Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 1

message: # Inline citations shouldn't be bulked together
# Explain terms "arena rock", "hard rock", "glam rock", "heavy metal" and "progressive rock"
# Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive"
# Do not use terms such as " later in the article", either use "see below" or link
# Explain the term, "commercial music video", explain that it means "music videos"
# Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction
## Prose band members and "As instrumentalists" into paragraphs
## Replace terms such as "(e.g. "Sheer Heart Attack")", via prosing using words like "such as" or "including"
## Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs
## When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing
## Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual".
## Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there".
## This is a very poorly written section " he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part.[11]"
### The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s)
### Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead.
### Don't use words such as " kicked off".
(I'm not attempting to dig through this paragraph, I guess you can get the idea).
#### Prose these findings or ad in a Wikitable.
#### Don't stockpile inline links.
Further Points
# Convert chart numbers into a wikitable 
# Remove "fansite links", example "one of the biggest Queen sites "
This article still has a long while to go, but keep working! --Highway 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended changes 

message: I started this article and I would like to share my plans and ask for your comments. I am a Queen fan, but I believe I can be objective.
- I think that since this is a general encyclopedia, the only song that should have a separate entry is Bohemian Rhapsody. So, if nobody objects, I shall remove links to any other individual song entry in a few days' time.
- Separate entries for all four members are coming soon.
- I will write a short history of the group (a few lines), but I need some time. After all it must be my own work!
- I propose the following Queen related separate entries in Wiki:
*Freddie Mercury
*Brian May
*Roger Taylor
*John Deacon
*The Cross
*Bohemian Rhapsody (I'm happy to see that people are adding things to it.)
*Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert
*Népstadion (where the Hungarian concert took place)
*Highlander (exists, but needs improvement)
*Flash Gordon
Please comment if you think that any of them is redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaganyik (talk • contribs) 07:26, 27 February 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comment

message: I just wrote: The Wembley concert, part of a UK tour in 1986, attracted 150,000 people over 2 nights. A memorable and prophetic moment occured when Freddie Mercury told the audience: "There are a lot of rumors lately about a certain band called Queen... that we are gonne split up. What do you think?" Audience: "No!". Freddie: "Forget those rumors, were gonne stay together till we fucking will die, I'm sure!".
It could be mentioned that the number following this was "Who wants to live forever" (but I didn't, because I think it's a little bit overdone).
Pascal 05:36, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophetic Queen speech 

message: User:68.100.46.45 has twice changed the content of the "Members" section from calling members of the band "creative equals" to giving Freddie Mercury all the credit. While Mr Mercury may have been an excellent songwriter, I must take issue with the assertion that he was the driving force of the group, as this user has asserted both times. The first time I reverted the edit because two grevious spelling errors coupled with the removal of relevant information made it look rather like hasty vandalism, but instead of reverting the second edit I'm just going to reword it to make it agree with the general consensus about the band's songwriting, and re-insert the sentence or two that the user removed unnecessarily. FYI. Rdsmith4 | Talk 04:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songwriting 

message: I remember that Queen was rather slow in getting mass audiences.  Much of their early work did not get much air play (in U.S.). They did develop a very loyal following in the early and mid 70's. Their sound was unique, classical vocal harmonization with heavy electric guitar work. It may have been that people during this time were somewhat homophobic and didn't wan't to readily associate with a band called 'Queen'. With Bohemian Rhapsody, people just couldn't dismiss them any longer.  'Killer Queen' is still my favorite. --69.5.156.155 06:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  70's? 

message: The Beatles made music videos in the 1960s for hit's such as "Paperback Writer", "Rain" and "Hello, Goodbye", long before Queen even made a record, let alone a video!
:...and Bob Dylan made one before The Beatles did,  but that's not the point. The issue here is that Queen were the first to make a music video intended to actually promote a newly released single rather than add something extra to a song released some time earlier 62.238.92.181 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bo Rhap, not "first true music video" 

message: Someone just changed the article to say Jim Beach arranged the last concert at Knebworth Park, whereas the text originally said it was Roy Thomas Baker. Both the original text and the edit were by (different) anonymous users. I can't find any information about this one way or the other. Could someone who has the appropriate books check whether the edit by 24.88.44.169 or the one by 62.6.136.109 is correct? Thanks.
--fvw 15:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
I made the change to Jim Beach before quite knowing the rules here, sorry. I'm not entirely sure of the facts as to who arranged the Knebworth gig, but I do know for certain that Roy Thomas Baker was their producer until 1975, never their manager and by 1986 they were produced by themselves & Mack, so if anybody would have arrange an extra gig it would've been their managment (Jim Beach) not Roy Thomas Baker.
User:MAGCOT 2004 Oct 27
It was Gerry Stickells, Tour Production Manager, who got them the gig at Knebworth.
--Magcot 12:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who got them to Knebworth Park? 

