Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 8

I believe this does not qualify as fair use for the following reasons;

• It does not identify the band, in so far the band members are not pictured.
• It is not being used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
• There is no critical commentary on the logo. This article is a about the band, not the logo.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clear that this does not match our fair use criteria, in my view. Keep it out of the article, unless a consensus can be demonstrated for its inclusion. --John (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It adds very little value to the article anyway. TheStig_t·c 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't a picture that features JUST the four guys be used? Like this or this? And since I'm sure that the current picture isn't public domain, I don't think using the official photos I just linked to could be a much worse violation of whatever rules there are on Wikipedia regarding the use copyrighted images. Besides, Maradona has absolutely nothing to do with the band, and if someone uploaded a picture of themselves posing with the band, you guys would reject it.24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up many days ago but I failed to get a response. The current image is in the public domain however, there is no free use image that clearly depicts the four band members alone so does that qualify as grounds to use a fair use image instead, such as one of the two you suggested? TheStig_t·c 20:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:NFC#UUI, specifically #12, it says: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." And then there's a little note at the end saying: "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

OK, so technically speaking, Queen isn't retired or disbanded (though in my personal opinion, no Freddie= no Queen), but the majority of the world knows Queen WITH Freddie, not Paul Rodgers, and it is during their tenure with Fred as their frontman that they made their mark. This wouldn't be so easy to decide if this were an AC/DC article, but thankfully that's not the case here. So in this case, a copyrighted image featuring the four band members would be acceptable to use, since of course there will never be any new pictures of Queen taken with Freddie. Now the next issue is: From which era should we use a picture of the band? Pre-moustache or during the moustache era? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we have freedom of choice, I'd consider the "moustache-era" preferable, as they would be most recognisable from said image. Realistically I think that this image the original poster suggested would be most ideal. TheStig_t·c 15:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See, what I cut from the Greatest Hits cover. Unfortunately, this is a fair use picture :( 82.141.181.18 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "unfortunately", cause we've come to the consensus that a copyrighted image is one that we'd have to use in this case. I also found some really good, clear ones on Flickr, but I made the mistake of not bookmarking them, and to try and find them again would be a pain in the ass. But I wonder if we would be better off taking an image from the band's official website. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because in the huwiki only must use free pictures. 82.141.181.18 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just stick with the greatest hits one? That's available on the band's website. TheStig_t·c 06:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the Greatest Hits cover on the website, but OK. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's here: [1] TheStig_t·c 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I went to the band's website, and their gallery is very limited. None of the pictures we want are available. Best to stick to Flickr or Google Images. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See this. Not too artistic, but extravagant, ridiculous and ironic - just like Queen. XD 82.141.181.18 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you cant solve this problem we can do what was done for the Rolling Stones article. We can make a montage of photos Wiki already has in fair use .... see --->Talk:The Rolling Stones#Regarding the Stones photo issue for more on what was done...Moxy (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we get this article locked so that unregistered users cannot modify it? It's been vandalised quite a lot recently. TheStig_t·c 09:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it has. I suggest you make a request on WP:Requests for page protection. Robofish (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for justifying the cites given in the lead after the figure of 300 million sales. This emphasis is defensiveness intent on preventing the cites being challenged. It is saying "look, these are great cites, don't dispute them", which is all well and good, but the text of the article should not be so blatantly focussed on marshalling editors, something that is of no interest to the reader.

It is not usual practice to cite something whilst emphasising the reliability of the source, as that emphasis is essentially POV. There are nine other cites in the lead, and not one tells us where the cite is coming from and how reliable it is. Somehow the reliability of the sources doesn't depend on the reader being told how reliable they are.

