Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 2

Sales and Popularity
Queens sales info now resides in the "historical success" section, which gives an in depth discussion about their music sales. It was out here and removed from the introduction because Queen fans kept removing the lower numbers, wanting to just have the high numbers in. That's not wikipedia, that's a fan site. This is an Npov article. Also, someone keeps changing the intro to read "IN England, Queen are second only to the Beatles in popularity". The source for this is a poll in which less than 1% of the population voted, and as such, like in other wikipedia music articles, this is not considered concrete enough and therefore once again I have reverted that line to read that the came 2nd in a poll conducted by Channel 4 television, which is a fact based statement, rather than one that assumes the other 99% of the population agrees with the minority that voted.
 * I moved the sales info to the "Historical success" section because the sales info, since there was no agreed figure, simply cluttered up the intro. However, I continue to alter it to say "In England, their popularity remains second to the Beatles." because, not only is that sentence more succint and to-the-point than the other sentences that have been used, but because the poll really is comprehensive. 600,000 people voting in a poll is massive, truly massive, and I see no better way to determine popularity of a given band than simply by asking the people. TheImpossibleMan 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There are 60 million people in the UK, only 600,000 voted. That leaves 59.4 million peoples opnion uncounted for. To say that 600,000 can speak for 60 million is ignorance. 600,000 is not "truly massive" compared to the other 59 million plus. Therefore the fact is Queen were voted 2nd best band in a poll by a small section of "the people".

Listen up, and listen well. Statistics has a way for a subset of the population to represent a larger population. It's called sampled error. You see, they randomly select a certain percentage of the population, and then poll them. Then, they use the original sample size and its ratio to the whole population's size in order to create a margin of error. So, you see, the poll results can be considered reliable, just as long as we keep in mind that a second polling will have slightly different numbers. On top of that, nobody voted for anything. A poll is a gathering of opinions, not a casting of votes. Voting refers exclusively to the democratic process of determining majority opinion, not a statistical analysis. If you have anything more to say, say it on this page first, because otherwise one of us will more likely than not be reverting any other changes that you make against consensus. Sorry for sounding condencending, but it had to be said. - Corbin Simpson 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So because "Revolver" by the Beatles has been voted "Greatest Album Of All Time", then does that mean it can be said bluntly on the Beatles article "Their 1967 album Revolver is the Greatest Album ever recorded" so long as a source/link is next to it? No, that is the kind of thing that would get removed, so why is this any different? People did vote, if a poll is taken and people send in something, that is a vote system. If less than half of the population voted in a general election for example, that would still be considered a voting process. If say in another poll The Rolling Stones are found second to The Beatles, then would that mean that claim can also be made on their article and contradict this one? That then represents problems and no encyclopedia would word it in this way at all. So you listen up and listen well, the channel 4 poll was one in many polls conducted. If a sample of people was taken and the result found something other to the facts (I. e 60% of the public want the Tory party in power, but Labour win the election) then it is not simple fact and as other polls would place the top 10 bands. A good example of this is found on this very page when it says two Queen songs have been voted as the best in the world. It dosen't say "We are the champions" is the best song in the world and so is "Bo Rhap". Wikipedia says articles should be written from a NPOV, so therefore, we shouldn't just "Queen are 2nd only to the Beatles", when this is just one of many polls that have been conducted that find different "facts".


 * (Please note that the preceding comment is not mine) There is also a flip side here - I would be more inclined to read into a poll carried out by a polling organisation such as MORI that only polled a limited number of people (spread geographically around the country, with a cross-section of ages, gender, classes) but came up with an accurately determinable margin of error. 600,000 people is far, far more than any organisation like MORI would poll, even for a general election! Instead it is the kind of figure that you tend to see during phone-in votes and the like (and "vote" would certainly be an accurate term). When this happens there is no real way of calculating the margin of error. You often find that the vote is biased, that people vote multiple times, and there are flaws with the structure of the vote. I find it odd that a relatively minor Channel 4 programme features so highly in the lead section for an entry on one of the world's "biggest" rock bands ever... I guess the reason is that it helps source the claim (which is valid) that the band retains great popularity in Britain. TheGrappler 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In any poll most resources will just print it as a fact, but this is an encloypedia, not a tabloid newspaper or an entertainment magazine, therefore Npov should reign supreme. That's all I am saying. By all means mention this poll, but put the facts. I mean, if a poll has 700,000 voters what then? This become invalid because it asked a greater section of the public?64.12.116.74 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of democracy, we should decide what we want to do, rather than just have an edit war. Do we use "In England, their popularity remains second only to the Beatles." (which I perfer), or "In England, they were named "second best group", next to the Beatles in a Channel 4 poll." (or something similar)? TheImpossibleMan 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As that poll is not conclusive I stand by the latter. 205.188.117.74 19:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A person interested in knowing the evidence behind the claim will take a look at the associated reference. Keep the former. - Corbin Simpson 15:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But it's not just about a person being intrested looking at the source, the main thing is Npov and factual information in the text of the article. The point stands, if we used this poll to make a bold statement, all polls for all bands and everything can be used to do the same, resulting in many bands claming "2nd most popular" or "most popular", this is not suitable for Wikipedia.


 * How about you use "In the UK, their popularity" etc etc. Or are you saying that in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, they're not rated much? If you're talking TV polls, they do not exclude Scottish, Irish or Welsh voters. One day I'll throw a chair over the England/UK usage. BTW I live in England, but I prefer the UK. 146.87.152.8 15:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're correct, it should be UK, that's where the voting took place. TheImpossibleMan 17:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Channel 4 is an English station though, it does not broadcast all over the UK, in Wales they have S4C, which is a diffrent channel, even if they have some simularities.


 * The problem is - it was just a poll. There are loads of polls (and, this one being a TV poll, is is surely not the definitive one). We could end up making the same claim about as many different bands as there are polls! This way madness lies. I think that a false dichotomy is being presented: why are there only two options here? The poll could be mentioned later in the text. The reference to being "second only to the Beatles" could be adapted... I am not sure that popularity can be unambigusouly statistically measured at all (what if the people that liked the Beatles also liked Queen, but liked the Beatles more so wouldn't pick out Queen as their favourite band? What if lots of people really really hate Queen - should that count as unpopularity and somehow be deducted - in a way a "favourite band" poll doesn't? There is no definitive answer, surely?). What about - "in the United Kingdom, the band retains a strong following" ... or "in the United Kingdom, Queen are one of the most popular and successful bands in musical history" - there, the reference makes sense. Whatever you do, please have a look at the (featured) The Beatles article, which shows how a top class article on a band can and should be written. Then ask yourself - would that article be improved by referring to a Channel 4 poll in its leader, however it is phrased? I can't help thinking that the answer is no, and that this article would in fact be radically improved by stealing the basic format of the Beatles leader, and editing it to fit the facts about Queen. At the moment, both versions of the article lead are really quite poor, and fail to do the topic justice. (Most recent FAs have extremely strong leads, as it is such a focus of the featured article criteria. Browsing recent FAs is probably the best way to see how to write a great lead... at the moment, this one isn't) TheGrappler 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looked at the Beatles article, the first line says, "... from Liverpool, England"... there goes a chair. --81.97.8.81 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Journey of the Dead" reference in the "Queen in film" section
Hi, my name is John, and I made a movie entitled "Journey of the Dead". The movie features Freddie Mercury as the main villain, and has Queen songs in the soundtrack as well. It was released online a couple of months ago and has been seen by thousands of people so far. I realize that it is a fan film, but it is growing more popular everyday, and even was played in a theater in Kansas City, Missouri (where I'm from) last month. I put a reference to it in Wikipedia recently and it was removed, because I included a link to the film and the editor of the page didn't feel it was worth mentioning. I was unaware that I couldn't include a link, and now I know. I apologized for putting the link there and didn't mean to put "spam" in the article. But I still feel it deserves a small mention in the "Queen in film" section. I feel that if "Wayne's World" is relevant to the section, then a movie with both Queen music and Freddie Mercury as a main character should be as well. I would want the reference to read like this:

In 2006, a movie entitled "Journey of the Dead' was released on the internet. The movie features Steve Perry (former lead singer of Journey) battling a villainous version of Freddie Mercury.

That's it. Two sentences. For voting purposes only, you can view the movie here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XnFwBhaAcWo

If you like it and feel it's relevant to the "Queen in film" section, simply type "Yes" below my name. If you don't like it, or like it but do not feel it's relevant to the article, simply type "No" below my name. No hard feelings to anyone. I know the editor is just trying to make the page as good as possible, I just feel it deserves a mention. Thanks to everyone who votes!

John
 * Hello. See Voting is evil. Setting up a vote without discussion is really not the way to do things around here. What makes you feel it "deserves" a mention? It's been played in one single cinema? There are a *lot* of fan references out there to Queen, and they're mostly not that interesting. If your film was more notable, you could create an article on it, and link back here. But it just hasn't achieved that much success (yet).
 * Note also that the massive blockbuster musical "We will rock you" only gets two paragraphs, and the films "Wayne's World", "Flash Gordon" and "Highlander" get even shorter mentions, despite being very successful and having strong Queen connections. No hard feelings. Stevage 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

YES!!! ~ Mistress


 * Stevage summarized my feelings exactly. The film is simply irrelavent to the discussion. The info doesn't belong here. And the comparison to Wayne's World isn't legitimate; Wayne's World was directly responsible for Bohemian Rhapsody going to #2 in the US, an even higher position than when it was first released in 1975. TheImpossibleMan 14:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

YES! The film absolutely deserves a mention on this site, even if only in brief. Perhaps it isn't a commercial Hollywood film, but Mercury is the primary antagonist in this, and their songs are featured, much like the mainstream movies you mentioned. There is no slandering of the band or defamation of Mercury's character. I would also think that Queen fans would be happy to see a film in 2006 that honors the group. This film is elevating its status to that of cult popularity and will probably continue growing. It is gaining in this popularity due to the technological innovations of sites like Myspace, YouTube, iFilm, etc. And if it were a "mainstream" film, would that then fit your criterion for allowing it on this page? Is the criterion for this simply having A-list stars and dazzling special effects? If this is simply not being included because the creator didn't like the film, then there are thousands of Hollywood-manufactured films that are not worth mentioning, yet they are, because without them, there would be an incompleteness. Without mentioning Journey of the Dead, there is an incompleteness. Wikipedia is created for independent contributors to add verifiable information. This film was not generated by a Hollywood star, but still a talented low-budget filmmaker. The information is wholly verifiable, it is entertaining, it features the band in question. What more do you need? -Shelly Storm

YES!! Keep it! :I disagree about the "relevance" issue altogether. The fact is, Journey of the Dead may be a fan film with a low budget, but it still portrays a valuable homage to the works of Queen. More importantly, it is gaining a following through an entirely new medium: Myspace. Freddie Mercury has been dead for 15 years, and yet his music lives on via the internet on the most rapidly expanding website on the entire net. Wickpedia should embrace this facet alone, if anything. Aside from that, it's an enjoyable movie that most Queen fans won't find out about unless given the chance to track it down. People come here to find information, whether it's obscure or not. This is a resource, and therefore, it should be as complete as possible in the information it provides. [Sean:One-Legged Champion of Ass Kicking Contests]

YES! YES! YES! The argument for mentioning this film, stated above, I feel is quite valid. I can personally attest to the increasing popularity level of this film, in that I work at a comic shop in South Florida( a respectable distance from this films point of origin) and have had customers inquire about it's purchasing availability. I forsee the patrons to this site shifting the focal point of the question at hand from "should this film be included" to "why isn't this film included", as long as the proper mention goes unmade. A point which, as far as I'm concerned, would be considered an incredible shortcomming for such a valuable information outlet. -Manijeh

Hi, my name is Corbin. I, unlike the four "YES!!!!" paragraphs above, am not a meatpuppet. This movie is not worth inclusion in Wikipedia yet. If you really want it to appear in Wikipedia, I can submit it to LUELinks and Something Awful for you, where everyone will get a good laugh from it and perhaps decide that it is a notable meme. - Corbin Simpson 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any way that your video is going to end up in the articles. Sorry, John. On a related note, I finally understand why voting is discouraged. We put it to a vote and WHAM four people with an axe to grind show up and tell us why it is neccessary to include a fan film in the article. TheImpossibleMan 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is John. Corbin, you don't have to insult people just because they liked the movie and felt it deserved an entry into the section. And to TheImpossibleMan, can you give this discussion at least a week before you decide? This discussion has only been up for a couple of hours, and not all people who visit Wikipedia (and more specifically, the Talk:Queen page) do so within the early hours of a Friday morning. I don't want the video in the articles, I just want a mention. Are you even reading the statements made? None of them had "axes to grind" with you or with Wikipedia. You are the one who suggested to me to bring this to a vote, remember? I asked for help, and I'm getting it, what's the problem?

Journey of the Dead should stay. Not only is the short film funny and enjoyable, but its increasing popularity attests to the fact that Queen is alive and well in the psyche of loving fans. YES! Please keep the film. I love it. --Paul

I still maintain that the "Journey of the Dead" entry should remain, and even more movies should be added. Any publicly-available movie containing information about Queen should be included in an online encyclopedia such as Wickpedia. So not only do I feel that "Journey of the Dead" should remain, but MORE movies should be added until it's a comprehensive list. [Sean]

YES--I fell the movie "Journey of the Dead" should be mentioned. This movie will surely become a cult classic---JENDHI

Meatpuppet is an incedental label. I would not use it if it were not evidently true. The above comments are not signed. Edit history tells me they all come from IPs, not registered members. Anybody who is acquainted with my style will tell you that I attempt to be impartial and truthful when dealing with new editors, but these are not new editors. They came here to support a film, not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia. As for the film itself, I am perfectly serious when I say that your film stands a good chance of being discovered by SA, LL, YTMND, or many other memetic communities, and being assimilated into meme-based Internet culture. - Corbin Simpson 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so your implying that I am making the statements and signing different names. First of all, I'm not a liar and I'm not doing the "meatpuppet" thing. I'm an honest person and I wanted this to be discussed in an honest way. Besides, you guys can check the IP numbers to all of those contributers, and you'll see that they all come from different computers, and if the IP tell states and locations, you'll see they are different too.

YES! (again) Journey of the Dead should stay. Paul [email: pmw@unm.edu]

Um, a meatpuppet is, by definition, a real person. However, they serve the same purpose as a sockpuppet, involving themselves solely for the purpose of affecting a discussion. This, this, this, and this are what I'm talking about. I did in fact check the IP numbers, and also their contributions. I'm not saying you're dishonest. I'm just saying that we are all aware of the nature of these contributions. - Corbin Simpson 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * John, you might support your argument by posting some online press coverage you've gotten. Like, a national newspaper, or a well-respected online news source. You've told us that "tens of thousands" have seen your film; surely then there has been some news coverage of it. Having your friends come here and tell us that your movie is made out of sunshine and kittens and smells like fresh-baked cookies isn't really helping your argument. TheImpossibleMan 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a Reference section for Queen in film, right? So therefore, Journey of the Dead qualifies, whether the movie was seen by 10 million people via Warner Brothers, or 1000 people via Myspace. It is a film containing homage to Queen, and me being a fan of John's and the film itself has little to do with that fact. I feel that any resource should be as complete as possible. [Sean]


 * You've gotta be kidding. Yes, we should really list every movie that mentions Queen, no matter how obscure! What a wonderful idea! Thank you! TheImpossibleMan 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what resources are for? I'm not saying that you should go out and track down obscure films, but if a film is made known to you, then all you have to do is list it as a reference. [Sean]


 * As condescending as it sounds, you clearly don't know how Wikipedia, or an encyclopedia, for that matter, works. I encourage you to join Wikipedia, read the policies, and find out how stuff works before you start telling us how we should run the website. TheImpossibleMan 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is John. I'm not trying to undermine your authority over this particular webpage. I'm just doing what TheImpossibleMan told me to do. You told me to set up a vote, right? That's all I wanted to do. And I understand that you and Corbin are just doing your job. But you both fail to address that you could maybe do a better job. Who's to say that there couldn't be more info? Why can't each film that has their music featured prominently (like Flash Gordon or Wayne's World) have their own sentence. You seem to think that simply no one on earth could do a better job of editing this wikipedia page than you. It seems like there's 2 or 3 Wiki-users who have a problem with the reference. Was it pointless for me to set up this vote? Why did you tell me to do it? I'm trying to do it your way, okay? And I never said the film was seen by "tens of thousand" (I said thousands) nor did I say it was "made out of sunshine". I'll be the first one to tell you that it's flawed, and ridiculous, although the ridiculousness part was intentional. Have you even seen it? You've never addressed that. If you don't like it, that's (of course) okay, because it's your opinion. But if you're using this as a way to say you don't like the film, that's wrong. What more do you want? Yes, it's a fan film, but so is Sandy Collora's Batman: Dead End flick, and that has been entered. I'm trying to work with you, I'm not insulting any of you, I just think it should be allowed a mention, that's all.

I vote yes to having Journey Of The Dead featured in this section. Had it not been on wiki in the first place I'd have never found it, and I don't think a little bit of musical satire would hurt.~Sarah

No. I personally don't feel that this film is noteworthy of being mentioned. I haven't seen the film, I'll probly watch it later as I am a Queen fan but whether I like it or not doesn't matter. Also it appearing in one theater to me isn't enough creditblity. I used to be friends with someone who owned a theater who if I would have made a film he would have played it. Also it seems you want it more for your own advertisement and gains. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your own personal advertisement. Also from what I've learned since I've been here is that unregestered or new users are generally not counted very highly in votes. My main point is that I feel that from what has been given to me about this film that it is no where near the same level as the other films mentioned. (Revo 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I wasn't sure if I was going to post on this article but I must put my 2 cents in as I was slightly disturbed by this. May I point the experienced editors to this page?? I am quite certain each and every one of the users were newcomers (not experienced editors) and made their comments in good faith especially since they are not aware of official and "unofficial" policy. Attacking new editors definitely does not help. It seems patience is a vastly scarce resource indeed.  Now to address why JOD may or may not deserve mention in this article:
 * The main issue being brought up by veteran editors is that of "relevance". Basically it comes down to this: how popular does a film/band/public figure/ have to be in order to deserve any kind of mention in this wiki?  Obviously Queen and Wayne's world are virtually household names.  It is clear that if a vastly popular film like Wayne's world references Queen that it should go there.  But it gets hazy with less popular items.
 * If you have a movie that references Queen that is extremely popular but only in say, Poughkeepsie, NY, (did I spell that right?) it may deserve mention in that city's wikipedia, page, but if every such movie was listed as a reference in this article, then the list would have tens or even hundreds of entries which would detract from the quality of the article.
 * With JOD, concrete statistics will definitely help your case (as in how many times the movie has been seen, number of movie festivals it has been presented in and their caliber, and if it's been mentioned in any major news outlets -- I'm thinking "Star Wars Kid" here,) but it is no guarantee. Given time I wouldn't be surprised if the movie achieved that level, but until a reasonable level of popularity is achieved, I don't think it would be prudent to add the reference to this page. The following guideline articles also give a general idea of what to expect of articles: Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not.  Those guidelines are primarily aimed at scientific articles, and it gets hazy for pop culture, but it still gives a general idea.
 * Here's a quote from the aforementioned "not bite newcomers" page: Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. So I hope this is again, another call for civility.
 * Well, I hope this helps clarify things. --Stux 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very intelligent and logical post, Stux. I commend you for all that you say above, and for keeping emotion out of the equation. The fact is, having seen the way that the other Admin treat new members, I will never join this site now. If they cannot moderate without attacking, then they shouldn't moderate at all. You all are free to run your website any way you choose, but if you do so, I hope you follow the direction of quality members like Stux. Again, I feel that the film has merit in a topic area called "Queen in Film." That's my opinion, and I never called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with me. The comparison to the "Star Wars Kid" video is also a good point, and is similar in scope. If there is any diffence, it is that "Journey of the Dead" was intentionally made to pay homage to Queen and entertain like-minded fans. [Sean]

Revo, I'm not using Wikipedia to advertise the film. There's a difference between a single mention of the movie, and saying the name of the movie, who made it, and where it can be seen. I'm not using the page to advertise, I just wanted a mention. If enough of you feel that it still needs more popularity, okay. But I do have a problem with the editors insulting myself and the people who want the mention in the article. Revo and Stux didn't necessarily agree with me, but they never insulted anyone, became overly sarcastic, or called someone a "meat puppet". And the fact that this has been the longest discussion on this Talk page, and has been up for less than 24 hours, should say something about the validity of my argument. (John)


 * Please point out where any of us insulted you prior to this post. We have kept it civil. If we have been short with you, it is because you have simply stated the same arguments again and again while clearly having no knowledge of how Wikipedia works. That's why I said you should join and read up on the articles. Your arguments are as baseless as ever. "I got a bunch of buddies to show up and go on and on about how great my movie is. Therefore, since this discussion is long, my argument is valid!" Nice logic.


