Talk:Status Quo (band)

message: "Legendary"? I always thought they were real... Surely "Renowned", "Veteran", "Long-established" would be preferable here?
My correction of the Album section of the article has been removed. Status Quo's First Album is called Picturesque Matchstickable Messages From The Status Quo. Pictures of Matchstick men was only the name of the single.
"Legendary" is a general term now, and can certainly apply to the living. Don't be so pedantic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Legendary"?

message: i think the Latin term is better know and thus should be the page you are directed to when "status Quo" is searched  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.228.120 (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. BoogieRock (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, but I don't know how to make a formal request for this. airstrike (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: No, the whole world except America knows who Status Quo are, you need to get with the programme.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.238.150 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "what the"?

message: :Image:Status quo.jpg (the image used in this article) has been tagged as having no source information, and will be deleted in 7 days if this is not provided. Rob Church Talk 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Status quo.jpg]]

message: Papapierre asserts that "although there was some dispute, due to alleged anomalies in the chart returns, that it may only have reached No. 2 and that the No. 1 spot should have gone to Ralph McTell with Streets of London." Is there a source for this? Kev (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down Down Chart Position 

message: Does the clean-up tag still need to be here? The article is a lot better than it used to be. Kev (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: From the article:
:"The group was founded by bassist Alan Lancaster and guitarist Francis Rossi in 1962."
and later:
:"Francis Rossi - lead guitar, vocals (1966–present)"
How can the group have been founded by Rossi in 1962, and yet Rossi wasn't even in the band until 1966? I thought at first that the 1966 date was when they changed their name to Status Quo, but according to the article that didn't happen until 1967. In any case, the first statement definitely implies that there was a band called Status Quo in 1962, which apparently there wasn't. The wording needs clarifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.136.71 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent date contradictions 

message: So, were the hard-core fans universally known as "Quo Army" or was that just locals in my neck of the woods?
The band have acknowledged their fans as the "Quo Army". Kev (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quo Army? 

message: This paragraph states a personal opinion and therefore has no place in Wikipedia:
"Status Quo have often been characterized as producing very simple songs, always in the same format: 4/4 rhythm, three chord structure. However, the recordings from their first decade demonstrate a diversity in musical style and complexity to rival most of the late 60s UK bands, and several of their singles and album tracks from later show considerable subtlety"
I have deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.178.222 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Opinion 

message: Does Status Quo's brief appearance on CiN really warrant an entry here?  Likewise the fact that somebody chose SQ as their specialist subject on Mastermind.  It's pretty banal trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mastermind and Children in Need 

message: As Quo is a British band I feel that the discography section should concern itself with only the band's UK releases rather than including records from all over the world. To that end I have amended the section heading and removed non-UK records from the listings. Kev (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically I agree. Nevertheless the "Tokyo Album" contains recordings that are otherwise unavailable as there has been no official UK release. For this reason it is in my opinion essential to include it in the discography. Especially since Wikipedia is inteded to cover not only a UK point of view. Vertigo Man-iac 11:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-UK releases 

message: Is the single 'I (Who Have Nothing)' which "sank without a trace" the same song as the later hit of the same name by Manfred Man's Earth Band? If yes, I think this is worth mentioning. --84.177.92.9 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early career 

message: It seems there is a ddisagreement over their musical style. Allmusic describe them as "boogie rock". The article for boogie-woogie describes that style as "piano-based blues" and boogie as a guitar-based derivative thereof. I'd argue the latter is closer, as well as being reliably sourced. Off the top of my head I can think of only one track, Rockin' All Over the World, that noticeably features any piano at all; most of the others are strongly guitar-based. And that, of course, ignores their earlier psychedelic incarnation. Comments from other editors welcome. --Rodhullandemu 19:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Are you growing tired of my love" is indeed piano driven, but that doesn't make it boogie woogie. Rachmaninov wrote a lot of piano music, and that wasn't boogie woogie either Mikeholden (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I think two tracks out of several dozen (and that's only their UK hits) is WP:UNDUE, and neither do I think Amazon.com (uncited) have expertise in rock criticism. I won't revert because I've got better things to do, but I will happily accept consensus when it is established by other editors. Meanwhile, this edit-warring is unseemly and I will avoid it. --Rodhullandemu 19:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Let me get this clear; you, Rossi12345, agree with Jerry12354 on your very first edit to this encyclopedia? How did you know how to come here? Have you read WP:SOCK? --Rodhullandemu 21:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The genre is unsourced. There is no consensus for it. And I think you should stop sockpuppeting, for which you are now blocked indefinitely --Rodhullandemu 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boogie]] or [[Boogie-woogie]]? 