The purpose of a cite is to verify the facts stated. Beyond that it is up to the reader to decide how much they trust the source. It's not the job of the article to decide it for them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I had to laugh. No, I think the point is merely to state what the cites are, that being independent sources. A statement from a band's label has to be backed up by independent sources. All of those cites aren't from EMI, so "numerous independent sources" describes them nicely. It's that simple... I think you're looking far too much into things. Jplarkin (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well for a start; they are not "numerous", there are exactly three. Can you cite this 'numerous'? Unless you plan to count them all, which would be original research. "Numerous" is an unsupported overstatement with a desperate ring of Argumentum ad populum to it.

Secondly; unless we are dealing with a statement of opinion, it is not usual practice to explain in the article where the cite on a matter of fact is coming from. Either it is a reliable source that can be relied to be factually accurate, or it isn't. There is no need to tell the reader how significant, reliable or independent the sources are. State the facts, cite the sources, and let them decide that for themselves.

Thirdly; yes it is indeed good practice to backup a first party statement (the record label's) with that of a third party. But you don't need to clutter the article telling the reader that's what you're doing. The reader isn't reading the article for a lesson on encyclopaedic practice and policy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be five third party sources, not three. "Argumentum ad populum" doesn't mean much to me, but I had a look at the article, and providing sources to support an label statement has sweet FA to do with it. If you don't like the word "numerous", change it to "multiple". Or whatever.

"There is no need to tell the reader how significant, reliable or independent the sources are."

I don't see this happening. The article merely states what the cites are: independent sources.

"State the facts, cite the sources, and let them decide that for themselves."

Sorry, but I don't see anything other than this. Jplarkin (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed "numerous" to "several" for now. Jplarkin (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It still is basically saying "It's true because lots of places say it's true". That's the definition of Argumentum ad populum. No-one cares how many sources say it, all they care is is it verifiable from a reliable source? Which is what the cites do, that's their job. They do not need an introduction. Do you see any other cites in the article given an explanation to what the cite is? "Deacon retired in 1997, as confirmed by official website Queen online.[7]. Then they worked as Queen + Paul Rodgers, as explained to authoritative magazine Rolling Stone by Rodgers [8]. They have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, as can be seen in their website [9]. They have album sales of over 300 million, as agreed by the BBC and 3 other independents websites, so it must be true.[10][11][12][13][14]." That's "merely stating what the cites are", and it's not required. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We agree that the EMI statement has to be backed up by third party cites. But the third party cites don't represent the words of EMI. They are representing the words of the required independent sources. It reads to me as "Here is the EMI cite, and some independent sources, as required." There's no assertion that the cites are "authoritative" or "must be true". Hopefully someone else can give their views. Jplarkin (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So we are agreed that the article is introducing the cites? And is explaining why the cites are there? Good. Please explain why this fact has to introduce its cites rather than just having them. As I've explained, doing this reads as if the writer feels a need to further convince the reader, and a cite alone isn't enough. I'm not saying the cites shouldn't be there. Multiple cites are good (up to a point). But making a point out of it actually manages to do the exact opposite of what cites should do. The reader is left thinking; "What's the big deal about these cites that the article need to emphasis what they are? Has this figure been questioned?" --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

But the cites don't contain the words of EMI. You used examples like "Then they worked as Queen + Paul Rodgers, as explained to authoritative magazine Rolling Stone by Rodgers". The information being supported is the Queen + Paul Rodgers project. But in this case, what's being supported by the cites is the words of the publication itself. The cites have nothing to do with EMI. I'm still baffled as to how a sentence like "several independent sources", giving an introduction to, and explaining what the additional cites are, asserts that ""It's true because lots of places say it's true", that they are "authoritative", or "must be true", or that there's any emphasis on them. They're just there, supporting the label statement. They are not label statements, though, they are independent sources. Jplarkin (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I want to stress how great the cites are. That's not true at all. I simply want to explain what they are. How about changing it to something like: "According to EMI and other sources, the band have sold more than 300 million albums worldwide."? There's less emphasis on the sources, it just briefly describes what they are: the required third party sources. They're not from EMI. Put it this way, if there only existed the BBC cite, surely we'd say, "according to the BBC, Queen have sold...", rather than just "Queen have sold...", right? I simply want to note what the cites are, not push them as being undoubtable. Jplarkin (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're stressing how good the cites are. I'm just saying that's how it appears and what the reader may justifiably infer. But I think I see what you're getting at. What you're essentially saying is; "EMI have said 300m. But they may be a biased primary source, so for reference here are other third party sources that have also said 300m".

I can see the logic there, but bear in mind that the figure almost certainly came from EMI in the first place. I don't believe, for instance, that AoL have any means of counting album sales. They are simply repeating industry figures which came probably originally from EMI. Emphasis on them being 'independent' is a bit of an over-statement. That could only maybe be done on a cite from authoritative organisations like the RIAA (who, in turn, source a great deal of their figures from ... the record labels).

"According to EMI.." is better, but would suggest that others disagree/have said differently. Is there any credible more authoritative source that has another figure?

Can we not simply say they have sold 300 Million, cite all the cites, and leave it at that? Let the reader decide whether the cites are to be trusted and/or independent. All we, as editors, are called to do is ensure that they are reliable. Currently it still looks to me like the cites are being lead into by qualified caveats that needlessly cast doubt on the whole statement.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is as solid a source as anybody is likely to find, and their researchers aren't short on information. The same, to a lesser extent, could be said of ITV (who actually reported their sales as over 300 million prior to the EMI statement). AOL Music, The Express and ESPN are pretty well-established publications. We could simply state their album sales, and hope that the cites stand up, I guess. Sounds a bit definitive to me, but I have other things to do now, so we'll leave it there. Jplarkin (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody add to the legacy section about how their songs are still very popular fight songs and are commonly played at football games? I don't know how to word it. ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} My name is Barry Mitchell and I was bassist with Queen from August 1970 until January 1971. I would like to add a little about my time with the band. My existence is barely acknowledged in this article. Bazmitch (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that writing about oneself is discouraged so I will not pursue this. It is a pity that the record of Queen's early years is dealt with in such a cursory way. I was with the band for around 6 months and although my part was small, it would make this entry more comprehensive if that time was covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazmitch (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Not done: Please be more specific about what you want to be inserted. Note that any additions must be neutral and verifiable to reliable third-party sources. In addition, Wikipedia discourages editors from writing about themselves. It may be best to allow other editors to write about you based on what is written in the relevant literature. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the section "Breakthrough Era (1974-76)" it says of Bohemian Rhapsody, " ... it was also the longest song ever to be pressed for a conventional 7" 45-RPM format; at 6 and a half minutes, the grooves were so close together..."

But the actual length of the song is 5:55, so it should read, "... at 5:55, the grooves..."

71.135.63.113 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done although that wording in the article seems pretty odd and at present it appears unsourced. So ive made the change and added a fact tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} It is written that: "In late 1970, after Staffell left to join the band Humpy Bong..." - according to the wiki page on Humpy Bong, "Humpy Bong was an early 1970s band." and "Tim Staffell, previously bassist/frontman for Smile (which following Staffell's departure replaced him with his flatmate Freddie Mercury and evolved into Queen), answered and got the job as singer, bassist and harmonica player..." in the summer of 1970.

Thus there is a mistake - it should say "In late 1960, after Staffell left to join the band Humpy Bong..."

After all, that part of the article is about the early years of Queen.

Jimtsgl (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see the problem if it said late 1970s. But surely its saying late 1970 as in the year itself? which would seem to be in line with the other article saying Summer of 1970? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BritishWatcher, the article is referring to "1970" as the year, not as the decade ("the 1970s"). The requested term "In late 1960" would refer to late in the year "1960" and does not seem to be correct. Shearonink (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't represent the band in an artistic manner, at least I think so. Can't you make the same 4 box format with the old one? Bahahs (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which old one? The image is poor, but I think is the best free one we've had to date. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he means the one which was in black and white... 70.112.135.175 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Throughout the 1970s, Queen disclosed the absence of synthesisers on their albums, yet their style continued to evolve. They eventually started using synthesisers in the 1980s, reflecting their experimental approach to music."

