Talk:Freddie Mercury

Archives

1 2

Freddie Mercury Movie

Is there really going to be a Mercury movie? If so, this should definetly be put in the article.Freddie Mercury Movie

Lyric Tenor

It does not appear to me that there is enough documentation to say that Freddie Mercury was a "lyric tenor." Although I do not doubt this fact, it is not good enough to simply cite a personal web page. After all, it could just be the webmaster's opinion that Mercury was a lyric tenor. In order to really prove this fact, you need some kind of external citation from a published article. On the other hand, I think that the web page does a good job at documenting vocal range. Because you are not going to find an official article that documents vocal range, I think that this personal web page is sufficient to establish an objective fact like vocal range, but not a more subjective matter like vocal weight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.44.85 (talk • contribs)

You can hear what his voice was like by listening to some Queen records!--feline1 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

However, as he says, not everyone is educated enough to define what vocal wieght Freddie was. We need a source from some site or book whose author has the education to make such a claim... Billvoltage 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Better Picture!

Oh my God! That is one God-awful picture of Mercury. It dosen't look like him at all! It really needs to be changed into either a picture of him from the early years (long hair and make-up) or even better him performing in a concert because that is what he's most famous for! Would someone who knows how to change the picture please do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.29.111 (talk • contribs)

The picture is very appropriate for a biography.--Miketm 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That picture is really depressing looking! Why not get one during a concert. It is alsocame from a time when he had been diagnosed with AIDS. Why not get a healthy picture? 67.190.44.85 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A live photo is not appropriate for the main photo. It should be a promotional photo, preferably a head shot.--Miketm 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This? --SparqMan 21:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good picture, the reason I didn't use that one is because nowadays every picture of Freddie is from the era, I felt the photo there now shows off his profile well. Also it was used as the cover for one of his biographies.--Miketm 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you MEAN? I find him all sorts of handsome in the current photo. It's also one of the few where he looks somewhat ethnic. Actually, I find the suggested photo above to be extremely unflattering. But meh, meh, meh. 67.85.178.227

Guys, the sickly picture needs to be replaced. As a woman, I can assure you that Freddie Mercury was very hot. This is evident from the photo that is up there at the moment. 67.190.44.85 01:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The photo you placed in the article has been deleted before.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is too bad that you deleted it, since it was pretty damn hot. The one up there now is pretty familar though, even to people who are not into Queen. 67.190.44.85 04:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

i didn't delete it.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, whoever deleted the former picture should hang his head in shame. The new one is the worst I have ever seen of Freddie. Someone get the former one back, please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.167.131.224 (talk • contribs) .

The picture that is up there, is, in my opinion, the best looking picture of him... However, this is not the picture he was known by. He was known by the short hair, and the moustache. I believe that we need a picture with short hair and the moustache. Billvoltage 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think I would agree that he was more know with the moustache, though many should recognize him from bohemian rhapsody video. But why aren't there a few pictures of him thru the aritcle, showing various periods? I also agree that the current photo is a good one of him, maybe just add later a live photo from the 80s, covering live and moustache...Donny 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this one from 1987?; http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/510/fredchairnw9.jpg . At the Freddie Mercury Photographic Exhibition, it's labelled as "Freddie's favourite photo of himself". So not only was it a favourite of Mercury, but it is a highly recognisable picture, what with the moustache and the cheeky grin. Perry 15:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added three photos showing his appearance in 1974, 1985, and 1990.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just watched the Live Aid DVD performance, I don't think the current 1985 photo is from Live Aid.--Undertow87 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Live Aid logo is in the background.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not from Queen's 20 minute Live Aid set (Bohemian Rhapsody, Radio Ga Ga, Crowd Participation, Hammer To Fall, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions), but rather from later in the show, when just Freddie Mercury and Brian May returned and performed Is This The World We Created.—Perry 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks! --Undertow87 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this: http://www.yaysports.com/ncaa/images/Freddie%20Mercury%20-%20We%20Are%20the%20Paper%20Champions.jpg A fantastic picture displaying the charisma and face that the world knew and loved, I definetly think we wont get a better picture

ancestry

I found this great article about Freddie's ancestry: http://www.queenarchives.com/viewtopic.php?t=137 -- Miketm 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a great read, however it was full of speculations.136.159.187.178 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

regardless of he gave himself as label, it does not change fact. he was not iranian, so that label does not belong there. he never spoke persian nor did his parents. we can include, however, that he called himself persian. we cant say that thats what he was, but we can say that's what he liked. Sohrab Irani 19:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean we can't say he was Persian. Beside himself saying it, there are thousands of articles, books and biographies that say he was Persian. 136.159.133.199 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people of partial Indian ancestry in the west, particularly in Britain (Merle Oberon, Engelbert Humperdinck) tried to conceal it as it was seen as an indicator of lower class, so it's understandable that he may have wanted to identify as Persian. It has been documented that he was ethnically Parsi. Parsis are related to but not synonymous with Persians (our distingushing attributes are Persian relative to the Indian norm, but Indian relative to the Persian norm!). I am not really one to get into a debate over this but this article seems to make it seem like any person of Persian descent living in India is considered a Parsi, which is simply not the case. VirafPatel 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to put real name in intro

The purpose of the intro. is to give a brief introduction. There is no need to put Freddie Mercury's real name there. Basically, the opening paragraph should be a quick explanation (that a non-Queen fan could understand) of why he was famous and why anyone should care about the rest of the article. There is also no need to list every obscure band that he was ever in. The point of an encyclopedia article is to be concise, and I do not see why this belongs in a box that should only contain important things. 67.190.44.85 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps it does not need to be in the intro, but it should be in the article. I put it in the "Early Life" section - since that is when he was known by that name, that seems like the most appropriate place for it. NickBurns 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new photos

Hi, Mike. Thanks for putting up the new photos. I think that we can re-submit the article as a "good article" now. 138.67.44.69 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've just found this:

freddy was gay he always was. And i hate gay people. If you have any problems with thisw call

under "singer and performer". I tried to take it out, but I can't see it on the 'edit this page' tab. Could someone please sort this out? What a fucking retard this person is.

That's because User:80.43.91.249 removed it while you were looking for it. Thank you for your attention to the article. ... discospinster _talk 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

who took "Persian Rock star" out?

I reinserted this part into the article as their are many (especially Iranian) fans who consider him Persian based on his Parsi roots and on his own statements. There was a big edit war over this, and I want to avoid that and bring back more focus on the other parts of the article. BTW, nice job on these additional pictures. Now, if we could just lengthen the introductory paragraph a bit, and provide some more details in with regards to different aspects of his life and musical legacy, we can certainly bring this to a featured article status like that of Phil Collins. Afghan Historian 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree who took it off? 136.159.133.244

Its back on. Hopefully thats done with. Personally, I dont think he should be labelled Iranian, as Parsis are no longer really Iranian. I also think literally calling him Persian (despite whatever he said) just confuses people with regards to his heritage, as most people mean Iranians when they say someone is Persian. I originally wanted him to be labelled as just an Indian Parsi with a quick note in the legacy background that he identified himself as a Persian rather than Parsi or Indian. Also, about these thousands of books and journals that call him "Persian", from what I read, most books called him Parsi Indian. I dont know what some people mean when they say thousands of biographies and books call him Persian. From what I read, they all call him Indian. The VH1 documentary on him also refers to him neither as Persian nor Indian, but simply Parsi. The only sources I can think of are his fan website bios and amateur sketches by others based on information in the original fan club bio. Nevertheless, he did call himself Persian (perhaps more in the regard Parsis generally do, rather than as an actual Iranian) and many Iranian fans like to identify him as such, so I guess this is the best. Afghan Historian 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Parsis left Iran (Persia) over 12 centuries ago, hence no parsi will call himself persian. Its like saying im not Australian or American coz 300 years ago my grandfather came over from Cornwall, England to Australia or USA !!!!