message: Based on the definition for Freakbeat I find it difficult to believe that Quo's origins fall into this category. They were a boys band playing other people's songs. In Rossi's autobiography there is (as far as I remember) no mentioning of any sound experiments other than the attempt to sound as much as possible like the original artist. Even in their psychedelic heyday they only duplicated the sound of year - mainly a result of John Schroeder's production work. I suggest to reconsider that statement. Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic seem to consider them freakbeat, and we generally regard that as a reliable source. Given their first three or four singles relied heavily on phasing, I wouldn't consider that unreasonable. Not quite as "frenzied guitar work" as Les Fleur de Lys, perhaps, but they were attempting to be commercial. --Rodhullandemu 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although (or rather because) I use allmusic a lot, I don't necessarily trust that side. (BTW: This is their final conclusion on Andy Bown: "Pictures of Matchstick Men," the Status Quo single considered by many listeners to be one of the great psychedelic rock recordings of all time, remains his most-played side.) Your point is probably more true than you might have had in mind: They were attempting to be commercial. In other words: They were a contemporary covers band, taking any occasion to perform life - e.g. at Butlin's. I sincerely doubt they were expected to try any new sounds while being there execpt for copying the originals. The term "freakbeat" makes their efforts appear more sophisticated than they were, IMHO. Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I take your point, and doubt they were trying to bridge the gap between pop & prog; probably just trying to make a living, and it wasn't uncommon then for groups of the time to play Butlin's, or indeed anywhere. The songs were hardly deep in context or seeking to be "musically valid", just appealing to the market. I can't think of any freakbeat band I'd consider trying to be that sophisticated, considering most of them had evolved from pure beat groups. I read this as an evolutionary process of experimentation, and progressive rock seems to have developed partly from this, but partly as a separate thread in itself. However unreliable Allmusic may be, they qualify as a reliable source. Andy Bown, way before Quo, was experimenting with styles, most notably toyshop, on the Music Factory label, with songs like "We Can Help You". I don't see any reason to lose freakbeat as it seems to describe their early style as well as psychedelia would. --Rodhullandemu 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, my main concern is that they didn't have any specific style in their early days so I would recomment not to attach any style lable. My point regarding Andy Bown is that he didn't play on the recording Allmusic consider his most important work. After all it was Roy Lynes, wasn't it?! (Just one example for their "reliabilty". I asked them several times to change that statement, but they just don't bother.) And even though POMM is a psychedelic record that label doesn't fit for the band's beginnings. I (Who Have Nothing) to me sounds just like another orchestrated pop songs - neither freakbeat nor psychedelic - plain pop music. Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freakbeat 

message: Can we not sort this out once and for all? We seemed to have reached consensus for twelve bar blues, freakbeat and boogie rock, all sourced. The addition of "heads down no nonsense mindless boogie" also seems fair, since it's reliably sourced. Now it's all been changed back again, without discussion or renegotiation of consensus. This is unacceptable. Whatever personal thoughts on style/genre, whatever, are, we go with the sources. Rodhullandemu 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "heads down no nonsense mindless boogie" is not a genuine attempt to categorize Quo's music, it's just the efforts of one sub-editor in trying to create a pithy headline.  The point of the lead is to introduce the subject to a reader who may not be familiar with it.  This cite does not help the article in this regard, no matter how cited it is.  You can find other descriptions of Status Quo's music; how about a cite for Dad Rock?.  But just because someone wrote it once doesn't mean its suitable for the article lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no great fondness for that, so it could go. What I object to is people just reverting to their preferred version without discussion. So are we happy with twelve bar blues, freakbeat and boogie rock? Rodhullandemu 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  Although the freakbeat should get further clarification as being their early work.  Otherwise the reader might think they do a fusion of all three. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There was consensus for the version before you came along. Therefore, I am within my rights reverting to the consensus position. And when I invite you to discuss here, I mean "renegotitate that consensus2. You are NOT the only editor here, and you'll see an existing discussion immediately above which restates the prevailing consensus. Please put your reasons why this version of yours should become accepted- and allow other editors to have some input. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres again 