The fact they didn't use synthesisers when they were experimental (in the 1970s), but only began using them when they became mainstream, rather contradicts the claim that they had an "experimental approach to music". Something needs tweaking here, but not being a Queen historian I am not sure how best to fix it.

I've fixed it by removing it. Not only didn't it make much sense, and was uncited, but I can't for the life of me understand why it is important enough for the lead paragraph. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.
  

Mlpearc powwow 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

the picture now is God awful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Square1style (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suitably licensed one? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How about the one the German article uses? File:Queen 1984 012.jpg --94.134.205.139 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That one has been used in the past on this article. The problem with it is that it really only shows Mercury's face. The rest of the band are looking away or are obscured. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the one the german article uses is better, but we still should find a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.59.15 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Queen's initial works were chiefly glam rock, heavy metal and progressive rock orientated..." - that's the second sentence in. Can anyone list a handful of Queen songs that they would class as "glam rock"? I've always thought that's a very lazy description of their music, based more on how they looked than how they sounded. Progressive rock was considered the polar opposite of glam, and Queen were a lot nearer that end of the scale. (Unless, of course, "glam rock" has a subtly different meaning in the US or something.) I'm not sure they were "chiefly" heavy metal, either. I propose simply changing it to "rock". 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything except choice of genre: if I were to trim this myself, I'd leave just "Progressive rock" in the paragraph. Radiopathy •talk• 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, with a bit of necessary re-jigging, too. Does the opening paragraph read all right? 213.107.110.183 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

...and it's been reverted already, probably because I removed a reference (which wasn't primarily about Queen, incidentally). So are we saying that they were "chiefly glam rock, heavy metal and progressive rock orientated"? How many Queen songs can you list that were glam rock? Were there enough heavy metal songs for them to be regarded as "chiefly" of that genre? I think it's better to say that their earliest works were influenced by progressive rock, and leave it at that. Any objections? 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I put your version back. In the future, if you use edit summaries every time you make an edit, then there is less confusion over your intent. If something has been discussed on the talk page, then just say "making changes agreed to on talk page." in the edit summary box. For the record, your changes looks fine to me, in light of the discussion here. Carry on. --Jayron32 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the new ref, so I don't know what the actual reference is to Queen being "glam", but I don't know if I feel comfortable with them being referred to as chiefly glam, etc. Radiopathy •talk• 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, why is heavy metal back? Radiopathy •talk• 01:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted again without explanation. Let's not have an edit war - here's what I propose should follow the first sentence:

Queen's earliest works were heavily influenced by progressive rock; however, in the mid-1970s, the band ventured into more conventional and radio-friendly works, bringing them greater success. It also became something of a trademark to incorporate more diverse and innovative styles in their music, exploring the likes of vaudeville, gospel music, electronic music and funk.

Any good? Please feel free to add/tinker in any way to improve things. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the change from the previous wording "chiefly" glam rock, but there is no question that glam was an element of the band's image/sound that was fused with other genres. Example; "As musicians such as David Bowie, Roxy Music and Queen merged glam with art rock..." University of California Press, 2006. Sam.P.Hollins (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I never said to remove the mention of glam, but I wondered if anyone was familiar with the cited ref; if we have, in fact, a reliable source, we should use it. I also felt that "chiefly glam" should be removed. Radiopathy •talk• 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Glam rock is still mentioned (rightly) in the "Musical style" section halfway down the page - as is heavy metal (which I also removed from the intro). Does anyone think either of these styles are predominant enough in Queen's music for mentioning in the opening paragraph? That's the issue at stake here. I appreciate it's no easy task to sum up Queen's style in one bite-size chunk, but saying that they started with a progressive flavour before becoming more commercial with time just about sums it up for me. Incidentally, the phrase "art rock" doesn't seem to appear anywhere - perhaps we should add that, thanks to the above reference. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Progressive rock is sufficient for the lead, IMHO. Radiopathy •talk• 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on now. In the early 70s "heavy metal" referred to stuff like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, which early Queen was far closer too than Yes or Genesis or whatever. Not that they didn't have prog influences, of course, but just saying they were "heavily influenced by progressive rock" paints a skewed picture. 166.82.216.170 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite right. Queen's earliest influences included heavy metal (Led Zeppelin) and glam rock (Bowie) as we all know. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an issue with the band being described as English, as opposed to the more general British - which means they could be from any country from within the UK? The band were formed in England with 3 of the band English themselves (and also formed from the ashes of a band who were all English). I don't believe Freddie's ethnic background makes a case for them being less of an English band (or therefore more British) than say the Rolling Stones? It isn't an ethnic description - it's merely stating, correctly, that the band were from England.

