo album is mostly pop, but Queen "The Game" is a rock album by any definition).
So, to my opinion, it would be right to characterize this album as "Rock, disco rock, funk", something like that.
--37.145.241.120 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: However, would need reliable source for that. 115.164.188.170 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already decided in the above discussion. In any case, the genres of an album are not automatically assembled from the genres of the contained songs. Instead, the album should be observed to have its own overall genre, published in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres again 

message: "features another sound than its predecessor" is barely English. It certainly isn't good English. A radically different sound to its predecessor, maybe. --Elmeter (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  features another sound than its predecessor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Game (Queen album). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111074744/http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html to http://chartheaven.9.forumer.com/a/complete-uk-yearend-album-charts_post21.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified