Talk:Queen (band)

Archives

1 2

Live Aid

As of 2006/09/22, there is no mention in the main article of Queen's command performance at live Aid. Why not? 213.202.149.45 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's under the history of Queen article. - Zone46 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Queen is/are

It seems people who change 'Queen is' to 'Queen are' never bother to change all the other "is"s to "are"s (or the other way around) in the article. I've come to the point where I really don't care anymore what form of English the article is written in, but I'd like to aim for consistency (my new favorite word when it comes to editing this article), so we should decide what we want it to be (is/are, finding their sound/finding its sound) and keep it that way. - Zone46 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should switch the article, Queen are from England where treating collective nouns as plurals is normal.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though, to me, it sounds odd. I believe that the group should be treated as they would be treated in their own country, and Queen are British.Billvoltage 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's just keep it consistent. - Zone46 17:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Freddie Mercury listed as a former member?

Guys, it is pretty silly to refer to Freddie Mercury as a "former member." Among other things, this suggests that the rest of the band achieved some kind of notable success after his death, which is simply not the case. Let's face it, Queen is basically a defunct band, and I find the current designation to be very offensive. 67.190.44.85 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are very much right about that. Queen are still technically active but Freddie has never actually "left the band". He may have passed but he would most definetly still be in the band if he was still to be around today. 65.93.85.3 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, he's dead, and they have worked as Queen without him. We have to deal with facts not "what might have been". --kingboyk 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, as much as I'd rather not... He should be listed as former. Billvoltage 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article absolutely must state that Freddie is not currently producing music with Queen owing to his demise in 1991. It currently reads in parts like he's still alive and producing music with them! --Shockeroo 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Stop Me Now

maybe it should say in the article that "Don't stop me now" by Queen was voted greatest driving song of all time by UK TV show Top Gear. (and i think it is the best driving song :) )

yeah I guess it could fit into trivia or such... but first it will need a source for quoteing Donny 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already written in the Don't Stop Me Now article, it really doesn't fit in here (this article's big enough as it is, apparently). - Zone46 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

spliting the article more?

there is now a new warning that the article is too long. Should it be cut more? We have separated the discography into a new article, which I think was both needed and better for viewing. But now what? makeing new "history" page, with just the summary here? posibly a "live" page also, with the lineups and maybe more detail?

Anyway I think it should be though of a bit before doing....Donny 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article is fine, as long as it doesn't get any longer. There are many other bigger articles, and although there is a lot of info here, but it doesn't need to be really short, either. I suggest trimming some of the 1980s section and just including highlights of Queen plus Paul Rodgers and other stuff in the 1998-present section. - Zone46 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree Queen has had a very long and interesting history and needs a long article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.217.25 (talk • contribs)

(a) I think the new article on the History of Queen is not a bad idea. But I am not happy that Feureau has removed almost all content from the history section in the main article; see also Beatles#History. (b) What do you think about 'Live performances by Queen'? Is it a good idea or should we move its content to the main article? - Candyfloss 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked all the info on the main page, rather than on separate pages. So what if the article is long? It's not like it's going to get much longer (developments about new albums, performances, and wahtnot should really go under the Queen + Paul Rodgers article, anyway). See my previous post above. It's just my opinion, but I think this page looked a lot better before. - Zone46 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still support the idea of a separate history article with all the details. But I think that the basic info still should be on this page - not just smile onto queen. List great successes and similar. main points: seven seas, killer queen, bohemian rhapsody, rock you, first synths etc... Then in history all of this can be explained till our mouth falls off.

I personally would like to see verything here - but I think this will help the featured article thing - it is easier to maintain the artcle quality... Donny 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "It's ok as long as it doesn't get any longer" are an indication it's time to split. We *want* more information, we just don't want this page to get longer. The right thing to do is create History of Queen, and move the detailed informaiton there, and create a 2-3 paragraph summary here of the key points from 1968 to current day - formation, major successes, Mercury's death, the musical, etc. However with any article like this it's always a bit debatable what is "history" and what is just the topic itself. Stevage 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Line

The opening line states that queen are arguably the most famous English rock band. 'Arguably' aside, it is quite ridiculous to say they are or were more famous than the Beatles. I'm no great fan of either, but I think this is just a plain false statement. Anyone agree? HenvY 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with fame, and yes Queen are britain's most consistently successful band of the past three decades. Just look at the charts. Thay had 5 number one singles and 4 number one albums in the 70's, 6 number one singles and 6 number one albums in the 80's, 5 number one singles and 2 number one albums in the 90's, and 1 number one single in 2000.(17 singles and 12 albums all together). That's not menchining the compilation and live albums or the DVDs. And there album sales keep climbing. The Beatles had 17 number one singles and 11 number one albums in the 60's.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What you said aside, Top of the Pops has a page on them (I believe this should be made the refernce, not what is on there now) that says that they are "Arguably Britain's most consistently successful band from the mid-70s onwards, Queen began life as a glam rock unit in 1970." The link for this is here: [1] Billvoltage 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kira Yoshikage

• Kira Yoshikage from the Japanese manga JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has a Stand named Killer Queen. Killer Queen has a tertiary bomb, called Another One Bites the Dust. This bomb is actually a distinct, miniaturized form of Killer Queen, which normally stays with someone who knows Kira's secrets. If someone tries to interrogate that person about Kira, the tertiary bomb will enter their field of vision, get into their eye that way, and induce an explosion.

How do we add that? - Malomeat 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I believ should be added to the Killer Queen and not the Queen one... Billvoltage 01:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just checked out the article you were talking about, and we should mention its first bomb, Sheer Heart Attack (perhaps on the album, and the song (and Another One Bites the Dust on the song page for it also?) Billvoltage 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Members vs Former Members

Queen is listed as an active group. However, Deacon is retired and Mercury is dead, and both are listed as active members. Also a user moved Mercury from 'Former' to 'Current' recently, so there's obviously some dispute about that. This is an unusual situation as the group does not really do very much nowadays (there was the recent Queen+ work which was only 2 of the original members plus another, using the Queen name together) The group is generally thought of as the four original members, back when the groupo was actively making music.

I am considering the least confusing way to present this information. Here are some options:

1) List Queen as inactive (inaccurate?)
2) Move Mercury and Deacon to 'Former Members' (confusing?)
3) Add "(Desceased)" after Mercury and "(Retired)" after Deacon in the members box (unusual formatting for Wikipedia I think...)

Any more thoughts/ideas are welcome. --Shockeroo 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. I think that I am against "former" declarations. I believe Queen are the four. But it is still hard to say that they are over and inactive, when the two are using the name. I am not really against that either. Let them play I guess. especialy when doing charities and such. It is their band after all. so that should be covered on the Queen+Paul page.

Maybe an "intermediate" status with some nice name for it. Or maybe that link that was there for a while: "part of Queen+" or became part or somthing...Donny 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as much I wish it weren't so, one of those needs to be done, I either the first or the third, as the second would be confusing, implying Freddie was still alive. I think the first is inaccurate, as you said. So it must be the third Billvoltage 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)