92.10.4.30 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length before. Please see archived discussion here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Over a year old - Wikipedia is every changing. No real consensus was made either, and that discussion was instigated by an editor whose sole purpose was to change English decriptions to British and has since disappeared. Their edits were either changing English to British or England to United Kingdom without consensus. Only one editor had an issue with the English description, and other editors were forced to compromise with an editor with only one purpose to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't believe there is any consensus against describing the band as English, hence this new talk section.

92.4.94.78 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to prove a negative. Rather than seeing if there is consensus against describing the band as English, it would be better to determine whether there was consensus for describing the band as English. I provided cites previously that demonstrated what the band themselves thought. Their opinion outweighs all others. I also predicted that without a good cite to back up the band's description as English, or British, we would be back on the matter within the year. And here we are. Do you have a cite that demonstrates the band regarded themselves as an English band?

Your argument about where the band formed is flimsy. Do you believe that readers don't understand where London is? Is there any real danger of people thinking it's in Wales?

Your analysis of the Queen (and Smile) band members nationality is also missing something important. How do you know what nationality these people regard themselves as? You decide that they are English. Maybe they prefer British?

I also disagree with your summary of the previous discussion. There was lengthy discussion among a number of editors with different ideas, and consensus was reached. That consensus, as they often are, was a compromise. Accusing others you don't agree with of purposefully disrupting Wikipedia is unhelpful, and against guidelines. Please don't do it again. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a compelling need to append an adjective to the band? Why not merely state "Queen is a rock band formed in London, England in 1971." That presents no debatable statement. The meaning of what it means to be an "English band" is so varied as to be useless; in the mind of one person it may refer to where they formed; or where the members all lived, or the place of birth of the members, or etc. etc. Instead of including debatable adjectives, or trying to decide which imprecise and controversial adjective is the best of all of the equally imprecise and controversial adjectives, instead just phrase the sentence to remove all ambiguity. --Jayron32 15:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But the danger would be that just shifts the argument to whether it's London, England or London, UK. Both are equally accurate. (And we'd use "Queen are a rock band", as correct UK English. :-) )--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivial discussion, non issue. Queen are almost always referred to as a British rock band,[2] (Encyclopedia Britannica) [3] BBC (poll declared them "top British band"), [4] Billboard (U.S.) [5] Daily Mail (UK) [6] Daily Telegraph (Australia) [7] The Telegraph (India), and memorably given an award for "outstanding contribution to British music" [8] Can't ever say i've heard them called an English band. Regards city formed in, while Beatles were Liverpool, Oasis Manchester, Queen were London.Sam.P.Hollins (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to offer an addition under Film and Television. to the following paragraph:

In the Autumn of 2009, the Fox television show Glee featured the fictional high school's show choir singing "Somebody To Love" as their second act performance in the episode The Rhodes Not Taken. The performance was included on the show's Volume One soundtrack CD, and is available as a single via digital download.

The show also offered another tribute to Queen on the episode "Journey to Regionals," as well as on their album of the same name, which contained six songs from the season one finale. The album was released June 8, 2010, the same day the episode was aired on television. The rival choir Vocal Adrenaline performs a cover of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody", Jesse (Jonathan Groff) was featured on lead vocals.

