Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 6

Genre
First off, yes I did go through the archives. It seems there was a huge consensus for various genres, including (in order) glam rock, heavy metal, progressive rock, and more. While the latter two are certainly song to song, I know for a fact that thousands of sources call Queen glam rock. Is there a reason why the genre is just rock? Sure it's all encompassing, but it is also generic and nonspecific to this artist. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC) :The consensus here and at the Queen project discussion page was and always will be that the band covered many different musical styles and that it was simply an accurate umbrella to cover all of them by saying rock. The rock description is 100% correct and, as one can see in the article edit history, any time anyone tries to cruft of the field with a long list of superfluity it always gets reverted back to rock. The only lasting rule for the genre field in the template instructions is "aim for generality". If a band, like Queen, covers many musical landscapes then that band usually has a "musical style" section as part of the main body of the article.queen sucks And this one does. Fine details, with references, go in the main body of the article. Not the box. The boc is supposed to be general. Every Queen related article has rock in the genre field. Othr than occasional IP genre trolling that has been the way for a long time. No valid reason to change it now. GripTheHusk (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the case then each album needs to have a blurb mentioning the various influences it displays if they are all being labelled. Some Queen albums can certainly be summed as rock, but many others are very distant from plain rock, which is what the current genre selection annotates. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Album info and slight genre info at the top
Hello, Album info and slight genre info was added to the top, as the mix genre of Queen is kinda hard to explain, as they Rationalized on The Led Zeppelin page that due that Bands with such a diverse style could incorporate a bit more info on the subject at the top. (Feel free to discuss this - And maybe if u disagree take it onto the Led Zeppelin Page too).--DavisHawkens (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

New lead singer?
I've heard that Brian May and Roger Taylor are considering a new lead singer for this band. Can someone tell me his name? BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

300 million?
There are really no reliable sources to support the contention that Queen have sold 300 million records worldwide - everyone who cites this figure seems to have got their information from this article.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EMI quoted their sales as 300 million+ long ago . Sony supported this in their product description for SingStar Queen (I have replaced the Amazon cite with a reliable IGN one). The BBC said yesterday that they had sold 300 million+ albums - you may claim that they took their information from this article but if you had not hastily removed cites you'd have noticed that their comments on Queen (songs, live performances, originality and showmanship) were taken FROM a noted BBC article on Queen which has been used to support this article . The BBC is as reliable a cite as any and if they air a sales figure to the nation, then it can't really be challenged, regardless of your opinion. There are dozens of sites out there, which are not Wikipedia clones, who support 300 million+ albums, but it's arguable whether they are notable enough to use as cites. Llenden (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Queen more than 300 million albums sold worldwide, BBC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwlE8dmRyko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseutu (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * None of these are reliable, third party sources. The EMI press release is hardly an unbiased,  reliable source; the BBC story doesn't mention sales numbers, and the only other BBC article I could find quotes the Wikipedia article; the IGN link is an advertisement and not an unbiased third party source; and citing the YouTube video is a copyright violation   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy, for your info, the youtube video is public and EMI group is one of the world’s most respected and reliable sources. EMI Group has a major publishing arm- EMI Music Publishing- based in New York City [ http://www.emimusicpub.com ]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseutu (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read up on what constitutes a reliable third party source; a press release from a label is not one.


 * The YouTube video is not posted on the BBC's channel, it was uploaded by a regular user, making it a a copyright violation; if it were linked to from Wikipedia, it would constiute a copyright violation.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Taylor interview is now hosted on the BBC's official site, and correctly cited here. We can close the door on this one. Llenden (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Queen's certified album sales worldwide are only around 83 Million, including singles, and in the absence of other sources, it seems the BBC simply made a mistake. After all, 300 Million albums is a similar figure to the Beatles, and compares with Michael jackson (230 Million), the Rolling Stones (200 Million), Pink Floyd (200 Million), Elvis (180 Million), Madonna (170 Million), U2 (170 Million), etc and therefore does not seem credible. Wikipedia deals only with credible information. I recommend we use the following source instead. It sites the figure as 130 Million albums, which is more consistent with their certified sales. Laurencedunne (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.7 (talk)