message: In the article text it says the band The Spectres is the origins. But in the introduction it says "The Scorpions", which seems to be entirely wrong. I have now changed it so it says "The Spectres" also in the introduction. -84.202.101.55 (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I order that this section is removed.  Find another band's wikipedia page that lists their performance at Glastonbury.  It isn't like it was noteworthy for any reason - they didn't headline.  What's the point - to add filler to the article.  Other opinions will not be considered.
:Wikipedia editing is done by consensus, not on anyone's order.  Demanding changes will not endear you to anyone, least of all editors who are charged with maintaining factual accuracy.Alan (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But his argument is irrational - Neil Young, The Specials, Regina Spektor, Gabriella Cilmi, Bruce Springsteen, Spinal Tap, Tinariwen, Blur (band), Madness (band), Pronghorn (band), and many more (I coundn't be asked to ckeck them all!) all have references of varying size about appearing at Glasonbury - it's not an unusual addition.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I never said section. I said "references of varying size"  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only a sub section anyway, not a full section.  Delete the sub section title and it would fit into the sub-section above (Status Quo in the 2000s) Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The OP said "Find another band's wikipedia page that lists their performance at Glastonbury" - I just found 10 articles (at random) that did just that. I did not say if I thought the section should or should not be included - maybe it will get deleted next year if they appear there again and replaced by next year's appearance. Only time will tell.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glastonbury 2009 

message: I think that it's a well known fact that no other band or artist has gathered a larger total ordience at concerts world-wide. Over 6000 concersts since 1967 is far far beyond f.i. Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Bruce Springsteen or any other. Status Quo has been on an constant tour from the early seventies to 1985 and again after 1986.  Even if their averidge attendences is lower their number of concerts makes it a mathematical fact, not a guess. I don't think that source is needed. Lets count very low averidge attendence - 6000 concerts x 5000 av. att. = 30 million. No other band comes even above 15 million. No guess, a fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.208 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately a cite is always needed for a claim like this.  Adding up guesstimates over the years is also original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow.  If it is a "well known fact", then you should have no problem finding a reliable source that can prove this claim.  Otherwise it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia--Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I shall be true. I'm not a "true wikipedian" and do not know all the rules, but at least I have red that things that are obvius or well known do not need references. But where is the limit (or borderline) for this. In pure matchematical theory all formulas starts from a few postulat - like A+B=B+A , wich are too simple to be proven. But in maths this postulates are only 3, if I remember it correctly. Everything else must be proven. But when once proven - other mathematicans can use proven formulas - and build new. 
Can the same not apply to an encyklopedia ? And how about examples "Winston Churchill were PM twice" , "general Bonaparte took power i France as First Consul in 1789 and became emperor some years later". Does this need references ? 
Concerning SQ, I could look at their official site - or anybody elses site about the band, but it really doesn't seem necessary.
Besides references to other sites can also be wrong. A pure multiplication (low counted) at least I think shold be enough. And who could have had more total concert attendence ? (and if the number of concerts, >6000, is questioned - then it's lack of common knowlidge, I think) Like - not "London is the captital", but say "Weymouth is a town on the south coast between Bornemouth and Plymoth". Does the Weymouth - centence need reference ? I dont't think so - but it's rather equal to the issue of that SQ has played more then 6000 concerts. And just by a (very low) estimation of SQ's av. att. - and a simple but scientific calculation shows that the total concert ordience is >30 mill.
I know that f.i. Rolling Stones in the 80's sold out stadium with 50000-75000 and had over 300000 at Alamount free concert in december 1969, but in the 60's (expect for the free Alamount concert) and early 70's they usually had crowds that SQ often has. But Stones have not given more then 400 to 500 concerts - not 6000 !! A Stones world tour in 80's was about 20 concerts times 50.000 - thats just 1 million. And they have just made a few short tours ever - in comarission with SQ everlasting touring. Beatles played less then 200 concerts. There is no other band that has been on constant tour for over 40 years. 6000 concerts is one concert every day for 17-18 years (40% of all days that hast past since 1967) - and their averidge attendence is well over the 5000 in my example. If I had given a number - even approx. it would be a guess. But not that they are record holders of total world-wide attendence. I accept that you take it away, but under protest - who has else the record ? I would bet 10.000 euros (or pound sterling) that I'm not wrong - and also mean that it really is enough common knowlidge. Thousands know it more then me - and I'm just fond of them. My probably greatest favorits are Creedence Clearwater Revival. (And I would like to add that "Rockin' all over the world" is a John Fogerty hit, after CCR) 
/best reguards - and I didn't guess. If I ever add a line into Wikipedia again I promise to add referencies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.36.208 (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Guessing ?

