Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Queen (band). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

opening

TheStig118 is intent on turning the opening into a Queen shrine, with blatant original research. Keep an eye out. Jame O'Sawyer (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments here to addressing the content, not other editors. Describing the lead as a "shrine" is also uninformative and unhelpful. Please give specifics. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Shrine" seems pretty fitting to me. Here's what TheStig118 is insisting we have as an intro:

"Queen have been described as the greatest songwriters (peacock supported by Virgin Radio and Q Magazine listeners/readers voting Bohemian Rhapsody the greatest song ever; nothing to do with the band's back catalogue or status as "greatest songwriters"), the greatest live performers (cite supports the band's one-off Live Aid performance being voted the best gig ever in an industry poll, not that Queen are the "greatest live performers" ever) and the greatest band of all time (supported by a BBC public poll which supports Queen as only the greatest BRITISH band ever). He also insists on changing the reliable BBC source supporting the album sales figure to a Youtube link. He then insists that "Their success and achievement in the industry continued through the seventies and eighties, until Mercury was diagnosed as HIV positive in 1987. He died in 1991 and Deacon's retirement followed in 1995." 1) "through the seventies and eighties" should include nineties, as both Innuendo and Made in Heaven were chart successes and featured several hit singles. 2) "Until Mercury was diagnosed as HIV positive" is nonsense as Queen continued to have #1 singles and albums into the 1990s, well after his diagnosis. 3) "Deacon's retirement followed in 1995" - no, he retired in 1997.

What a disaster. Jame O'Sawyer (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Enough of the edit wars. I have reverted it to the original, and despite how much you hate it, it is not to be modified to such a significant degree again until we have discussed it here. Vandalise it once more before discussion here and I will be contacting an administrator. In response to what you have said, your first point is ridiculous, as it clearly says "Queen have been described as", thus the public and critics voicing their opinion on the matter means they are describing them as the greatest songwriters, as they feel they have produced the greatest song ever. If you like, you can change 'described' to 'cited', although it makes little difference. Your second point seems to be a result of your misinterpretation of language. I could droan on about it for a while, but I'm simply going to go with the (still valid) reason that that reference is just one example of such a statement, to back it up. We could pile another five on there if we like, but that would clog the article up and be unnecessary. As for your third point, in regards to being the greatest band, again not only is that just one example, but the fact they were voted above the Beatles, makes it really quite significant. Your fourth point in regards to the 'link'... I have never seen such a link, the only one I discovered in the old intro was the youtube link. If you have a text link, brilliant, add it in. Your fifth point, I'll admit here, I messed up my wording. It does sound as though once he was diagnosed they hence failed to perform well in sales figures as a result of said incident. You can re-word that specific segment as you see fit, to make it clear that both events are mutually exclusive. The reason I did not do so originally is probably because I was trying to keep the paragraph chronological. Deacon's retirement - typo. I've gone and fixed most of those errors, but feel free to fiddle with those more minute areas that I pointed out. I respect your aspiration to do something radical and brilliant with the intro, but something that is so substantial should be discussed first. Otherwise no hard feelings and welcome, it's great to have some more regular editors around here. TheStig 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It in indeed to be modified when there is nonsense being presented. Don't accuse people who disagree with your unsubstantiated version of the article of vandalism. Queen remain unsupported as "greatest songwriters" - nowhere in that cite are they described as such. It documents a public vote of the greatest songs ever of which Queen have ONE, therefore I have instead used it to support Bohemian Rhapsody as one of the greatest songs of all time. Other claims of greatest live performers and greatest band altered to remove blatant peacocky. BBC sales cite again reintroduced, which was reverted to a copy-vio Youtube link again by yourself, constituting obvious vandalism. Jame O'Sawyer (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits you have made now are much more reasonable, but you are still slightly misguided. In regards to the vote for best song, it is not just one vote, it is an aggregate score of many, worldwide votes concerning the topic. Some of your wording is also slightly off, as for example you describe them as "one of" the greatest live performances, when in fact it was voted the best. I've polished off those few bits, so now I would say we have come to a reasonable compromise. TheStig 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Little remaining peacocky eliminated. Jame O'Sawyer (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Widely regarded, regarded by many? You're getting a bit picky now I think. Also, what is with this 'arguably'? TheStig 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please lay off with the vandalism claims? No-one here is vandalising. I have removed a few of the cited claims in the lead because, as Jame O'Sawyer points out, they are rather peacocky. "Greatest whatever" lists compiled by random non-notable people really don't tell the reader anything useful other than some people like Queen a lot. This can be gathered from the facts in the lead, which speak for themselves. We do not require the clutter of opinions that require additional qualification and facts are always preferable to opinions, especially in the lead. Otherwise we'd be just as obliged to add other, less favourable, opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay but I put back in the 'everyhit' one because that is the most reliable of all of them,I don't see why that was removed. TheStig 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most everyone else here that the lead that TheStig is proposing is well bloated with peacockery and lacking in neutrality and reliable sources. I also don't agree with his assessment of other editors' reverting him as "vandalism". Radiopathy •talk• 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Jame O'Sawyer's comment about the YouTube vid being a copyvio: I honestly don't believe it is a copyvio, since it's posted at BBC's YouTube channel. However, I can't see using a clip of a reporter's rather unspecific comment about Queen's sales figures as a reliable source. Radiopathy •talk• 06:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You agree with almost 'everyone else'? One, at the most two people here agree with dismantling the intro, as you suggest. Everything in the intro I re-wrote was already in the article before, it was just worded so it was much clearer. The only things I did add in was the information about how Queen continued through the decades, that and Mercury's and Deacon's death and retirement respectively. As you always said when I kept changing the 'English/British' stuff Radiopathy, we should discuss the intro on here and come to a reasonable conclusion before we start changing it. Until then I will begin to undo said 'vandalisms'. (I referred to it like that as it is making a radical change without consensus.) Realistically our efforts right now should be focused on improving the article - not destroying pieces of it. TheStig 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Former bass players

I have tried to add the former bass players to the "Past Members" section, but somebody keeps deleting them. May I know why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.13.208 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

They're not that important, or relevant. None of those bass players actually properly recorded with Queen as a band for any of their official matterial, i.e. The first album. The only people on the original album were the four original line-up. TheStig 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the person above me, why be selective, i say have all of them or none of them, It IS relevant as the article is about "Queen", 1970 - 2010. not queen 1973 - 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrabt (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then clearly you don't agree with me, because that is not my viewpoint at all. None of the bass players you listed were permanent fixtures, nor did they actually contribute to any Queen recording work. If they were listed in the credits to band personnel on any of the albums, then they would be relevant. However only four gentlemen have ever been given such credits on any Queen album, and they are all listed in the infobox. TheStig 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TheStig, I wasn't agreeing with you, I was agreeing with 91.148.13.208, sorry should have made it clear. I wasn't the person who originally put them in. The names were there when i began reading the article. Then they weren’t, then they were, so i put them back in as it was annoying me. I think all is settled now, they're stay out.Emrabt (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding these bass players doesn't help summarise the band for the reader, which is the purpose of the info box. Musicians who don't feature on any releases of the band, and are not notable in themselves, are best left to the history section. And please cite their names. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Escape_Orbit, I have tried to add them also to the history section, they were also removed. So the problem was that no source was "cited" (sorry if it's not the correct english term) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.125.11 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct, it needs to be verifiable. TheStig 07:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

"If the article is heading for an FAC, the lead will probably need some expansion. Three somewhat beefed-up paragraphs seems reasonable for a major band like Queen. Also, a lead should not contain citations of its own since it's supposed to be a summary of the article. Placing one right after the the first verb seems taking it a bit too far and is quite distracting."

That extract is taken from a comment on our peer review. Since we've had quite a bit of dispute about the introduction lately, I suggest we all collaborate here and work productively on building up three paragraphs which successfully summarise the whole article. I say we begin with the structure, and work out what will be contained in each of the three segments. TheStig 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

some parts need a good re-write

This article is in dire need of a re-write, or facelift. It is FULL of bad wording, poor sources and the album sections drown on and on, each album has its own article, there’s no need for "IMPORTANT TRACKS" to be listed on this page. In fact queen and Paul Rodgers has it's own page too, so that section only needs a brief mention, sometimes less is more.

I’m happy to go through and weed out poorly sourced badly written and otherwise long unimportant segments. But in order for this to work we need “The Stig” to stop reverting everything, don’t get me wrong, you’re doing a great job at preventing vandalism but you’re also stopping the article from improving. As soon as someone edits or removes something you revert right back, may I suggest you just wait and re-add any important parts you think are necessary. Reverting back cause all the rewritten segments to be returned.07:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.39.0 (talk)

See my section above in regards to editing the intro. As for the other areas you adjusted, I didn't read through them. I jumped the gun with you because you came in during a long string of vandalism to the intro, so I was simply reverting it all and not really spending much time on a case by case basis. I would love to see this article improve and am trying to contribute to that myself, but by simply removing segments - I don't see that as improvement. Perhaps we should work through each section using the talk page as we make improvements? TheStig 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't remove much, only a few lines that have needed citations since January 2008. I mostly just reordered the information, reworded and corrected a few spellings. Anything big I’ll post suggestions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.39.0 (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Picture

After becoming completely sick of that dreadful image we have as our 'band picture' for Queen, I decided to contact them via the bands website requesting their permission to use an image on this site. Amazingly, I received a prompt and unexpected reply being offered a variety of images. I selected the best one and then replied questioning what level of permission we now have. I am here however, to ask in what form we need the permission to be given. I assume we only require a written message from the owner of the image, (which I will screenshot) and then we can use it on this page? TheStig 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work! You can refer to image use policy here. Effectively what you need is the copyright owner to release the image under an acceptable free license. That means it can't just be "by permission", or "just for Wikipedia". Then you need to document this on the upload and its talk page. Looking at the image you've selected, I'm sure that's quite a famous one. I'd be surprised if they are willing to release that on a free licence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the fact that they replied when you asked imply permission anyway? Stephen MUFC (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No. --John (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain? If they were contacted asking for a picture to use on a specific website and they replied and sent images that surely means they condone their use. Stephen MUFC (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Image_use_policy. Permission to use the images on Wikipedia on its own isn't enough. --John (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

New Idea

How about we create a mash up of four separate images for each band mate, similar to that done on The Beatles Wikipedia page. I have found appropriate images that we have permission to use for Freddie[1] and Brian[2]. As for John, we could use this one[3] or another image[4] that I found on flickr, which according to the author is free for use on Wikipedia however I'm not certain if said copyright is reliable. The same goes for an image of Roger that I found.[5] Could someone give me some insight as to whether we would be able to use those images or not? TheStig 12:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Influences

I don't know if in this band's case this is unique or not, but a lot of those bands listed (and other bands not listed) who were influenced by Queen have also influenced each other. For example, Muse has cited The Smashing Pumpkins and Nirvana as influences, and Matt Bellamy himself has also cited Ben Folds as an influence (1). Muse has also garnered comparisons to Radiohead (whether those comparisons are fair or not is another story) as well as comparisons to Queen (United States of Eurasia removed all doubts that they look up to Queen). Metallica has spoken positively about the music of both Guns N' Roses and Muse, as they briefly went on tour with GNR once, and particularly James Hetfield saying Muse's album Absolution got him through some rough personal times (2). My Chemical Romance, Panic at The Disco (3) and Adam Lambert all cite both Queen and Muse as influences, and MCR, who like Muse also cites The Smashing Pumpkins as an influence (4), toured with Muse a couple years ago, yet strangely enough they're not mentioned in the "Influences" section. Lambert himself has also cited The Killers as influences (who are listed as being influenced by Queen). Oh yeah, and I believe I saw Michael Jackson listed there a while ago, but now he's gone. Hot Spaced did influence Thriller, and Michael was a huge fan of Queen and vice-versa, they always checked each other out at concerts, Brian May mentioned it on his blog in June the day after Michael's death. And he collaborated on a song with Freddie that was never released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of influences disappearing. Michael Jackson should definitely be on there, and vice-versa for Queen, particularly Freddie. I'll find some citations and work on this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.32.100 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this article is run by few people who only allow their own edits and revert edits by anyone else. Good luck, then, I won't ever touch it again. However, it would be nice to add a header for this article saying "Your changes will not be accepted, because we don't need your opinion." Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This header isn't required as it would only be repeating what is policy for all articles. It is Wikipedia policy that no-one's opinion is needed. If it isn't reliably sourced it can be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit which I made was a referenced factual information, it wasn't my opinion per se. However it seems like the section of the article which I was trying to improve is of an special interest amongst Wikipedia's editors. I'm retreating and good luck. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. However I think that while Lady Gaga's influences may be of significance to her, they are of little importance to Queen, and hence this article. I also think that the cite you supplied (a website selling posters) isn't very good. It's also a bit vague (is the influence musical, fashion, performance, personal?) and doesn't supply a direct quote. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There ya go, Artem. "Proper sourcing". Good luck, and don't give up (like I practically have) just because of dubbed "Wikipedia Nazis" (particularly Fred the Oyster, not necessarily Escape Orbit). For the record, I personally couldn't care less about Lady Gaga (I think she's a bizarre attention whore), but as has been mentioned, opinions don't belong here, but the talk page is fine, heh. Since virtually any band can claim that another is their "influence", I actually don't think the whole paragraph of "Some of the musicians that have cited the band as an influence include..." should even be there since the list has gotten so long, but that's not really for me to say either. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodie... our buddy Fred has already reverted the change based on his own opinion again of what should or should not be on the Queen article. Well, I asserted my opinion on the matter, but I'm walking away from this one. Just more WP drama I don't need. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Including quotes around words does not give you leeway to attack other editors. Don't do it again. Address the content, not the editor. As it is, I think the Lady Gaga cite is acceptable. It verges on trivia, but is no worse or better than the others listed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the policy lesson, braww. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady GaGa considers Freddie/Queen to be a biggest influence, so I feel that is quite relevant. Also Escape, when I say this it isn't attack on you, its on the policy. That can't be the case that "opinion isn't need, verifiability is all that matters" because if that was this case, we wouldn't need to lower ourselves into a pathetic debate about nationality to settle on a consensus that is factually correct and shouldn't even need to be discussed. (I'm referring to the fact there is no such thing as an 'English' nationality) No wonder Wikipedia is regularly criticised. Nevertheless, I don't like the way Fred is trying to become dictator of the article too. Celtic Wonder, providing your edits are legit, I see no reason why they shouldn't be in there, you have my support and since I'm quite a long term contributor to this article, I'll report it if it gets too bad. Just let me know. TheStig 21:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead re-write

TheStig, I understand your reasoning and the principles you are following. But I guarantee that without cites the lead as you have left it will not last a week. You've already included what are essentially opinions rather than facts in the lead. The reader needs to know exactly whose opinions these are without having to comb the whole article. Otherwise, look forward to the ^{[weasel words]}, ^{[by whom?]} tags being added.

You also know for a fact that the whole are/were issue is a frequent dispute on this article. Without a cite the current 'are' may not last out a day before it is changed back to 'were'.

Also not sure what peer review you are referring to. The latest one I can find is three years old and scarcely applicable any more. Could you link me the one you're talking about? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review: [6]

Take a read. I agree, we need some cites in the article. Now that I have considered it, we definitely ought to keep them in where we describe 'greatest song, band' etc. however like that person has commented in the review, putting a citation right after the second word is too far and really off putting. Thoughts? TheStig 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps then we can get an editor note in there, and have a definite paragraph in the history section that it can direct editors to? How about at the end of the history; "The remaining members of Queen continue to perform infrequently .. etc etc.." followed by this same cite number [1]. It would also be helpful if this last section was not named "After Queen + Paul Rodgers", as this can be read as signally an end to Queen, rather than just their time with Rodgers. Something factual and plain like; "2009 Onwards". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but what is a more appropriate name? Furthermore, I feel that the citation on the time active is sufficient, combined with the editors note around the word 'are'. Ultimately, anyone who changes it - we can revert it and tell them to stop it on their talk page. TheStig 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Re-Written

I've re-written the introduction completely to make it much longer, and more professional/engaging. I don't think it's quite perfect, so any suggestions or comments are welcome as to how it can be improved. TheStig 11:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

40 years since their formation, Queen's music continues to be popular and influential

Deleting the above is not "being ignorant" or being awkward. Unless there is a source that states this then you cannot say it regardless of how much you know it to be true. You cannot take the results of two sources and use them together to come up with a third conclusion. That is a perfect example of synthesis. The fact that it's in another article (featured or otherwise) is totally irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stig, if you want it in the article then come up with a sources that says so, otherwise quit being bolshie and accept that this is how things are done. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Page 32... [7] TheStig 09:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not fine. There's nothing on that page that supports the above quote. It refers to some songs being covered and about young music fans enjoying the music, but again it's a synthesis to convert the contents of that magazine page into the above quote. The bit about being "influential" is a question posed by the writer, although the question may have been meant to be rhetorical, it is not a statement of fact nor even a statement of the writer's opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't grasp the use of the word 'fine'. Anyway, the entire article is all about how much influence Queen is having on the present day. Did you even read past that rhetoric? It essentially lists a great wealth of examples of how Queen's music is influencing modern day artists. Stop using 'synthesis' to try and shoot down valid sources. In terms of popularity, "half the people who have bought Queen's Greatest Hits are under 18." TheStig 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again you are attempting to create an expression from your opinion of the text. If you wish to use such an absolute statement then it must be a direct quote. It cannot be based on your understanding of what the magazine article says. Like it or not that is synthesis. Find a source that says specifically that for 40 years their music has been popular an influential and I will happily go along with it. Either that or rephrase it so that it is supported by any existing (or new) sources. Please remember that you are referring to a 40 year time period, so was their music influential, for example, 2 years after they formed? The above quote uses the 40 year time period followed by a "continues to be" which gives the impression that it has been constant for all of the 40 years. This is not the case. A suggestion would be "40 years after their formation, Queen's music is still regarded as being both popular and influential". That wording should be far easier to find supporting sources for. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well two undisputed facts we have is that "Queen top modern surveys based on their music" and "It is forty years since they formed". As you suggested the statement should be reworded. Perhaps, "Forty years since their formation, Queen and their music continue to top contemporary surveys." ...or something along those lines. Thoughts? TheStig 15:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are undisputed facts or not isn't the point. Combining them is not being neutral and is synthesis. You are spoon feeding the reader facts and combining them in one sentence to suggest the point you wish to make. The article already makes it clear when they formed. It already, separately, demonstrates all the awards and votes they have garnered, and when they received them. Let the reader reach their own conclusions, without you leading them to one of your own. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think we established that Escape Orbit. Or was that a response to the new source I suggested? :s TheStig_t·c 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?

Did Queen have a heavy metal element in their songs like Bohemian Rhapsody look at that and tell me! People say it is Hard Rock, but if you look at it, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal crossover. I know they are rock, just to clarify you guys, do you think they have a heavy metal element in their work? panicpack121 3:35 11 April, 2010 (UTC)

Like I have written in the intro, their first two albums; Queen and Queen II were chiefly heavy metal orientated. Have a listen to them on YouTube. TheStig 08:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a picture of Queen themselves alone?

You might say it's not important, but shouldn't the first picture of the article be of Queen themselves alone, without Maradonna? Just saying, what's your opinion? --GetFresh (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. But we haven't got one and this is the best one we have showing the whole band. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe me when I tell you I've spent a lot of time looking for a free use image that depict the band as well as the current image yet without Maradona... yet sadly I have had no success. TheStig_t·c 21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-organising the 'History' section

The prose of the entire history section, as well as the structure on a whole I believe to be very poor. As such I feel that a new layout for the section of the article is needed as well as a general re-write of a large amount of the text. A lot of the information isn't sourced, and a lot of it that is has been done so poorly. So firstly, any suggestions for what new header structure we could use in the article? TheStig_t·c 18:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Best British Band?

I'll look it up, but shouldn't it take more than one survey to say that Queen beats out Led Zep, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones? Soxwon (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The context in which the statement is included is that, "Queen have been described as being the Best British Band...", it does not say "Queen is the Best British Band". Nevertheless, I invite you to find a creditable British poll that ranks the Stones and Led Zep above Queen. The Beatles I can understand, however. TheStig_t·c 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I understand, but without some qualifier as to WHO is stating this, you are still somewhat implying a concensus in modern times when there may in fact may not be one. Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And I know that I'm opening up a can of worms that I'll probably regret, but the way it is currently worded, you also should consider other opinions (such as American, Canadian, and Australian) since they have opinions about the Brits too. Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Modern surveys" describes the plurality, in the sense that there are three surveys being specified as the sentence develops. TheStig_t·c 16:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, describing three different things and by three very limited groups. See below, I suggest changing and perhaps removing the statement. Soxwon (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, best song ever?

Again, one poll needs to be stated as one poll, rather than "modern surveys." To state otherwise is misleading. Soxwon (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This all emphasises the folly of putting poorly defined and peacocky popularity poll results in the lead. See previous discussion on this. I would much prefer that these were all relegated to the body of the article and the lead was left with actual hard facts, like chart positions, sales and awards. These alone are perfectly adequate at establishing Queen's popularity, reputation and influence. Popularity polls come and go and are riddled with the all the usual problems of limited samples, self-selecting voters, vote-rigging and dubious notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The concensus seemed to be against stig so I would go with Escape_Orbit's proposal or matching the article with the claims (in a bbc radio live 2 poll they were declared the best british band, producing the greatest single according to everyhit.com or possibly Q Magazine (2006), Radio 2 (2004), Guinness (2002), Radio 1 (1998) and Mojo Magazine (1997); and having the best live performance according to the BBC channel 4). Whether these accolades belong in the lead I don't know. Soxwon (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Smile in the lead

My edits here are an effort to tighten up the lead, which had become over-long and flabby with facts that really don't matter to anyone wanting a concise summary of who Queen were/are.

Discussion about Smile in this article is certainly relevant, but not important enough for the lead. Adding them to the lead suggests they were a band that the reader should/may know about, when really they were of very little significance in their time and would be unheard of today if it wasn't for who the band members became. Mention of them in the lead just confuses things when it's all explained perfectly in the section below.

As for the order in which the band members joined, again relevant and worth having in the early history section, but really, of zero importance to the lead. Did the order they meet play any important part of their success? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen are Smile, just a different name. Smile consisted of Staffel, May and Taylor. Staffel left and was replaced by Mercury, who changed the band's name to Queen. Deacon joined at a later date. A brief summary of their origin is indeed important information. Furthermore, while I've been developing this article and others, I like to compare to other articles of the same nature that are FAs. For this particular one, I usually compare it to The Beatles. In that article, it goes into much more detail about their origin as the Quarrymen, and that is effectively a completely different band to the Beatles themselves. As such, I don't really see why there is any need to not include relevant and quite crucial information that is concise nevertheless, from the lead. TheStig_t·c 16:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone reading the lead wants to know about Queen, when all of a sudden the lead is wittering on about some band called 'Smile' and trivia about who met who first, as if it mattered. But let's compare it to the Beatles article. Where is the Quarrymen mentioned in the lead there?? They aren't. So by your own standards Smile shouldn't be there --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with leaving Smile out of the lede, it seems off-topic to focus part of the lede on a previous, fairly obscure band. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, here: "With an early five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), The Beatles built their reputation in Liverpool and Hamburg clubs over a three-year period from 1960. Sutcliffe left the group in 1961, and Best was replaced by Starr the following year." if you like, we could modify it to not include the actual word 'Smile', if you'd like to be pedantic. TheStig_t·c 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You may call it pedantry, I call it staying on topic. Address the subject, not the editor. The problem is that Smile are given no introduction, but dropped in as if the reader should already know who they are. But introducing Smile is too much of a diversion to have in the lead. In the same way, the Beatles article doesn't start explaining who the Quarrymen were. How about something like;

The group formed when Farrokh Bulsara renamed the remnants of May and Taylor's previous band and changed his own to 'Freddie Mercury'. Deacon was then recruited by the trio to complete the group.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 05:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an ideal compromise, however I'll put in a link to the Smile article for reference. Article updated. TheStig_t·c 08:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe could be slicker phrasing, but better. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to modify it, I was in a bit of a rush. TheStig_t·c 09:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use picture?

Since there is no free use image that clearly depicts just the four band members, does that qualify as justifiable grounds for a non-free image to be used under the fair use policy? TheStig_t·c 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking?

Any reason we should link London England and UK on this article? It breaches WP:OVERLINK to do so and seems to serve no useful purpose. --John (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion on my talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to fulfill your burden of responsibility to explain why these links add value here, contrary to the guideline mentioned above. --John (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You wish the article changed. The burden in on you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. That's not how we work here. Read the link above. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

London should be linked in the lead and in the infobox, in my opinion. As for the region and nation, perhaps establishing consensus would be the best option? TheStig_t·c 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that I do not believe they breach the MOS guideline and why they serve a useful purpose. Linking is not covered in WP:BURDEN and your brandishing of verifiability policy is a misuse of it. You cannot cite or verify a question of style. If you think the links shouldn't be there, contrary to their existence for the last 7 years, the burden is on you to put your case. Please do so. That is how we do things here. Until then, all we have established is that we disagree on a matter of style. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You have explained that linking like this is not forbidden, where a genuine purpose for the links can be demonstrated. I do not believe you have demonstrated what that purpose would be. --John (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the discussion on my talk page for John's convenience; "England and London are particularly relevant because they are where the band was formed and provide a great deal of context to the band's background. There has also been consensus reached on the article that describes the band in these exact terms, due to some complexity about their nationality. It is therefore helpful that the reader understands fully the definitions used. This is in common with many articles about individuals, groups and organisations."

"I don't agree." is not the same as "You haven't done it." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sharing your opinion (again). You mention consensus above; does anybody else agree with you? One thing it's extremely hard for me to see; why do we (in your opinion) need to link both London and England, and also UK (which redirects to United Kingdom)? By your logic, wouldn't one of the three be sufficient for the people you believe (again, only your opinion) are unfamiliar with the capital and the country and need to click the link to find out what it means? Is there, in fact, any evidence that anybody is aided by these links (apart, of course, from your opinion)? --John (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not whether they are relevant to the topic, but whether they are sufficiently useful to the reader, given that every wikilink slightly dilutes the other wikilinks. Part of our job is to carefully select the links in a way that adds value, on balance. The minuses are that increased dilution and the blue-black signal-to-noise issue. The plus might be that the link target at issue is focused, relevant and useful, and in the case of geographical names, is unlikely to be known to most English-speakers. These three terms do not satisfy these tests and should not be linked. Tony (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, wp:overlink clearly says that there's no problem linking common terms where they are "relevant". Equally, it says absolutely nothing about terms having to be "sufficiently useful", especially where "useful" is defined in terms of "what I deem to be useful of behalf of everyone else". Nor does it talk about this slightly vague concept of "dilution" anywhere. However, it does explicitly say "Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers".

