Talk:We Are the Champions

message: Added Single Infobox --Loki@ 17:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

message: This doesn't seem accurate. In the studio version, there is an overlap between the final two repetitions of the chorus i.e., "We are the champions, my friend..." kicks in over "we are the champions of the world", which would be impossible to reproduce live by a single singer. In every live version of the song I have, that is the only part Roger handles. That final "of the world..." so that Freddie can begin singing the final chorus on time. Nothing to do with the notes being too high. --201.242.208.64 15:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freddie "let Taylor sing the high parts"?

message: I am not sure if the quotes from the band are in any particular order now, but I think it would be easier to read and understand all of the comments if they were in chronological order, starting with the oldest... Any agreement? Billvoltage 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Queen Themselves?

message: Will the song "We Are the Champions" be played after the 2007 UEFA Champions League Final? --88.76.227.25 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UEFA Champions League 

message: So what if the remix was "ruined"? This is still an encyclopedia, so no opinions needed/wanted. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion removed 

message: Since Stephen Thomas Erlewine was no more than five years old when the song was released, why is his commentary a quarter of a century later considered relevant? What was the basis of his claim? -- Resuna (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Thomas Erlewine reference 

message: This is a bit weried,isn't it? redirected from We Are The Champions, which would appear to be the correct capitalisation. Dave 13/5/'07
:Please sign your name by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~ not by actually typing your name.  We'd like to see what else you've responded to, and when you really posted.  And in answer, no, it is not correct to capitalise articles or prepositions in a title. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Please, can we get rid of the crazy frog section? It is totally fine with me to give it its own page, but to see a good bit of the page dedicated to an annoying cover by an annoying commercial ring-tone company is something that would make Freddy spin in his grave!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.65.233.72 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: POV, but good point. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it here.  Do with it what you will.  Porbably deserves some mention in one of the cover sections, since someone went to so much trouble to assert notability. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that cover versions don't get their own article, pretty much ever. I don't know of an exception, so it would need to be a pretty phenomenal exception. I can't believe that the Crazy Frog version qualifies. Given that the material has no other place to go, what's the argument for deleting it beyond "I don't like it"?—Kww(talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crazy Frog version meets WP:NM as the song was charted in many countries, was certified, etc... Europe22 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that it shouldn't be covered. I'm saying that we organize articles by song, and place all cover versions within that article. It's a pretty strong tradition, and I don't know of exceptions. I took a   much stronger case than this to AFD on the basis that covers don't get independent articles, and that conclusion held.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill section on @#$king frog! 

message: A cover was also done by Robby Williams. It can be seen on youtube e.g. here Saemikneu (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Covers 

message: Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your opinions on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: I removed the following entry per WP:SONGCOVER but it was restored.
*2012: In Glee the New Directions sang it in the "Nationals" episode."Glee: The Music, The Graduation Album". Official Music for Glee. Columbia Records. Retrieved 18 May 2012
Should we keep it or delete it? I think that a discussion of a Glee episode in a Glee-focused publication does not make the cover version answer to SONGCOVER which says that the rendition is either "discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)" or it is notable by itself per WP:NSONGS. Certainly the Glee publication was not focusing on the subject of the song; it was focusing on the episode of the TV show. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Glee'' cover version 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on We Are the Champions. 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/20160602084720/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092 to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=35092
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/697lSTfwO?url=http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307200524/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=2006&type=7 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=2006&type=7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404180220/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2006 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2006
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) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I changed the genre from 'rock' which was unsourced, to 'arena rock', and provided a reference but somebody switched it back. I don't mean to start an argument but can somebody tell me why it was changed? UndoubtedlyMe (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is a summary of the information presented in the article. First you need to add a paragraph to the article defining the song's musical style as it relates to the genre, citing reliable sources that support the text, not just a passing reference or mention of the words "arena rock." Then summarize your contribution by adding it to the infobox. Remember, references are placed in the body of the article, not the infobox. Piriczki (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arena rock  

message: "The song is popular at sporting events, often being played after a major victory by the home team." So there must be many examples. Why, then, is the best we can come up with "For example, it was played at Highmark Stadium after the Buffalo Bills defeated the New England Patriots in the 2021 NFL playoffs.[25]"?
I don't mean to malign the Buffalo Bills, New York, or North American football. But given that the article is about a song by a British group, a worldwide song which was especially popular in France, surely there is an example related to European sports: UAFE or FIFA, or even Formula One.
I found the example as jarring as a silly frog which deserves no more than a paragraph. I apologize if I have offended anyone, whether music fans, sports fans, or frogs. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  better legacy example needed