 * Honestly, I'm done with the fucking conversation. You clowns really have pushed my buttons, whether it is with the way you've beaten your head against a brick wall to your telling us that JOD is the bestest movie of all time to the way you called up a bunch of your friends and got them to stump for you to this silly martyr act you're trying to pull. It's not biting the newcomers if the newcomers are acting like fools. Your movie isn't getting mentioned. Fucking deal with it.


 * I'm not apologizing for any of those past statements because I just don't care any more. Go cry about how unjust we are somewhere else, you pansies.


 * ...and on that note, I say we archive this talk page and start a fresh one, where the stupidity on this page is out of sight. TheImpossibleMan 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * XD, Stux is so much better at talking to people than I am. That was actually a fair amount of awesome. - Corbin Simpson 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, don't mention the movie. Not notbale enough for inclusion. Betty

Let's make this a featured article
Queen is a great band, and they deserve some extra recognition. I see Pink Floyd is a featured article, and this one was formerly a candidate. Let's clean this one up and sharpen it with more info and useful things. Maybe make a new section on Queen+Paul Rodgers would help.Nick41388 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for good article status
The page looks great. I put the compilations and other small lists at the bottom in tables, and the rest of the article is top-notch. I re-nominated the page and think it deserves Good Article status by now. (But others may beg to differ) Oh well, we'll see. - Zone46 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Kick ass! It's a good article now. - Zone46 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Breaking up "History" section
The most important question facing the Queen article right now is how to handle the History section. Left as is, the section is vast and difficult to get through. Stevage, Corbin, and myself have all expressed concern over not only how big the section is, but how un-broken up it is; it's just pages and pages of prose without and divisors. In my mind, there are three things we could do:


 * Create sub-headings for each year, i.e.

1974
Blah blah blah. The drawback to this is that the table of contents will baloon in size.

1974 - Blah blah blah. We could also work year into the sentences. In 1974, blah blah blah.
 * Bolden each year.


 * Lastly, we could create a separate article called "The History of Queen" or something like that, which would let us cut down the size of this article while putting in anything and everything about Queen's history in the separate article.

We should reach a consensus. I personally perfer the idea of creating a separate article for the History, though the second option does hold some appeal. I am strongly against the first option - it would make the Table of Contents gigantic and will artificially inflate the size of the article. TheImpossibleMan 04:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am against creating a separate article - the history section should be part of the Queen article. My proposal: Bolden the Queen album titles as well (and terms like Live Aid or Highlander, but not the titles of solo albums):
 * 1977 saw the release of News of the World, an album that was critically panned at the time but has gained recognition over time as being one of the stand-out hard rock albums of the late 70s, as well as being one of the albums most influential in creating stadium rock. This album had many songs that were tailor-made to be performed live, including "We Will Rock You" and the famous rock ballad "We Are The Champions", both of which combined together reached number 4 in the U.S., and both of which would become enduring, international sports anthems. [.....] In 1978 the band released the Jazz album, including the hit singles "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "Bicycle Race", being a double-A-side single.
 * -- Candyfloss 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One of my favorites is the definition list trinity. Wikipedia automatically makes it happen. View wiki source to see how I did the following:


 * 1977
 * 1977 saw the release of News of the World, an album that was critically panned at the time...

Something like this might work, yes? It looks like an h5 heading, but it's actually a definition list heading, which doesn't appear in a ToC. - Corbin Simpson 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at Bob Dylan and Miles Davis- this is how we should do this. Both are featured articles, and so doing it this way (splitting it by events, not by "dates" so much), should pass better muster. Alternatively, we could get rid of dates altogether (The Beatles), but it seems there's not that much support for doing so. In any event, the history needs to be split; minor things go in "History of Queen", and a not-too-long overview of their career should stay in the main article. Ral315 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I am not convinced that the articles on Bob Dylan and Miles Davis (without bolden years/album titles etc.!) are really good examples. Stevage wrote : "However, I don't realy understand the rationale for turning the history into a massive chunk of prose. Generally on Wikipedia, lengthy sections of text without subheadings are discouraged. That's why I originally addeded the subheadings, breaking 1970s up into 1971, 1972 and so on." I fully agree with him. -- Candyfloss 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bolded years do not follow the Manual of Style, and should not be used. I agree that we shouldn't have massive sections of text, but the way it's been done on Dylan and Davis is generally fine with me- it splits them up into sections, but emphasizes it by event, not by date alone.  Ral315 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think that making a separate History article is for the best. However, breaking it up into sections ("Early Years", "Introduction of Synthesizers", "After the Death of Freddie" etc.) would be good as well. TheImpossibleMan 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think I have a preference for years. It seems more encyclopaedic. You can look up the article to find out what they were doing in 1975. But having to look up "First success" or something would seem more in the style of a book than an encyclopaedia. But I wouldn't fight over it.
 * On the other hand, moving the history to a history article should only be done when the length is out of control. That's really the only reason - to keep the size below some desired length. I feel at the moment that the length is acceptable, and there's still room to grow...Stevage 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What this article needs.
I was actually planning to make a featured article push on this article, so it's great that you guys have already started. I think there are a lot of things in this article that need to be changed in order to achieve featured status, of which the following are key:


 * Better sourcing. DigitalDreamdoor does not count as that great a source; I'm sure we can do better.  Also, our lack of sourcing on other issues is almost painful.
 * Better coverage of Queen + Paul Rodgers. While I don't think it should dominate the article, I think it should be a decent-sized section, given that the tours are their first major thing in nearly 15 years, and rumors of a Q+PR album have spread.
 * Better organization. I think the "Members" section could be removed entirely and merged with "History" (see The Beatles, which covers its members in the intro and the history section).
 * Cut down the number of external links.

I'm going to try to fix some of these at Talk:Queen (band)/Sandbox (using a temporary page since my changes will mess with the page a bit, and I don't want to put it up until they're ready); anyone who wants to help is welcome. Ral315 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Beatles article can get away with not having a members section because much of that bands history is simply common knowledge. Does anyone NOT know that McCartney was bass, Lennon was rhythm guitar, Ringo drums and Harrison lead guitar? On the flip side, much of Queen's member info isn't common knowledge - I'm absolutely positive that there are a lot of Queen fans who don't know, for example, that Freddie routinely wrote on the guitar, or that May and Taylor would often play piano and guitar, respectively, on their own songs. Add that onto the fact that Queen really isn't that huge in America, and I think it's clear that there should be a "Members" section that describes what instruments they played and gives a brief synopsis of their involvement with the band. That being said, the "As Instrumentalists" section needs to be cut down. TheImpossibleMan 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Extra: Oh, and the citaion of DigitalDreamDoor is fine - we only used that site on opinion things, like "Some consider Mercury the best singer in rock history" or "Some consider them one of the best live bands ever." We're not using the site for cold hard facts.


 * On the history, I think you have a good point, but it needs to be shortened significantly. We can say it in a lot less words; right now it weighs down the article significantly.  On DigitalDreamdoor, the problem is that citing a random website seems sort of odd.  DigitalDreamdoor is not a significant site by any means- it's not much better than citing some GeoCities page where some unknown Queen fan says that Mercury's the best singer in rock history.  I'm not saying that it's not true, but if we could get it from a book, or from Rolling Stone...something along that lines.  Hell, I'd be willing to bet we could find some good newspaper articles from the tour calling Mercury the best ever.  If we can do that, it makes the article that much reputable.  Ral315 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, I found a decent quote from the St. Paul Pioneer Press (I disagree with the rest of the article, but the quote is good): "one of the most flamboyant and charismatic frontmen of the rock era."   That's a lot better than a DigitalDreamdoor quote.  Ral315 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand your reasoning. I'm hoping to get a flat out "Mercury is the greatest" quote or assessment, though. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks we need a separate History article. Please add you opinion in the above discussion. TheImpossibleMan 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination
I have renominated the article for GA status. The list looks long enough that I should be able to take time tomorrow to make one last pass over the article and make sure there are no glaring errors in the writing. - Corbin <em style="color:#009933;">Simpson 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother, the crest info is still there, the history is still a wall. And the singles still aren't in a table! H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong about the crest info? Jon Harald Søby 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Things wrong:


 * 1) Unsourced
 * 2) Doesn't refer to the picture in question
 * 3) Shouldn't be in the introduction H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone fails this for as a GA and mentions the history section as a problem, then I'm making a separate "History of Queen" article. TheImpossibleMan 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure
Queen (band) was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:


 * Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive"
 * Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction
 * Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs
 * When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing
 * Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual".
 * Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there".
 * Improve "he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part"
 * "The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s)"
 * Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead.
 * Don't use words such as " kicked off".
 * Prose these findings or ad in a Wikitable.
 * Convert chart numbers into a wikitable.