For info, and in the interests of openness, Tony and John are both part of a very small group of editors with some very fixed ideas on linking, who spend time driving through articles deleting links en masse to specific terms they personally don't like as links, even where those links are in infoboxes, have been there for years with the consent of regular editors of each such article and are clearly relevant to the topic at hand. As noted, the MoS guideline on this is fairly clear, and, furthermore, there has never been any more specific discussion or consensus anywhere for this stripping of links to "London" or "France" or whatever from every article in which they appear. And yet the burden is being thrown back on those arguing for their retention in each and every case. If you even question this grand plan, you are accused of being a brake on progress. Sure, some of these terms are no doubt "overlinked" quite often, but that's not necessarily what we're talking about here. Btw, I'm not part of any "rival gang" who thinks exactly the opposite. I just found myself in exactly the same situation when "France" was stripped from a couple of pages on my watchlist a couple of months ago. I saw just now that John had gone to the link talk page to ask for help here, and I thought I'd give some background, and also clarify that there is no consensus on this kind of thing whatsoever, in case editors on this page were persuaded to believe that there was. N-HH talk/edits 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice effort at poisoning the well, N-HH. Do you think many readers will be significantly aided by including the three links which EscapeOrbit wishes to retain? If you answer 'yes', is this an evidence-based opinion? --John (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating relevant facts hardly constitutes "poisoning the well"; simply put, the problem lies not in efforts to clean up genuine overlinking, but in the overuse of the delinking script to enforce a hard-line personal interpretation of the guideline. As for your question, what proof do you have that "many readers will be significantly aided" by the removal of these links? --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with previous long and involved discussion on this article's lead; Here is a link that may help explain why it is important that any readers unclear on the concepts should have the opportunity to understand exactly what is meant by England, London and UK. I would recommend editors new to this article read it before arguing further about a blind appliance of a guideline that makes clear itself that it is not a universal rule.

If it is established consensus that these links are indeed excessive and unneeded, then so be it. But I do not believe it should be decided by one passing editor's personal interpretation of a guideline that is flexible, and the wielding of an irrelevant policy.

I'm also mystified by John's scorn for 'my opinion', when that was exactly what he has repeatedly requested. Perhaps if I gave it the appearance of authority by prefacing it with a collective 'we', as he is wont to do, it would be received better? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Or even if you could point to a consensus where other people agree with your logic that the average reader of this article will not understand the three terms unless we link them. The discussion you point to discusses which nationality we should ascribe to the band, but at a quick glance there seems to be no obvious discussion of linking there. Did you link the wrong discussion? Or do you (as I suspect) need to have a think about the difference between mentioning these common geographical terms and linking to them? --John (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it poisoning the well to open a post by quoting from and analysing the guideline being cited? If you would actually respond to the points being highlighted there, rather than ad-homineming about alleged ad hominems, we might get somewhere. And there is nothing inaccurate about my later observation about editors with "fixed ideas on linking" who go through articles removing links to specific terms. Everyone's contributions, including those of editors who use scripts to run through hundreds of articles every day, as well as those who remove the same links a little more casually, are open for everyone to see. As are their talk page contributions on the issue. On point, who is claiming that people "will not understand" what London or England are, and that that is the reason for linking them in the first place? And, as ever, where is the consensus to remove them, from this article, or from articles more generally? N-HH talk/edits 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ps: and if the band were formed in Birmingham, would that link be "allowed"? Where do you draw the line as to what cities/places are "well known" enough?

pps: to be fair and to respond to John's question - yes, I think that the three links might be useful to some readers. It is very possible that people might wish to move from a page about a London band to a page about London. I personally have a fairly open mind about it. In turn is it your opinion that they will never be useful to anyone, and that they definitely cause so much harm - in an infobox, not even in article text - that they must be removed forthwith?

No, it is up to you to present cogent reasons that the site-wide guidance on not linking widely known geographical names should be breached on this occasion. Let's hear those reasons, please. Tony (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no in turn. It is up to you to show that it is a breach of said guidelines in the first place. To sum up and depart, as this is after all the Queen talk page, not the wp:link talkpage -

wp:overlink does not say at any point that articles should not link, ever, to pages about "well known" places. Indeed there is a specific exemption to that general advice, for places that are "relevant", as arguably they are here
there is no consensus that every wp link specifically to France, London etc has to be removed from every page (whether because "people already know where/what they are", or for any other reason)
there is no mandate anywhere, for editors to roam pages enforcing that non-existent consensus
regular editors on this specific page seem fine with the links under debate at the moment