It is even cited on you own website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glee:_The_Music,_Journey_to_Regionals

Track 4."Bohemian Rhapsody" (featuring Jonathan Groff) Written by: Freddie Mercury Performed by: Queen Length: 5:57

I think the show is a wonderful blend of old and new music, introducing new audiences to music they may not normally have even had a chance to explore and certainly after reading your article on Queen, I wanted to offer this bit of missing information to make the article more complete.

Raevynn03 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear all,

just noticed that one of the reference links is outdated:

In reference #161 (Sherna, Noah: Queen closer to King as Chart-toppers, scotsman.com), the URL

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=193&id=2380392005

is no longer available. The article is now available under the new URL

http://news.scotsman.com/elvispresley/Queen-closer-to-King-as.2685286.jp

on the same site.

Can someone with editing permission please update? Thanks a bunch!

Best, Ben

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.[9]

So you know, I think you have editing permission, as all registered editors do.LedRush (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Once they've made 10 edits they'll be able to modify this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! I really didn't have editing permission yet (I'm pretty new to this), there was no "Edit" button for me on the Queen page. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Queen have sold At LEAST 300 Million albums or more according to the references on its own page at the bottom Please change to this not "Between 150 million"

Imputanium (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. There are sources which support both numbers, and this has been laboriously reviewed on the list of best selling artists talk page. Additionally, there is a strong case that the 300 million number originated with WP (circularity).LedRush (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Type "Queen" in the search box at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to find previous discussions. There are many. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's got to be said: "between 150 million to over 300 million" is ridiculous wording. How about "over 150 million, with some estimates in excess of 300 million", or something similar?213.107.110.183 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. The issue is that 150 million is the real number, someone change the article on Wikipedia without references, and the 300 million number got adoped (circularity). Now we're stuck with this problem of our own making.LedRush (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but I'm taking issue with the English rather than the figures. Read the sentence back - it says that Queen "have sold between 150 million to *over* 300 million albums". That's nonsensical. "Between" shouldn't really be used if we don't have a solid upper figure. Or is it just me? 213.107.110.183 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When I said "I'm fine with it", I meant that I was fine with your proposed language change.LedRush (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} Influences have also included Nirvana and Michael Jackson

Imputanium (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  Not done..we would need a references. Personally i dont think we should have the section at all.Moxy (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

http://wn.com/Roger_Taylor_BBC_Breakfast_2009 (Clip 7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisfan83 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article from 2001 says they'd sold over 100 million so you merely need to explain how they managed to sell an additional 200 million in the next 8 years. Piriczki (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody needs to explain anything. The 300 albums cite is band up to date; as you pointed out yourself, the other is from 2001. Fans and critics alike (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been had many times here and on other articles. The general feeling is that it is possible (and many believe likely) that the 150 million number is the real number, and that the 300 million figure originated from an edit to Wikipedia. When this was tackled on the list of best selling artists page, it was agreed to keep both citations. That decision was reached here as well, as it has on other artists' pages. Out of curiosity, how much did Queen's RIAA sales change between 2001 and 2008 (when they supposedly sold approximately 100-200 million albums worldwide)?LedRush (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fans and critics alike would be better finding better cites for the sales figures than constructing conspiracy theories. Global record sales figures are always problematic, due to the lack of an authoritative single source that counts these things. It tends to be left to the record company or the band to makes these claims, which are primary sources that have a tendency to exaggerate. Figures then quoted by other sources tend to have come from these primary sources, with minimal critical evaluation, because, let's face it, they don't actually mean anything. Roger Taylor is not expecting a royalty cheque for 300 million albums and "worldwide sales" figures are generally a load of vague hype that few take seriously. Counts maintained by individual countries and authorities are far more significant.