message: Alan Lancaster states "I know - there’s biographies and interviews from TV and radio, magazines, the general perception, even from my ex-manager Pat Barlow, one time he said we were The Scorpions on TV, before we became Quo. No we weren’t, that was a suggested name. I think sometimes when you’re asked a question and put on the spot, people get nervous and don’t want to look like the can’t remember or need to think hard about it. They want to look like they’re with it and give you a quick, decisive answer. What with that and misquotes, things get out of control."  I have added the "Dubious" tag. 
http://www.rocktopia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=863:fireworks-magazine-online-43-status-quo&catid=903:fireworksmagazine&Itemid=103
Any views on this ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketrod1960 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always thought that the reference to the Scorpions name was flimsy.  There is no direct cite in the article - so I feel, based on Lancaster's assertions above, that it should be removed.  However, some other editor may well find a source (or not) stipulating 'Scorpions' and stick it back in again.  Probably for all the reasons Lancaster alludes to ! It is often difficult, particularly with the passage of time such as here, to be too definite on these things. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scorpions 

message: For some unknown reason there seems to be some debate about whether the quo are boogie or boogie woogie? As evidenced by are you growing tired of my love the quo are clearly boogie woogie. Please show your support for this stance here. Don't bother if you disagree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.125.32 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says boogie rock, thus we say boogie rock. Find a good source that says boogie woogie, and we can include that as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boogie or boogie woogie? 

message: All the IP socks have to do is supply a quality reference for their change, instead of trying to argue and just blindly reinstating and then moving to a new IP.  Had they been a named account, they would have been blocked for 3RR by now. Syrthiss (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Wondering about the need to mention a game show contestant chose the Quo as their speciality. Unless this is a unique cultural thing in the UK it kind of smacks of saying something like "Robert Wilson of Ohio choose the Status Quo category on the 3 July 2001 Jeopardy program." To which my mind responds, "So!?" Could someone enlighten me on this as I would sincerely like to know the significance? Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2000s section 

message: Comments Please 81.178.141.220 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See copious comments under the similar heading above. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boogie or Boogie Woogie? 

message: From the article - "The band's association with Coles was controversial, given that Coles is one half of a supermarket duopoly (with Woolworths) that has such market power in Australia that producers and suppliers are being squeezed out of business in "Colesworths" price wars."
Surely any controversy here is conjecture by the writer? There is no mention of the band in the referenced article, so it looks like a pointless reference. I see no reason why any controversy should be linked to the band about this. I suggest this be removed, as it is nothing more than the opinion of the writer, and nothing substantiated by the text or reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.139.226.71 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This "controversy" is a product of original synthesis.  The cite supporting it has no mention of the band, or any of the adverts.  I've removed it from the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coles "controversy" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Status Quo (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100723132032/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/news/21024.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/news/21024.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the timeline and lineups section at the very least not now be amended to reflect the fact that Parfitt is no longer touring with the band and that Rhino's son has replaced him? MarkRae (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freddie Edwards 

message: Despite its use in the (anonymous) BBC Obituary for Rick Parfitt, I have never before heard of the genre of music "boogie-woogie rock". Happy to see someone define what this might be, but I suspect it has nothing to do with boogie-woogie. Status Quo were prime exponents of boogie rock which is well defined, fully understood and has its own article. Several previous discussions of this topic above. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there seems to be one user who is obsessive about this.  I suggest removing the reference as there is not widespread acceptance of them as exponents of this supposed genre.  Peteinterpol (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the anon Virgin Media IP editor, based in Belfast, like to explain? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

text: You've just linked to an outdated Wikipedia mirror site? Please provide another of your "endless references" as a link here. Thanks. And why not explain to us what "boogie-woogie rock" actually is? And please sign your posts.Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Only one of your links works - and that one, for wsau.com, says: "This is not the page you were looking for." You might find it useful to find out what a "Wikipedia mirror site" is. Your explanation of what constitutes "boogie-woogie rock" is a useless circularity. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Do you know what " Wikipedia mirror site" means? There is now a consensus at this article that "Boogie-woogie" rock (whatever that might be) is inappropriate here. Your continued additions of this invented genre are likely to be treated as vandalism and as a result you may be blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Boogie-woogie rock"? 