Website?

Under what basis is that website put in Freddie's infobox? I don't think any website could be regarded as official for someone that died 15 years ago. Andymc 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed, especially since that is a site to promote a book and a cd-dvd collection. I think he could have a sort of a official site in terms of a queen related thing... but this isn't really about him... I think it should be deleted Donny 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Baritone?

It seems to me that even though Freddy Mercury naturally fell in the Baritone speaking range he was not really a baritone, but a tenor. In the songs where he sings confortably he is always in the tenor range, never in the baritone range, which would absolutely mean he is a tenor, if he wasn't most of Queen's songs, especially the slower ones would have been composed for a baritone voice. Not because he has a baritone speaking voice does it mean he is a baritone, there are many people with deep voices who are in fact tenors and vice-versa. Perhaps she should consider changing that section of the webpage into saying that "...even though his speaking voice naturally fell in the baritone range, his singing voice was that of a tenor..." Kiske 19:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have enough experiance to say this with knowledge? We had a discussionn ealier (not sure if it is on this page or one of the archives) and we decided that we needed someone who had expertise that could "weigh" his voice. I know I can't tell the difference, so I cannot make any call, educated or not... Billvoltage 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Magazine Article

Hello. Listen, I was going through some outdated Cat Fancy magazines, and I noticed there was an article dedicated to Freddie Mercury. It talked mostly about his love for his cats and how they impacted his life. There was even explanations about some of his songs that were about his cats, such as Delilah and Mr. Bad Guy. I don't know if it'll be useful, and if it is, I wouldn't know what section to type it under. And I don't know if it's already been added, too. But I have searched through almost everything, and I haven't found it. So if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to know if I could put up this part. ¡Gracias! Kyo cat 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this might belong under "Personal Life," so put it up there!138.67.44.153 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So I can put it up? ¡Muchas Gracias! er.. Thank you. I'll get to work right away. Kyo cat 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added that part in. I hope it can be useful. I'm glad to help.¡Adios! Kyo cat 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the new information. It is interesting, and I think that it tells a lot about Freddie. I edited it some to make it shorter, but I think that it is the best addition that I have seen in months. Puedes anadir mas informacion, si quieres. 67.190.44.85 04:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

heh heh, thanks for making it shorter, I know I put too much... I'm just glad nobody deleted it! I'll add more stuff when I get the chance. ¡Adios! Kyo cat 21:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Quote

There is a quote, under the header Death, and I was wondering, do we have a source for that? Billvoltage 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it shouldn't be hard to find. I saw his statement a few times... Donny 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cat Page

OK, guys. The cat stuff is interesting, but if you want to work on editing, do not change the article back unless it also includes the new Mike Myers quote and the removal of the word "legendary" from the "Early Life" section. I personally feel that the current paragraph is more concise and that you should make edits from there. Maybe we should have a vote on it.67.190.44.85 01:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Multitudes of Edits

Honestly, 67.190.44.85, what is it going to take to get you to stop editing the article one sentence at a time? You revert a quote from "Queen: In their own words" which is a very telling statement from Freddie about Freddie. A simple search would have found a source. *Sparkhead 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, If you want to add a quote, then it is your job to find the source, not mine.67.190.44.85 02:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote's been there for a while. If you have an issue with an existing item in an article, put a {{fact}} tag on it or something similar. Don't simply delete it. And learn to edit in larger chunks. Thanks. *Sparkhead 03:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now your quote is back up there, in addition to the youtube interview that I put up. We will just keep them both there. If you happen to have a source for the number of key signatures used in "Bicycle Race," that would be great too.67.190.44.85 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• You need to learn to work with other editors and be a bit more considerate in your editing. Getting a named account would be a good idea as well. When I originally put the quote back in, I put in a valid source. If you did a simple diff you would have seen the one character change to make the ref point to the correct source. If you insist on editing and reverting as you do, you'll get reverted by multiple other editors, and you've violated WP:3RR with your repeatedly removal of the quote. *Sparkhead 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to post "B-class article" designation

Guys, there is no need to post the B-class article designation. After all, is there any reason for why we should take this seriously? Since we have yet to receive any feedback or explanations, I would say that this "expert" opinion is pretty useless. Furthermore, I compared this article with others that were rated as "B-class." Do you know what I found? I discovered that most of these articles were utter crap. In other words, the "reviewer" simply does not like Freddie Mercury. And who is this person? Among other things, I would venture to say that he probably does not even have a real job (unlike me, since I am a chemist). I would assume that you all have real jobs as well, so why is his opinion more worthy than ours?67.190.44.85 05:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has yet to be listed as a "Good Article" so it cannot be listed higher then B class. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen/Assessment) Also why are you using the word "ours"? You seem to be the only one with a problem here.

These templates help to categorize articles so that WikiProjects can identify articles that need improvement. Also they are a major factor in getting articles included in CD versions of Wikipedia.

miketm - Queen WikiProject - 06:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I do not see any compelling reason to insist upon listing the article as “B” quality. I asked you why we should take this seriously, and I have yet to receive an intelligent reply. By the way, please learn how to write like an adult. “Then” and “than” are two different words. Since I am the primary author of the page, I get really tired of trying to edit shit-ass writing every week. Although I appreciate the nice pictures that you have added, you clearly to not appreciate all of the effort that I put into writing it. 138.67.44.79 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said this is not a "Good Article" so it cannot be listed higher then B class. How hard is that to understand? This article still needs some work and a new layout before it can even be considered for a "Good Article" nomination. Look at the Elvis Presley article it is much longer and more comprehensive and is listed as "B-class". WikiProjects have been using these templates for some time now and no one else has a problem with them. These are a vital part of WikiProjects and it is not your place to remove them. And no you are not the primary author of the page you are just some person making tons of mini-edits (which is very annoying) (without using edit summaries which is even more annoying). Once you become a registered user, learn how to edit properly, and learn how to interact with other users then you can have an opinion. — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 08:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudimentary

I don't see the point of the comment (rudimentary) under what instruments freddie played. HOW an artist plays an instrument is individual to such a degree that it should not be compared directly. John Petrucci of Dream Theater is the opposite kind of player to Blixa Garbeld in Nick Cave and the bad seeds- who would dare say that one is better than the other when Blixa never aspired to be technically proficient? This might be airy fairy for those of you that dont play an instrument but I shure do and resent this word RUDIMENTARY. In my view our Freddie could make magical music with a spoon! I will delete the word and if any one out there puts it back, please write to me and tell your justification. And please chech out how Roger Taylor describes the musical abilities of Freddie on the making of Bohemian Rhapsody film. PLEASE RESPOND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merqury5 (talk • contribs)

Not much to respond to. You're completely correct, and you've made the edit. Done. *Sparkhead 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of Quotes

Please stop rearranging the quotes. I've put them in order of those who have worked closest with Mercury, followed by that who are closely associated with his music, followed by others in what I perceive as order of notability on the topic of Freddie Mercury. Any issues with my ordering please bring them up here. Thanks. *Sparkhead 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My goal in setting the order is to get the average person interested enough to finish the entire list. Since the Bowie quote is not particularly enthusiastic compared to the others, I did not think that it should be first.

I think that it should be ordered in terms of how interesting the quotes are and how well known the person is. This way, the average person will have a reason to finish reading all of them. The most interesting for the majority people is the Kurt Cobain suicide note. This is a famous note that have been read over and over by thousands of fans around the world. It is also interesting, since who would have thought that the grunge star would have been thinking about Freddie Mercury at the time? The Axl Rose comment is also very poignant and surprising. The Mike Myers quote was much more generous than the Bowie quote, so it should come next. The David Bowie quote is not as interesting or enthusiastic. The Caballe quote should be put down lower too, since most people do not know her, even if she is a great singer.