So I don't see any problem in indicating a level of uncertainty in the suggested figures. Either way Queen have sold shed-loads, and how this compares to Led Zepplin could scarcely be of less relevance or importance. They aren't in a competition. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"the 300 million figure originated from an edit to Wikipedia" Lolzer. I think it originated from the EMI statement used as a cite, which was reinforced by other sources. (personal attack redacted) Do what you like, Wikipedia is a joke, as reinforced by this kind of stuff. I'm off to leave my house. Fans and critics alike (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lolololio, "Escape Orbit" appears to have had some issue with Queen's sales in the past as well. Two people with an obvious agenda colluding here. Or maybe not two people, if you get me... Fans and critics alike (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted with any good reliably sourced figure you can provide that would remove all doubt. Most of the sources used so far have been pretty poor (for good reason, as I explain above). But you seem more interested in unfounded accusations. This isn't helping your case. Please try and stick to discussing the facts of the matter in hand. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this edit [10] by an IP without any citations at all, was the first time the number 300 million was introduced. This number was reverted as vandalism several times. When is the earliers RS which uses the 300 million number?

Upon further review, the first time a sales figure was introduced [11] it was for 180 million in August of 2005. And it was also done without citation.LedRush (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, i believe that the manner in which the range now appears (put forward by LedRush) should be standard among other Wiki articles. Rather than give only the upper end of estimates (ie.Michael Jackson 750 million records), instead it should give a range as its not definitive.MusoForde (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. The numbers quoted in the likes of tv and magazine interviews are usually exaggerated estimates rounded up to the nearest power of ten, with no way of verifying them, and all with the intent of buttering up the interviewee. They could be complete fiction and who'd be any the wiser? No wonder there are many and dubious figures from different sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed through the Made in Heaven and Innuendo articles that many chart positions are wrong, simply stating they made number one when some didn't. I've added references and corrected the data for the ones I know are correct but there are still many unreferenced charts. Furthermore, there is a column for number of sales on the article which all are unreferenced. Ajsmith141 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen (band)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears the article may not be up to a GA listing at this time due to the larger and larger amount of issues the reviewer is finding. Mainly copyright issues but some writing and MOS issues as well. I will be able to make a better judgement after a little further review.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Failed due to overwhelming copyright and fair use issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing better articles --Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we happy that John Deacon is credited in the opening sentence as a vocalist? He certainly never sang lead (either on stage or in the studio), as the other three did, which to me doesn't make his (very) occasional live efforts notable enough. Can anyone provide some sort of liner notes or something that lists vocals next to his name? Otherwise, I propose it should go. Just trying to build up a consensus. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe we should take off the vocal references, and at least put guitar on, because his guitar efforts are certainly much more in need of appreciation. I would like somebody who is a confirmed user to edit it. Earendil56 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(24.0.68.107 (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC))Hello. First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions; they are all welcome. In the 2009-present section of this article, the release date of Queen's first five albums in remastered format is stated as May 17, 2011, and the date of their second five albums is stated as June 27, 2011. The latter date is incorrect; it should be September 27, 2011; the former date is a US release date, and the latter a UK release date. Just want to clarify this in order to maintain consistency. Also, if someone could please find info as to when their last five albums will be released, that would be great. Thank you very much.(24.0.68.107 (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

This is a mess. The first five remastered albums hit UK shelves on 14th March (e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Night-Opera-2011-Remaster-Deluxe/dp/B004M17IU8), while the second five were released on 27th June (e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Game-2011-Remastered-Version-2CD/dp/B004Z545DO). A quick look here and here should clear up all confusion. I'm afraid that North America is out on a limb on this one, so surely we should go with the UK dates consistently - after all, that's when the remasters were first released. Also, to answer your question, I'll be gobsmacked if the last lot aren't released in late November to coincide with the 20th anniversary of Freddie's death - but that's pure speculation. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Did John Deacon appear with Queen and Adam Lambert on the Euro MTV awards in November 2011 for the closing medley Show must go on, bass of Under Pressure (which Deacon wrote), We Will Rock you and We are the Champions? The credits were not clear. Thank you.