 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen (band) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Queen (band) was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: January 28, 2007. |
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | Queen (band) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
|
Featured Article nomination
I've put this article up for nomination at the FAC. Please comment/support/oppose as you see fit at the nomination page.
John Deacon on At the Beeb
I was just listening to "Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll" on At the Beeb and I am certain John Deacon has a line. Its about 45 seconds in.12.65.48.88 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not John. That would be Mr. Brian May with pinched nose. 82.176.211.33 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why this band is called Queen
Hello,
I'd like to see a word about why they decided to call their band Queen. Is this possible? Rosenknospe 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mercury named the band. They all agreed on it because it was a universal word that most everyone around the world would know. Or something like that. - Zone46 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Flag
I removed the England flag from this article according to WP:FLAG and a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Flags. I see an anonymous editor has replaced it. If there is no consensus here that we need a flag in the infobox, I will remove it again. --Guinnog 12:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well it has popped back up there. I wonder if there is a consensus that there should be a flag here (as far as I know Queen never represented England at Eurovision), and if there needs to be a flag, why not a UK one? --Guinnog 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Or even a Zanzibar flag to represent their late lead singer? --Guinnog 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because the band is referred to as an English band in the first paragraph, the infobox (per origin field), the categories and so forth. You might also want to consider that suggestions like the one regarding the Zanzibar flag might not prompt people to take your efforts or intentions seriously. - Cyrus XIII 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting point. However this just lets the flag agree with the infobox, and answers none of my questions. Do you think there needs to be a flag? Is it intended for people who are not familiar with England as a word, but need the added help of the little St Georges flag to recognise it? Or is it just decoration? And who decides on the nationality of a band? Did Queen themselves refer to themselves as an English band (rather than a British one)? If not I suggest this is original research. --Guinnog 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have already directed you towards my comment on that matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style during our short conversation via talk pages, but if I have to, I might just repeat what I have previously stated: It makes sense to combine textual and visual stimuli in places where people would like to obtain information fast (like infoboxes). If you do not feel that this is true or warrants the use of flag icons in infoboxes, then we should just agree to disagree. However you should also refrain from attempting wide-spread changes of the status quo based on an opinion, because that's what WP:FLAG is at this point and neither a guideline nor a policy. - Cyrus XIII 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well we can agree to disagree if you like, and I have of course continued to contribute to the discussion page. I just wondered if you had any actual reason to revert my change beyond your stylistic preference. I think from your lack of response to my questions above you have answered that too, in a way. --Guinnog 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good article Review of GA status
This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea. This page has gotten progressively worse since the removal of the history section. – Zone46 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Should the history section be reincorporated? Someone has tagged it with {{merge}}.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- We should merge it, clean it up a bit, and get rid of the brief summary on the main page (obviously). The live performances article could use a re-write, too. – Zone46 13:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've reincorporated the history section and am doing some cleanup.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding pictures
I think the old layout was perfect. Having all the album covers clutters the page in my opinion and I guess I'm the only one who likes the picture of the band in 1990. – Zone46 17:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Pink Floyd.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- We can't use album covers in this way in band articles. It is a breach of the fair use conditions. See the boilerplate text on any album cover image. Sorry. --Guinnog 18:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Provided that the content of the albums is discussed and the covers aren't sheerly used as a decoration, then using albums in band articles is acceptable. See recently promoted FAs Pixies or Megadeth. Teemu08 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- We can't use album covers in this way in band articles. It is a breach of the fair use conditions. See the boilerplate text on any album cover image. Sorry. --Guinnog 18:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- This page is so cluttered with every album cover on here. I was trying to go back to something similar to the layout that originally got the page good article status back in May, but whatever. And yes, I would say some albums are more important than others. Is "Queen II" as important as "A Night at the Opera"? I love both albums, but I doubt it. – Zone46 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. Maybe some people think Sheer Heart Attack is better then A Night at the Opera, or Hot Space is the best album they ever made, but that doesn't mean they can remove the cover for ANATO or remove all the covers except Hot Space. Once the "Finding there sound" and "Breakthrough era" sections are filled in more it will look fine just look at Pink Floyd.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I downsized the images to 125px. I agree the images where cluttering the article, but its a bit better now.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
no need
I really don't think theres a need to have a huge list of people who feel they've been influenced. Just cut it down to several well knowns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.72.25 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Even though I find the quotes section quite interesting, I don't think it is warranted in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.201.47 (talk • contribs).
A Kind of Magic?
Why AKOM is not in the list of #1 singles?
A Kind Of Magic, released in the UK on March 17, 1986, reached #3 on its home chart but was a #1 hit in thirty-five other countries. While charting well everywhere else, it peaked at #42 in the USA and has been played on radios mostly in New England (Similar to their first single Keep Yourself Alive). Russell Mulcahy, director of Highlander, directed the song's accompanying video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.105.96 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
- "was a #1 hit in thirty-five other countries." ...in which countries?? - Candyfloss 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
GA review
This article has been delisted in a 2 to 0 vote, for a, well, multitude of reasons, it might be faster just to check the review at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13 :). Homestarmy 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is a shame, as I've found it to be one of the most enthralling articles I've ever read on wikipedia. Hopefully the 'problems' can be fixed without carving out too much of the good parts. --139.142.212.129 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
GA
All the members of the Queen WikiProject need to set a date and come together and bring this article back to GA status (or maybe FA), if we all work together it CAN be done. Who knows maybe this can become a regular thing and we can bring other articles to GA or FA status (e.g. Freddie Mercury).