So, probably best to just leave this pages as it happily was, no? It's not as if we're talking about defacement or vandalism. Now I know that several of you came unstuck over mass date de-linking at the point when there was no clear consensus on that either, I'm a little confused as to why you're now picking new battles. N-HH talk/edits 17:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, demonstrating that such links are not forbidden is not equivalent to demonstrating why we need them. So, why do we need them on this specific page? All three of them? Take your time, and I'm looking forward to reading your reasons. And, once again, the use of ad hominem-based arguments will only lead others to thinking that your position lacks merit, so keep it evidence-based, consensus-based and focused on utility to readers, please. Go for it! --John (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"..when there was no clear consensus on that either..."—could you give a link to demonstrate which particular "point" that was? HWV258. 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As the policy/guideline/whatever does not actually give examples of what specific sorts of places may or may not be linked, there is no solid consensus on the matter and we must establish one here, unique for this article. As for this particular article, personally I'd say, to coin a phrase, "if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it." What the guideline does say is that links should not be overused to the point where it creates clutter for the reader. Clearly, by adding a mere two links into the lead and four into the infobox (within which its purpose is to provide information and ultimately act as part of the navigational framework of the entire page, thus links should be expected there anyway), these links are not compromising the aesthetic value of the prose in the article and therefore, if there is no valid to reason to keep them, why should they be removed? They're not doing any harm, and its not like they are counter-productive. TheStig_t·c 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the above discussion in detail (I came here after seeing the note at WT:LINK), but I don't think it matters whether the link is "harmless" or not. For every link, one must consider whether the information in the linked article significantly improves readers' understanding. Has anyone actually answered this question yet? All I see are comments about what is usually done and "should" be done; let's focus on the individual links in this article please. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear TheStig, while I do have an opinion on the linking in this article, I was not addressing that issue in my post. Instead, I was requesting N-HH provide evidence supporting a statement made on the date delinking issue. HWV258. 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that NHH has waded into this discussion with his wild accusations carried over from prior discussion at WP:Linking, and a touch of hysteria, or so it seems to me. NHH is himself getting more personal with his accusations that it is a 'small band of editors who run amok with scripts indiscriminately and brainlessly delinking relevant words'. I can tell him that my efforts took the best part of an hour. They amply demonstrate that the problem is actually quite severe, and that my removals were manual and carefully considered.
Whilst I was expecting 'London' being the sticking point, I did not expect such vehement opposition to removal of the more obviously indirect links. It seems that the discussion is stuck around whether we should keep 'London', 'England' AND 'United Kingdom' linked. I'm glad nobody has seen fit to restore the seven links to Bohemian Rhapsody, as well as the other links, I removed. The lead section is already one of the most densely linked part of this article -and indeed any article, and it is mighty strange to presuppose that all three links together - a chain of three cascading links by definition - would serve rather than hinder the reader. The link density alone means the likelihood of any reader interested in the central subject, or maybe looking for the names of the band members, or their influences, would have to wade through the detritus of three adjacent chain links, namely London, England, United Kingdom, among others, to get there. I'm surprised not more people come and shout 'can you turn the volume down please, there's too much noise'. Perhaps it's because people who listen to rock music like it LOUD! ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't lose hope Ohconfucius. Your efforts to improve WP are most appreciated. Keep up the good work. HWV258. 05:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  - Ditto. To me, seeing "London, England, UK" linked like that was like an example of how not to do it. Times have changed, and we're linking more judiciously now, hence the general acceptance of WP:OVERLINK. At best, one of those terms could be linked, more likely zero. But never all three. Why would you? --John (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the argument against my 'harmlessness' suggestion. The links are not causing any harm, and they do not overcrowd the text. If anything, they are very useful as explained fruitfully by Escape Orbit. As such, what good reason is there to remove them? TheStig_t·c 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Doing no harm is not a criterion for inclusion here, and neither is it a criterion for linking. In what way is having all three geographical terms linked "very useful"? --John (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think using the criteria "very useful" is exaggerating slightly. Of course the links are useful. TheStig_t·c 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Of course the links are useful"—sorry, but it is not useful to link "England" if "London" has already been linked (to give just one example). It just looks nerdy (i.e. it's linking for the sake of linking). Any reader in doubt about "England" will be put right in the "London" article. HWV258. 03:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But they link to different articles - one about the city the band come from, one about the country they come from (yes, two if you count the UK link). Why is this a problem? Having the links in the infobox improves basic navigability for readers. If you don't want to click on any of the links, don't click on them. If you think it "looks nerdy", look away. The idea that having the links is "distracting" readers or forcing them to "wade through" anything is just plain odd, especially in relation to an infobox. No one's disputing the removal of repetitive links throughout the article, or claiming that people are "brainlessly running amok", so I don't know why that's even being brought up. Nor do I understand this apparent demand for testimonials or evidence as to the usefulness of these specific links to the city and country where a band come from - it seems to be to be a rather unremarkable statement of the obvious to suggest that such links might be useful to some people. Again, there is no support in the wording of wp:overlink, or separate consensus, for this sweeping removal of all links to relevant "well known" terms, either more generally or here on this page. In addition, I might add that it is a little odd to be accused of "wading in" when I was simply responding to a request for more views at the link talk page (were you expecting only those people who agree with this campaign to come by?); and to be accused of being "hysterical" and "vehement", and of making "wild accusations", when it's fairly obvious in this discussion who's being more open-minded about the issue at hand - and when I'm the one being accused of "ad hominem" attacks. Pots and kettles and all that. Anyway, it seems the page is settled on this point now, so, as suggested, let's just drop it. Jesus, I don't even like Queen. N-HH talk/edits 07:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of "wading in", so please respond to the relevant editors about such matters (with the correct indenting). It is the hierarchy of links that is the key here. It looks amateurish to link "London" next to "England" next to "UK". You are one of the last editors I've encountered who has trouble coming to terms with that. I detest the "look away" argument. That's the same reasoning that leads people to say "if you don't think it's appropriate on television, then don't watch it". Well, some people will watch it, and the same applies here: many viewers will see this article, and they deserve to have an easy-to-read experience. The overlinking of words makes reading more difficult. HWV258. 08:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was responding to various comments in the wider thread above, which I think is fine, rather than scattering responses individually. People involved will know who said what. I at least haven't made any quotes up. Anyway, again, the readability argument really causes me to scratch my head, especially when it comes to infoboxes. Nor do I think that it looks amateurish - and of course you could argue that it looks more aesthetically coherent to link each term. And I'm by no means the last editor to be bothered by this. There are four on this page for starters, and I've seen comments elsewhere recently from others too querying it all when they come across examples of it. As I've said before, I'm sure most people don't care that much either way. I don't that much, and it's actually quite a trivial point, but at the same time I don't see what advantage is being gained by wiping out a lot of perfectly good links - yes, along with lots of "bad" ones as well - and I have an issue with the forced imposition of it all, when, to repeat, there is no broad consensus on this whatsoever, despite assertions that "times have changed" (since when? In what way?) and that "we" do things differently now. N-HH talk/edits 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"I was responding to various comments in the wider thread above..."—no, please don't do that. Take the time to respond carefully, appropriately, and accurately on talk pages. I didn't say "last", I said "one of the last". If you don't like the linking policies at WP:Linking, raise issues there. If you believe travesties are being committed here, raise issues there. Otherwise, please don't have this debate on many different talk pages. HWV258. 08:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, let's be accurate: it is a guideline, not a policy. Policies are very different from guidelines on Wikipedia, and are much more strict in their interpretation. Guidelines, on the other hand, are more flexible. In addition, you must remember that the decision to strip away these links was based on a personal interpretation of the guideline, with the use of a user-based script that offers little or no means of scrutiny by the wider community. Debating such personal interpretations here is certainly fair game. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, we had 3,289,006 articles—most with links, and a fair few of which could be considered cases of over-linking. Let's not bother these good folk with this same debate on the other 3,289,000 articles. Instead, take it to WP:Linking to sort things out. While we're waiting for that, I'm sure the editors involved will continue the good (and overwhelmingly supported) link-reduction work. HWV258. 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Good" link reduction is not the issue here; these personal-preference based, mass deletions by unsanctioned script are. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously entitled to your opinion. If you really feel strongly, click here: WP:Linking (this article is about Queen (the band)). HWV258. 09:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look back through the above, and then re-read the opening question: "Any reason we should link London England and UK on this article?". Frightening that we have to go through all this for such an obvious answer: of course there isn't a reason to link all three. (Shivers in disbelief.) HWV258. 09:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an insane amount of replies for such a pedantic and minor issue. The links are useful to an extent. In my opinion, they certainly do not compromise the aesthetic value of the article. I fear that the guideline everyone keeps referring to is being treated as a policy, which it is not. Is there actually a good reason to get rid of them? TheStig_t·c 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They should be removed because they breach the guideline concerning how we link, and because no compelling reason or consensus has been demonstrated for their retention. Pretty simple really.--John (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We are all aiming for a more professional approach to WP. Guidelines help with that process. The Queen article does not exist in isolation to the standards and formatting of other pages on WP. Other reasons were clearly given above. "The links are useful to an extent"—could you please explain (given that "London" is linked) how a link to "England" deepens the understanding of the information given in the Queen article? HWV258. 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