That's extremely subjective. My ordering, listed above, at least attempts objectivity. There is zero reason for Cobain to be before Bowie or even Myers or others who are famous in their own right and were actually involved in Mercury's life or music. *Sparkhead 02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I ordered the list in order to reach a compromise. You can have the Bowie quote first, but I want the Axl Rose quote next, since I think that it was a much more interesting and enthusuastic. You can have the Caballe quote next, but then I want Cobain. You can then add Robbie Williams, but I think that Mike Myers is mush more interesting.67.190.44.85 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I decided that, since I put up 8 of the 9 quotes (Mike put up the Bowie quote), I should get to decide upon the order. However, if you want to dig up some quotes and contribute to it, I will allow you complete control over the order. On the other hand, I don't think that it is fair for you to act so controlling over quotes that I put the time and effort to transcribe and put up. 67.190.44.85 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:OWN. There's no logic to your ordering beyond "this is what I like", which is POV (see WP:NPOV). The ordering I've put them attempts to use neutral reasoning as I've described above. If you want to WP:RFC it, please do so. *Sparkhead 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sparkhead about the ordering of the quotes. Anyone viewing the page will expect to see Freddie's friends before some random other person who had no contact with Freddie. I expect to see that when I view the page, after all anyone can say something good about Freddie, it's most relevant to the article if it's his close friends and colleagues who are quoted first.

Please remember that per WP:OWN, no one user owns the content, this is a community project. If you don't want the content you added to be edited, you should not add it to Wikipedia.

I also urge you to contact an admin and attempt to resolve this dispute BEFORE either of you revert the quotes again. Revert wars help no one. —B33R^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll see I attempted to open a dialog on the quotes with this section in talk. You'll also see from 67.190.44.85's comments here and recent edit summaries, consensus doesn't seem to be of any concern to him. I'm trying to WP:AGF but it seems like pure disruption. I'll ask again before going to RfC or an admin route. *Sparkhead 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to give preference to "friends," but to be informative to the average person, who may or may not even know who Freddie Mercury was. The average person is more familiar with Kurt Cobain, Mike Myers and Axl Rose than with M. Caballe. Moreover, you can expect people who have worked with a given performer to say good things about him. On the other hand, it is much more interesting when unexpected artists from different genres make complimentary remarks. The best way in which to resolve the issue is simply to put the quotes in alphabetical order. Since the T. Amos quote is weird, it was removed. On the other hand, I have to express my opinion that your efforts here are doing more harm than good with regard to the quality of the article. 67.190.44.85 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of notability with respect to the topic of the article. Mentions in articles hinge on a number of factors, notability with respect to the subject is one of them. Alphabetical order is hardly relevant. I'm asking you to revert your changes and wait for some input. I'll also ask you to stop your "comma corrections" with associated uncivil (see WP:CIVIL) edit summaries. Thanks. *Sparkhead 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted an admin anyway, hopefully this situation can be resolved with his help.