Well that's 12 full errors that I found last time that haven't been fixed (out of 21.) Which isn't counting my preferred style issues which I omitted. I am impressed the refs and external links being sorted out, but 12 mistakes that were pointed out isn't acceptable. Copyedit please, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Before I get shouted at for "holding my previous opinion against this article", reviewers can and should use previous nominations in their review and as part of their evidence, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I find amusing about <tt>en:</tt> is that people will write lengthy comments complaining about minor errors rather than fixing them themselves. Some of the errors you mentioned are easily fixed (and some aren't; those could be mentioned here). Jon Harald Søby 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do want to say that, while I understand where you're coming from, saying "I failed it because there were points where a comma was misplaced, or where wording could be different" is missing the point. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia that is error free; siezing upon a few instances and declaring that some poorly worded sentences and a misplaced modifier are ruining the article is silly. Take your own advice - be bold! - and simply edit those minor mistakes yourself. TheImpossibleMan 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would, but I have a strict policy against doing so. When this gets nominated, the nominee is leaving an article in a certain state, which he or she believes to be of GA standard. Nominators are people within an article, like the players in an orchestra. Reviewers are like the audience at a concert. By editting what you find, you're no longer the audience, you become something else.. like a conductor, you're both within the article and outside. And being a conductor and the audience complicates things quite a bit. Hopefully you understand that. The point that I was trying to make was that it wasn't just the grammar mistakes AGAIN, it was the fact you had been told they were there and you never fixed them. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 19:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Started the tables in teh discography for now. Also re arranged teh history a bit into more logical parts - not just by decades... feel free to propose new titles for the sections - but I think that this is teh rigth way to separate. I would liek a better title for the 1970-1980s period. Maybe split into begining(1970-1974) and sucess(??)(1975-1980)... Donny 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the history move is an improvement, good work :) The lead is still weak (as for "world's favourite song", I have my doubts about the veracity of a poll where Britney Spear's "Toxic" came second... and although both were "global" polls, that really just means "mildly international" - it is a leap to declare them "world's favourite songs"! Why, with such a great, world-famous, massively influential band is so much of the lead devoted to the results of three tacky opinion polls?) and I feel the lead should actually summarize more information from the article body. For instance, the sound of Queen progressed over time, they didn't just play the same mixture of styles throughtout their existence - this should be reflected in the lead. What is concerning me most is the quality of references. There isn't even a "References" section at the moment, just "Notes", which consists of a bunch of weblinks. Have a look at WP:CITE! There is loads of quality, reference-worthy, published material about Queen, and some properly cited references to that material would be reassuring. Remember that link-rot will kill many of those weblinks over the next few years, whereas published material (e.g. you could cite a particular contemporary music magazine's review to indicate their critical reception at the time, or from a biography of a band-member) is always going to be verifiable since it is archived in the library systems. Further, the weblinks are themselves not up to reference quality yet (they are almost there, but it would be good if individual authors if the content could be identified - if they can't be, it is unlikely to be an encyclopedic source! - and also the last date the URL was accessed should be recorded). The sectioning is getting there, I still dislike the lead, but the referencing needs serious improvement before this gets up to FA standard, and probably should have significant improvement before getting up to GA standard.TheGrappler 21:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (As a side note, I think I could have inserted into the text on at least 15 occasions - this is a sign that referencing really needs improvement! TheGrappler 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

You make some good points. One reference that should be added is the book "Mercury and Me", by Jim Hutton. I don't know how to cite books as references - would someone else be willing to do so? Additionally, some of the sites used in the footnotes section are merely internet versions of work that was published in magazines - for example, the Rolling Stone review of "Jazz" was originally printed in 1978, in the magazine itself. If someone knows how to cite that, that would be good as well. TheImpossibleMan 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now put the singles section into a table, as requested, but I'm not sure if it looks better. Jon Harald Søby 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the singles look nicer - neater if nothing else, so I would say it was not in vain ;) Donny 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the crest thing? why is it a problem to be in the top ? it is a part of the bands 'image' right? Should it be more commented?


 * And I would propose then if it can't be in the top then that it should be in a section of it's own... like ==Logo==


 * Donny 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And so I did the logo section being that no-one said no ;) I think it is important and if it can't be in the top then it deserves a section of it's own, not just to be mentioned while talking of the albums.
 * Donny 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)