John: Please refer me to the guideline that dictates cities, regions and nations may NOT be linked in articles. HWV258: Personally I don't think England is really even necessary in the article, but linking said three words will give the reader, above all, quicker navigation around the project. If a quite diplomatically ignorant individual from America for example, were to become interested in Queen's music and research them on this page, should they not know much about the United Kingdom, they may access that page to learn more about it, especially since most of Queen's activity took place in the UK, and the article talks of places (such as Wembley) within the UK they may wish to understand more about. Is there a quicker and easier solution to this rather than squabbling? Oh and, don't bother replying with "yeah, removing the links". TheStig_t·c 06:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Yeah, stop squabbling". You didn't address my question (to do with the hierarchy of the links). The point is that if an interested reader wishes to find out more about the UK, London is an adequate gateway. I don't believe it is appropriate to format articles based on assuming a lowest common denominator of a "diplomatically ignorant individual from America". How low do you go? Why not link all words in case a really ignorant reader comes along? And don't forget that there is always the search box for the three "diplomatically ignorant individuals" who will ever want to get to "UK" from the "Queen (band)" article. HWV258. 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well clearly we're not accomplishing anything with discussion. I propose a straw poll. TheStig_t·c 06:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we certainly won't accomplish anything if the points being raised are not addressed. :-( HWV258. 06:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I answered it above, I thought - they are, perhaps to state the obvious, different pages. And, as I've said, they might each be useful to some people, and they are certainly both relevant. I don't know why we need more than that as a justification. Why make people jump through hoops to get to either of them, when there's no need to? I would add that by contrast, I have asked certain questions several times now about the whole delinking issue, here and elsewhere, and never had any response. I've raised some of them again, as suggested, at the WP:LINK talk page. Perhaps we can now let this thread die, as it should have done a while back? N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue of linking is one of diminishing returns. There is no point linking more-and-more on the off chance that someone might want to visit that page one day. The links must add value to the article in question—and stand on their own merit in an article. I'm surprised to find you defending the idea that "England" adds value to this article when "London" has been linked. You and others have not addressed the concept of a hierarchy of links. I'm always saddened to see editors adopt a stance from which they feel they cannot back away; whereas on the other hand, the delinking that has been carried out by hard-working and professional editors has been overwhelmingly well received on a multitude of other pages. That too is a point contributors to this debate ignore.

By the way N-HH, how are you going finding links supporting your statement above: ""..when there was no clear consensus on that either..."?

HWV258. 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue would fade away if it wasn't for some editors insisting in raking back through the discussion for points they can renew argument on. Particularly those unrelated to this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)