message: I think the subtitling of the Decades worked, but it seems to be missing large chunks of important info, like albums following Day of the Races in the 70's, which spawned 'We will rock you' & 'We are the champions' etc 
Their touring history also seems a bit thin and the strange claim that they only made money on the 1986 tour...these chaps were multi-millionaires by the mid 70's and toured places that had never seen western groups before (1st Band behind the Iron curtain, 1st Band in Argentina before & after the Falklands conflict)
Obviously it depends on how detailed it should be, I'm currently reading their own Biography, I'll get more facts and add them on for discussion.
--Magcot 10:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full History? 

message: It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out.
:Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. — Dan | Talk 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen-bashing 

message: It was the first Queen album to use synthesizers, which the band had previously resisted fiercely.
Can anyone provide any evidence that the "resisted fiercely" bit is true? According to a 1995 interview with Roy Thomas Baker and Gary Langan, it is not:
:"There was no stipulation that we wouldn't have any synths, but the statement 'No synths' was printed on the album sleeves because of people's lack of intellect in the ears department. Many people couldn't hear the difference between a multitracked guitar and a synthesizer. We would spend four days multi-layering a guitar solo and then some imbecile from the record company would come in and say, 'I like that synth!'"
I'd like to tone down or remove the phrase if there are no counterexamples. — mjb 03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot point.  From the inner sleeve liner notes to "The Game": "This album includes the first appearance of a Synthesizer (an Oberheim OBX) on a Queen album".  Since I was already correcting the factual error, I took the opportunity to remove the unsupported phrase.  If anyone finds documentation to warrant it, I have no objection to someone re-adding the language.  Until I read the interview excerpt you provided, I myself always thought the band had an artistic objection to synths in their early days.  Skyraider 23:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No synths? 

message: To say that Dragon attack has "no musicians of note" is extremely biased -- not to say insulting. Just because someone doesn't know the musicians that play on the Album, it doesn't mean the musicians are "of note". As a matter of Fact, Dream Theater, Yngwie Malmsteen, Glenn Hughes, Rudy Sarzo, Marty Friedman (to name a few) are not only very talented musicians, but also appreciated by Brian May himself.
Hi!
But I think 'of note' means here, that the musicians are not so famous like others.
Anna Makievski 12:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Attack Tribute 

message: if F.M. wasn't dead we would still be rockin' to queen. I am a long person. He died a year before i was born, so i could witness anything queen.
Hi!
And I was born a year before he died. And?? Aren't you supporting Queen because of that? I think Queen's music is immortal. It's a real pity, Freddie Mercury's deaath, but you can still 'rockin' to Queen. I do as a real fan.
Anna Makievski 18:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If... 

message: I am beginning the massive re-wikification of this page. In recent months, this page has been bogged down by POV and choppy sentences, as well as unneccessary passages and info stated two or even three times. If anyone would like to help or revise my revisions, your help is welcomed, but please do not revert this page to the mess it once was. Thank you.
CinnamonCinder 00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just replaced a section that was removed, perhaps for reasons CinnamonCinder stated, but I NPOVed it and removed some unneeded pieces.  I felt the section is at least temorarily useful the valuable information that it included.  —siroχo 10:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something fishy is up with the main image at the top.. Freddie's name is replaced with Brian Waller (???)--Drowse 04:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Re-Wikification and Cleaning Up 

message: ...really needs to be mentioned if this article is to be considered worthy of an encyclopaedia.
:Would you care to tell us what Sun City is? I've never heard of it before… Jon Harald Søby \ no na 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's in South Africa.. Queen performed there with all the apartheid problems going on in the 80s.. and were shunned from most major music organizations after that. --Drowse 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, that. I'd heard of the event, but not the name of Sun City. And yes, if the article doesn't mention it now, it definately should. Jon Harald Søby 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there now -- I noticed that too, and I did my research. Although it pretty much only lost them about a year, until they brought the house down at Live Aid from Wembley.   PitShig | @   01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun City

message: Over several months I have seen the infobox slowly oscillate back and forth between the viewpoint that the band broke up in 1992, and the viewpoint that it's still together. I don't know which is "better", but we should really pick one and stick to it. Stevage 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as they went on a world tour, though with a different singer, I'd say that they're still together.SoothingR 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is Freddie Mercury listed as a band member? It has to be consistent. Either he should be listed as an ex-member, and whatever stand in singer is being used should be listed, or it should represent the Queen that ended when he died. It's having a bob each way at the moment. Stevage 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So is Freddy a member or an ex-member? Perhaps there are only three members: May, Taylor and Deacon, and several ex-members: Mercury, and the various bass players before Deacon. Stevage 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An ex-member is a member who quit the band. Freddie never quit the band. Jon Harald Søby 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well regardless, he's not able to perform with Queen anymore..SoothingR 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every site to which I have been, including the official queen fan club (http://queenworld.com/), has them listed as: Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor, John Deacon... Freddie may not be able to play, but to take him off the list of band members would be a disgrace and a dishonour to his name. It was he, afterall, who mainly sang lead vocals. He was the charisma of the group, and he deserves to stay...Billvoltage 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred is a member in spirit. ;) --CJ Marsicano 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So I think the general consensus is to keep him listed as a member? Billvoltage 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercury and Deacon should of course be listed as members. -- Candyfloss 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency about break-up of group

message: I am not clear why Smile redirects to Queen's page here.. They are two seperate bands.. Smile only featuring Brian and Roger with Tim Staffell. They broke up following his departure and then Freddie, Brian and Roger started a project called Queen..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drowse (talk • contribs) .
:Note that Smile (band) is a disambig page, not a redirectpage. And in regard to your comment; probably because there wasn't enough to write about for the time being. If you can turn Smile (United Kingdom band) into a decent stub, I say go for it.SoothingR 09:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap you guys are fast, I created the Smile (Queen) page and 2 minutes later there was a merge request on it! I think there's a lot that could be said about Smile which would be too specific for this article. Have a look at . The article may be short at the moment but it could be expanded a lot. And the 18 months before Smile became Queen are really not Queen at all - it only had May and Taylor. Stevage 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smile..? 

message: What genre are they? Glam rock, Arena rock, Hard Rock, or Glam metal! Make up your mind already!
* They're all those genres...keep in mind, Queen recorded in many different styles, including hard rock, heavy metal, disco, funk, blues, progressive rock, and ragtime. TheImpossibleMan 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What genre are they? 

message: This text was deleted from the 1982-1983 section.:
:In hindsight, it seems that most of the negative reaction has proven to be slightly exaggerated as the album still contained many traditional Queen songs such as the heavy Brian May-esque rock of "Put Out The Fire", the poppy "Calling All Girls" and the gorgeous Latin ballad "Las Palabras de Amor (The Words Of Love)" (which was a UK Top 20 single). Furthermore, the album included "Under Pressure,". Die-hard fans were reassured during live concerts in 1982, and the band demonstrated that they had not lost their hard rock edge, and even the songs from "Hot Space," had a heavier, rock-feel when performed live. A live highlight of these years was their concert at the Milton Keynes Bowl, which was filmed and subsequently released on DVD.
Perhaps someone can "de-povify" it and put it back in. Stevage 13:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted "POV" section

message: :In 2006, a short movie titled "Journey of the Dead" was released on various websites, including ifilm.com and youtube.com. The movie is about Steve Perry (former lead singer of the rock band Journey) saving a couple from an attack by rock star drummer zombies, and then fighting Freddie Mercury in order to save the world from a plot to unleash hell on earth. Freddie is depicted as a Dr. Doom style villain in the the B-movie/classic rock tribute/comedy, and became popular among Journey fans and classic rock fans as well. It can be seen here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XnFwBhaAcWo
Does anyone else think that that paragraph should be deleted? It strikes me as the kind of thing that the creator stuck on here just to self-promote. It doesn't really add much to the article and appears to me to be completely irrelavent. Yea or nay for it to be removed?
* I've deleted the above paragraph.
I want to add a reference (This website) but I'm not really sure how to do that properly. Someone help? TheImpossibleMan 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Queen in Film" paragraph

message: This article should really use the Wikipedia:Footnotes footnotes instead of plain external links. The external links method is really annoying, disturbing the text. Jon Harald Søby 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll do it as soon as I have time for it. Jon Harald Søby 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jon Harald Søby 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I'm considering simply deleting this whole section. It seems very juvenile and doesn't really add much to the article. I've tried to wrangle keeping certain parts - I do like the idea of including the Brian May quote about how Freddie would write on the guitar - but much of it seems unnecessary and pointless. Thoughts? TheImpossibleMan 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about who is able to play what instrument is interesting, and should be in the #Members section; but all the details in the section aren't necessary, in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby 07:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never seen anyone argue before for moving information *to* a trivia section :) IMHO, information about what each member played *is* interesting - I had no idea Freddie could play piano, or that May was so well-rounded, for instance. Stevage 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Queen as Instrumentalists" 