For the record, British English does actually put the punctuation outside the quotation marks. —B33R^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also put a note on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Queen page. In American English, the placement of punctuation is a matter of style. Either way is considered acceptable. To go through an article changing such, accompanied with questionable remarks in the edit summary, seems to be indicative of a problem with WP:OWN. *Sparkhead 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Since, at the moment the consensus (ok, it's a small consensus, but it still is one) is for the order to be as I had placed it, I've put it back to what it was before today (at least since the 24th). I don't want the article to be edited by others and require partial reverts in the future. I am willing to discuss changes, but don't want a constant revert back and forth. *Sparkhead 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the ordering of the quotes should be alphabetical. Boab 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the majority consensus is for an alphabetical compromise (2 to 1), I have changed the ordering. 67.190.44.85 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as it stands, it's 2:2. And I asked you to leave it as it was until a consensus was reached here. And I'm LMAO at this, and I invite anyone to check for themselves, Boab is 67.190.44.85's sock puppet! Boab follows the same editing style (lots of small edits in a extended period of time), is only active when 67 is not, has a similarly abrasive style, and seems solely focused on this article. Which would make it 2:1 in favor of priority order. *Sparkhead 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am attaching a link that explains the basic rules of grammar. Please refrain from making Queen fans look like morons. Here is the link: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html. 67.190.44.85 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yet another link to AMERICAN ENGLISH. We're dealing with BRITISH ENGLISH here, Freddie Mercury was for the most part of his life a BRITISH CITIZEN. FAVORITE = FAVOURITE and the quotes go outside the punctuation. —B33R^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Cannot believe an argument on punctuation. 67, (please use your ID), this is en.wikipedia.org, NOT us.wikipedia.org. I reverted your changes because when quoting a title/name, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love," is poor styled compared to "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", and you left the article in an inconsistent state with respect to style. *Sparkhead 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that an alphabetical listing makes more sense... Billvoltage 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

annoying outing

Freddie Mercury had always been fairly open about his homosexual tendencies. In a March 12, 1974 interview for New Musical Express, he told the interviewer: "I am as gay as a daffodil, my dear!" I find this a bit annoying as it is portrayed almost as a coming out by freddie. Anyone who has a fair understanding of the english language, the age of this comment and freddies particular type of humor will understand that this IS NOT a coming out. Gay is not originally a word for homosexuality, it is by my understanding more of a state of mind and manner. It is freddie playing with words. I tried to disarm the impact of this sentence earlier by editing in that is was an ambigous statement. My edit was removed so I won't bother doing it again. But note that I strongly dissagree of taking his statement out of context and using it here for some kind of validation for the claim that freddie was open. Through my studies I find that freddie could be open with people he trusted, but people knowledgable in Queen history knows that they were carefull in making statements to the tabloids and that NME was no friend of Queen. If I could get some support for this we might get this segment a bit more correct. In saying correct I mean not putting words in freddies mouth. We should stick to what was actually said and done with some sound judgement. In freddies name.

Freddie Mercury *was* a baritone

Guys, Freddie Mercury was a baritone who maintained good tone in the tenor range. M. Caballe classified him as such. The baritone range extends from the G 10 notes below middle C to the E above middle C (i.e. from the G2 to the E4). If you look at the range listed on the page, he obviously falls right into the baritone range. In particular, during the "Live At Wembley" concert, it is clear that Mercury is more comfortable in the baritone range. 67.190.44.85 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is the quote, in case you want proof: Montserrat Caballé (1992): “He asked me what I thought of his voice, admitting that when young he had wanted to sing opera. His voice really was that of a baritone, though his fans would of course not have accepted that sort of voice. So, to prove a point, I got him to sing a duet with me – Violetta’s and Germont’s ‘Dite alla giovine’ from ‘La Traviata’, which I think was taped. He sang it very well. I don’t know how much more opera he would have been able to do, though he was such a creative person. I’m sure he would have been able to improvise anything. Freddie was a great practical joker – we both liked a laugh, though when we were working it was very serious. And although we were sometimes working for hours at a time, we were never tired or bored. He would come into the studio and say, ‘Look, my dear, I have another creation!’ Then he would play ‘La Japonaise’, ‘Guide me Home’, or ‘The Fallen Priest’, the most operatic piece on the album. Working with him was such an inspiration. I had so much respect for his workmanship” 67.190.44.85 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

More Work Needed on "Barcelona" album

Guys, more work needs to go into the "Barcelona" discussion. I feel like it needs more. I hope to see some helpful contributions here. Sparkhead, you seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Why don't you put some work into fleshing this part out? 67.190.44.85 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your editing style is abrasive and disruptive. Using a sock to attempt to get your point across isn't the best move either. That isn't exactly an invitation for other editors to work with you. *Sparkhead 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoration

Boab, I reverted back to the agreed upon version then restored some of your additions. Your change to the header of the "Death" section, as well as the removal of the overbite and Jackson sections all were unwarranted, as well as your Americanization of some portions of text (including spelling changes). Please do not make major changes without discussion. Thanks. *Sparkhead 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Topic?

hey, how's this an india-related topic? granted the man's indian, but his impact exceeds india and was more global. besides, he wasnt that thrilled with being Indian either. such a project should focus on people whose legacy mostly affected India, such as Gandhi, Syed Ahmed Khan, Ramanujan, etc. not people in the diaspora. put Tony Kanal in the project too, and i'll buy this.

Major Editing

I see you're at it again with the multitude of micro edits that result in a major change of the article. Stop it. We had a decision on the quotes and on much of the other material which was reverted by other editors that you've put in once again. Before you add anything to the article, do two things: write it up in user space and ask for views here. Reviewing WP:OWN might be a good idea as well. Thanks. *Sparkhead 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I feel like the three sentences in the intro. paragraph should be merged as they are at the moment. Looking at the Vivian Leigh article, which was recently a featured article, the first paragraph is made up of several sentences, rather than three separate paragraphs with 1 sentence each. Here it is, in case anyone wants to use it as a model for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Leigh.138.67.44.38 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Quote Order

See Order of Quotes, above. I'd like to get a poll on this. Without socks. Regarding quote ordering, I've put them in order of those who have worked closest with Mercury, followed by that who are closely associated with his music, followed by others in what I perceive as order of notability on the topic of Freddie Mercury. That ordering was reverted first to an order that one editor thought "would be more interesting" and then to an alphabetical ordering. So, what should the order be? Please chime in below. Note that due to the constant IP switching of the editor in question I'll ask that only named accounts comment. Thanks. Spark* 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

By Involvement with Mercury/Notability

1. Spark* 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical

Other

• I don't care how you order the quotes. However, I want you to come on this page whenever there is an editing war. For instance, I want you to explain why you think that F. Mercury was a tenor and not a baritone. There is a discussion up there that you have not answered. I do not deny that he fit well into the tenor range, but I want you to explain your point of view first. It is better to discuss things that to have editing wars.67.190.44.85 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine

Time magazine has voted Freddie as one of the most infulential Asians. I would like to add this to the list of commendations he has received and also highlight some of the points raised by them. http://www.time.com/time/asia/2006/heroes/at_bulsara.html. — warpspeed 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So do I. But this article doesn't have a list of commendations that I can see. In the Legacy section, I've renamed "Recent Polls" to "Popularity" and added this link. Just a stub though, so warpspeed, please do add highlights you feel are appropriate. *Spark* 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ISO Time Formatting

Please stop with the ISO Time formatting. When someone is not logged in as a user, the time formats to what is in the source, and not only is September 5, 1946 more readable, it's not vague. "5-9-46" is (depending on whether you're used to M-D-YY or D-M-YY). When someone is logged in, the time formats to their preferences. 24.186.20.138 00:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just logged out and see what you mean. I had no idea it did that when your not logged in.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Adriana Mercury

There is an article titled Adriana Mercury containing many false claims about a person who is purported to be Freddie Mercury's daughter. If the article is still there when you read this, I would appreciate it if anyone would comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Mercury so we can get rid of the false article. --Metropolitan90 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Seven Seas of Rhye an International Hit?

Well, this song, as far as i know, was never an international hit, so i suggest that someone remove that claim from the introduction. 130.237.89.78 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a huge hit in Japan. It was like Beatlemania.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't stated on the Seven Seas of Rhye page. Hit = charting and I see no such info for the song in Japan. *Spark* 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Farrokh? Faroukh? Farrock?

Well, I don't know how much this means, but I found this site (http://zanzibar.net/zanzibar/didyouknow ) which, on the fourth bullet down, spells his name as Farouk, not Farrokh, or something similar...

I was wondering if this should be taken into account... Billvoltage 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)