Some things needing to be done:
- Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
- Expand the 'Finding their sound' section.
- Add more information on the band's history not just information on each album.
- Add many more references.
Infobox issues
There appears to be a disagreement over the inclusion of the Queen logo (text only) at the top of the infobox. Now, looking around on articles about other notable bands (such as Led Zepplin, Metallica and Nirvana), the practice of including a somewhat consistently used logo appears to have become rather common. Not to mention that every band name also constitutes a brand (for which a logos are used anyway, see Adidas and Microsoft).
Certainly not common is the practice of throwing no less than nine genres (!) at the unsuspecting reader. Right through the infobox and with references. A far more reasonable (and common) approach would be to trim this list down to two or three entries and then elaborate on Queen's stylistic diversity and development in a dedicated section. This would certainly enrich the article more than mentioning 30+ bands and musicians who happen to cite Queen as an influence. - Cyrus XIII 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The logo in already in the article under the section 'Logo' there in no reason to have two logos.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was not referring to the full crest, but the text-only variant, which is used individually in several instances, i.e. the band's official website and posters for the musical. And I take it, you are not going to address the other points I have raised regarding the article? - Cyrus XIII 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the list of genres should be eliminated and dedicated section should be created then put 'See: Section name' in the infobox.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have created a respective section. At this point it is little more than a list, but it appears to be well referenced right away and I am sure people will turn it into a well-bodied text rather sooner than later. The "Various" entry in the infobox links to that section and I would suggest to keep the genres listed there down to two, plus the section link. To be honest, I am not entirely sure whether hard rock and progressive rock could be considered the two most defining genres, my experience with the group is somewhat limited (that is, listening to Greatest Hits 1 & 2 for like a hundred times). Now that the size of the box has been significantly reduced, there should be size-related concerns regarding the logo. A "Former members" slot for Mercury and Deacon has also been added. - Cyrus XIII 11:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It hardly surprises me that the article lost its GA status, if even minor changes which reflect common and sensible practice are being regularly reverted and have then to be discussed at length. I am referring to the recently removed distinction between "members" and "former members" in the infobox. Freddie Mercury died over 15 years ago, John Deacon has been retired since the late 90s. Aside from a romantic, yet certainly not NPOV compliant perspective, it makes no sense to still list them as members of the band. Queen, as of February 2007 are Brian May and Roger Taylor.
See also:
- Cyrus XIII 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Doors article doesn't list Jim Morison as a former member and the Grateful Dead article doesn't list Jerry Garcia, Brent Mydland, Vince Welnick, Ron McKernan or Keith Godchaux as former members.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neither is John Lennon listed as a former member of The Beatles, apparently to reflect the group's lineup at the time of its dissolution. Yet the manual for the infobox template explicitly suggests to list all members of a presently inactive group as former members. - Cyrus XIII 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I have come from your listing at WP:3O. I think that they should be former members, unless the band is no longer active and they were alive at the time of the bands disbandment. So, they should, in this case, be considered former members. ffm yes? 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also from WP:3O. If the band is still active, and these people are no longer members, then they are quite clearly former members. Just my two cents. Luna Santin 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
3rd opinion Do you have any sources that called them either "retired" or "former members" how do these band members refer to themselves if they are still alive? I think it is important to make the distinction between people who left the band or died and people who stayed with it. The descriptive terms should reflect those used in music publications or by the musicians themselves. futurebird 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Another 3rd opinion: It appears from the article that Queen post Freddie is considered to be a different band - Queen +. If that is the case then the membership of Queen should be as with The Beatles - no retired members. Some source material would be useful. SilkTork 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Open-ended question: would that indicate we might want to split the articles? Or is that a whole new can of worms? ;) Luna Santin 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sort of, I guess. Usually I try to separate style from content discussions and since the article's text considered the group as active ("Queen are..." as opposed to "Queen were...") the Queen - Mercury = Queen+ equation had not really crossed my mind. Now, I really don't think we are dealing with two different bands here, the plus sign is merely the group's way to denote collaborations following the death of their lead singer. Also, I have to agree with futurebird, a source confirming John Deacon's retirement status would really help clearing things up. - Cyrus XIII 00:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Genres
I changed the information box a bit, now it says "Hard rock, glam rock, progressive rock" and various others, wich links to the "sound and style" part of the article. I think it's quite a good solution. Also added some more on sound and style, feel free to add wathever you want.--85.224.81.128 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove the "Sound and Style" part because it is very poorly written and is extremely unverifiable. There are no sources. It's also very POV. So...it has to go. XXSaifXx 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'm not going to remove it without consensus...We have to figure out a way to improve it...XXSaifXx 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, good thing you cleaned up the lyric themes part. My english isn't perfect... But Queen didn't just wrote dark lyrics. All of those 80's pop songs, are they about death and alienation? I know that most Queen fans are ashamed of the 80's, but they can't be ignored just because of that.--85.224.81.128 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that's funny, when I created the Sound and Style section, it had quite a few sources to boot and an explicit request for expansion. The infobox used to contain all those genres and that unnecessary bloat seems to be creeping back. Let's keep this contained, shall we? The purpose of these boxes is to provide essential information fast, throwing half a dozen (or more) genres at the reader does quite the opposite. - Cyrus XIII 01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well anyway I cleaned up a lot more than "Sound and Style" only...I cleaned up all the references. Yay...that was a lot of work :P. XXSaifXx 10:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Music samples
I've uploaded and added music samples from Queen's most well known songs into the article. They're fair use and almost every good music article has a few. The article is almost ready for featured article status... XXSaifXx 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)