message: Since the person doing the peer review recommended removing the bolded years from the history, they were removed. However, I don't realy understand the rationale for turning the history into a massive chunk of prose. Generally on Wikipedia, lengthy sections of text without subheadings are discouraged.  That's why I originally addeded the subheadings, breaking 1970s up into 1971, 1972 and so on. It's just out of control otherwise. So, I'm rather inclined to add them back again. Anyone have any objections, thoughts, etc? Fwiw, I'm proposing putting them back to this style:
===1970s===
====1971====
Queen brought out another album in April...
Rather than:
===1970s===
1971 - Queen brought out another album in April...
Stevage 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agree with you there. I really wish there was a way to use heading styles without them blowing out the table of contents. Any objections to me re-instating this second style? Stevage 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History year subheadings

message: 1971 - Queen brought out another album in April...
Stevage 21:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agree with you there. I really wish there was a way to use heading styles without them blowing out the table of contents. Any objections to me re-instating this second style? Stevage 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1970s

message: This evaluation was done on this version of Queen (band) at 2 PM PST on 29 March 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.
Criteria:
;Well-written
:This is the criterion I tend to be harshest on, so try not to be offended. Diction is nowhere near the level expected of a featured article. The multitude of contractions and unnecessary parenthetical asides does not help readibility, and can be distracting. The article has a distinct voice with a penchant for mild hyperbole and a lack of logical continuity in creating precise truths. Grammatical errors and Manual of Style errors are sparse, but not completely removed. At risk of repeating myself, the writing style demonstrated in this article is not worthy of featured article status, and not of good article status either. Songs should be wrapped in quotes, and there are misused participles, ugly contractions, bothersome parentheses, and plenty of other writing gaffes.
;Factually accurate
:Overall, nicely done. There are a few slightly outlandish facts, such as Brian May's paragraph of Section 1.1, that could be verified, but otherwise the article looks pretty solid. You should definitely find all of the weasel words, per WP:V, and consider rewriting all occurrences of said weasel words.
;Broad
:While focused as an article should be upon the band, its members, and its music, Sections 4-8 cover a very broad and comphrehensive slice of popular culture, examining the presence and influence of Queen in other disciplines. Well done.
;Neutrally written
:Amazing. This is typically the hardest criterion for an article to qualify on, and this article excels at being neutral. Sections 2.4-2.5 are very neutral and honest for the subject matter. Deaths of notable people tend to be steeped in slant, but this article somehow rises above.
;Stable
:Comparing the previous 15 edits on the page rounded up to avoid vandalism, it appears that all changes on this page are slow and steady improvement and growth. In those 15 edits, the most major change was the addition of an interwiki link to another version of this article in another language. This article is decently stable.
;Well-referenced
:References appear solid. Most of them are from news websites or musician interviews. References to chart positions and song popularity are from organizations in good standing with the music industry (Rhapsody, VH1). The citation from Reference #9 was informative and pleasing to read, and was a good choice for inclusion. Reference #20, to sing365, is probably the weakest reference on the page.
;Images
:One of the images on the page, :Image:Queen3.jpg, does not have a good fair use rationale. All other images are used under fair use. I would like to gently remind this article's contributors that album covers are usually not considered fair use anywhere besides the articles covering those albums. While technically all images are tagged, :Image:Queen3.jpg might as well be not tagged if it has no rationale for why we as a community are allowed to borrow it without permission.
Summary:
* Well-written: Fail
* Factually accurate: Pass
* Broad: Pass
* Neutrally written: Pass
* Stable: Pass
* Well-referenced: Pass
* Images: Fail
Better luck next time. - CorbinSimpson 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On images, none of the several freely available photos are used. Some of those could be used instead of fair use equivalents. (By the way, this was an excellently done review, Corbin!) Jon Harald Søby 10:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeepers, I think you're setting the bar *way* too high for a "good article". It's not a FA yet, sure, but "good articles" are simply meant to pick out some of the better articles of our collection, not to set the standard for all other articles. I really like your review, I just disagree with the "fail" for not being well enough written. :) Stevage 13:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Evaluation of Queen (band)