message: He's now replaced Parfitt on the band's official lineup page (http://www.statusquo.co.uk/quo.htm#.WLE5fvkrLIU). SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Richie Malone as a full member

message: The personnel & timeline presents Andy as having just appeared on the Quo scene in 1982, when in reality he was a de facto band member from at least 1977 & Rockin' All Over The World. Arguably, even the tour of 1976 should be included as he appears on the Live! album recorded late that year. His first appearance on record for Quo was back in 1973 on Hello! but nobody would claim he was anything other than a guest musician at that point.  However, he has been a member of the live band from '76 & the studio band from '77 - that is the reality as outlined on the personnel details for the respective album releases on this very site. Gwladys24 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Bown 

message: The new pic (File:Status Quo live at Partille Arena, 2017-04-22.jpg) is great, and definitely deserves to be in the article, but is anyone in favour of reverting back to the older image (File:Status quo 2005.jpg)? My reasoning being it's more representative of the band's most enduring lineup (Rossi, Parfitt, Bown and Rhino) - I think it's more representative to at least have a picture including Parfitt given his importance and longevity with the band. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary image

message: Thoughts please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.90.138 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a section on this page about this.  See above.  Peteinterpol (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boogie or boogie woogie rock 

message: The main reason for this band failing to score with mass audiences in the US, during their peak years in the 1970s, while they became household names just about everywhere else, is that they were too hard, too uncompromising and abrasive, too unwilling to give their music a cute soft-pop edge or bring in studio trickery, synths etc. The same could be said about Deep Purple, Motörhead or The Clash during the same decade. All of them became iconic in many other countries but remained fairly unknown in the US, at least up till 1980. Too hard, focused and unyielding for the AOR and teenybopper crowds. (Also, their live act has always been even better than their studio albums).80.216.104.17 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strangers in America 

message: "Shortly after Parfitt's recruitment, in August 1967, the band officially became The Status Quo."
"In January 1968, the group released the psychedelic-flavoured "Pictures of Matchstick Men". Rick Parfitt was invited to join the band just as the song hit the UK Singles Chart.."
I don't mind which, but it can't be both. Harfarhs (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this myself and have addressed it. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency over time of Parfitt's induction 

message: What’s the rationale for the hits mentioned in the lead? While "Rockin' All Over The World" (no. 3 in 1977), "Whatever You Want" (no. 4 in 1979) and "In the Army Now" (no. 2 in 1986) are certainly among the band’s most famous songs, why no mention of their 1975 no. 1 "Down Down", a bigger hit than all of them, or "Marguerita Time" (no. 3 in 1983), "What You're Proposing" (no. 2 in 1980) or "The Anniversary Waltz - Part One" (no. 2 in 1990). Perhaps these aren’t generally as well known as the three currently in the lead, but that’s impossible to determine or source - they should be mentioned with the others as they equalled (and in Down Down’s case bettered) the chart positions. What do we think?Humbledaisy (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go simply by chart position. I'm not sure how many are required. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for hits mentioned in the lead 

message: I understand not wanting to have every past member in it. However, I propose handling it like it was done on the Asia page, where John Wetton and Steve Howe get a special mention. Reason? Well, it's kind of obvious. Rick Parfitt was in the band for almost fifty years. Along with Rossi, he was the public face, arguably the more notorious one (due to his love of TV shows and sadly, also his lifestyle and resulting health problems).
I would go even further and make a point that Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan also deserve a mention in the infobox, given that they were part of the band during their most successful period. Also, this line-up was so significant (and is still seen as such by big slices of the fandom) that there were two reunion tours in 2013 and 2014.Jules TH 16 (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel box 

message: I really think the infobox image should be their current line-up - the image in this article's "2014–present" section would work nicely. Rossi and Parfitt are what people think of when they think of Quo, yes, but they are still an active band who have now issued an album without Parfitt and continue to tour. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Image 

message: I recently visited the "Celebrating Seven Decades of Quo" exhibition at the Barbican Library. Quoting from one of the exhibition captions:
Along with the interview with Alan Lancaster from the section above I think that's enough to remove the reference to The Scorpions. the wub "?!" 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scorpions again