 * While I have no idea what the legitimate figures is, I do not in anyway consider it unlikely that Queen's figures would compare to e.g. Madonna's or U2's. These boy's were BIG in their days---and look back on close to forty years of selling records. Beatles and Elvis are another matter.188.100.197.94 (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To the person who commented before the comment before this one, I firstly not only agree with the previous comment to this one, but  Michael Jackson's certified sales are actually 147 million, and Elvis' 189 million. Queen's yes, is just under 85 million however it's quite clear that these figures are far from accurate themselves, as the Beatles' certified sales are only 230 million, and they claim to have sold 1 billion. As such, I don't think 300 million is an unreasonable figure at all - Queen were huge.  The Stig  21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationality
On one's passport for example, a citizen from the UK would be denoted as 'British'. So I propose we discuss the matter regarding what nationality we refer to Queen as. Evidently they are all British and have always considered themselves as British (God Save the Queen closed most of their (post-A Night at the Opera) concerts, there is one very famous image of Mercury holding up the Union Flag) and never as English. So clearly, suggesting they are 'English' would be incorrect. Can we discuss this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStig118 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a touchy subject (no pun intended). Freddie, having been born in Zanzibar, was unquestionably British; the other three were born in England, and I don't know what any of them feel their "nationality" is.  OTOH, the band formed in London; could this make them an "English" band?  I'd like to hear some other opinions.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Freddie was born in Zanzibar, raised in India, and resided in the UK for the remainder of his life with British citizenship. There is no such thing as English citizenship, and in regards to where the band was formed, if we wanted to be precise, then we'd refer to the band as a London band. Finally this isn't really a matter of opinion - it's a fact that 'English citizenship' does not exist, regardless of how one may consider themselves, I only posted this here since you reverted the change from English to British when it was last made and said it was not discussed. 86.14.32.100 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you said "...what nationality we refer to Queen as" (emphasis added), not citizenship. Ask any random number of people in England what their "nationality" is, and chances are good that quite a few  of them will answer "English".  It is a matter of opinion, and needs to be approached carefully.
 * Evidently they are all British and have always considered themselves as British -- You make a sweeping assumption with no real evidence.--75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) THIS IS A VALID ON-TOPIC RELEVANT POINT THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO REMOVE JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * famous image of Mercury holding up the Union Flag -- My neighbour here in the USA flies the Union Jack, but he's Brazilian and his wife is French. And of course we all remember that Rick's, of Rick's Cafe Americaan in Casablanca, nationality was "a Drunkard." I don't fly the Union Jack in my yard, but I was born in London and lived for the first 25 years of my life in KnightsBridge. Normally after saying "Knightsbridge," I would say that it is part of 'the greater London area,' or 'just outside of London' (sometimes people don't seem to be familiar with the phrase "greater ___(insert city name here)___ area," or a 'suburb of London,' (which really, it is not -- but what are you going to do in order to move on from an insignifcant point of what you are saying); but in the end I will say that it's in 'England' and watch the light go on in the listeners' head(s) (for those with two of more - hehehe). But really, to me, or IOW, IMO, and ITOO my wife, Queen are (read 'are' are 'were,' or 'is,' or skip the whole bloody sentence if you'd rather) an English band. Right now (7:00 pm PST in the nation state (of California, on television channel 58, Rick Stevens' programme 'Rick Stevens' Europe is running a piece on the Heart of England and South Wales, and really, even without that, I do believe that there is an England (Yes, Virginia, there is an England ?) and I do believe amoung many from London, London is in England, and if logic prevails, a London Band can also be called an English band. I also think that calling them an English band is more informative, if perhaps not as technically accurate, than calling them a British band. --75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) THIS IS ALSO A VALID ON-TOPIC RELEVANT POINT. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO REMOVE JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. STOP THESE REMOVALS OR YOU (RADIOPATHY) WILL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM, ETC.   - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 'English citizenship' does not exist -- You are absolutely (technically) correct. This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc. You are quite the cheeky one now my friend. - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * if we wanted to be precise, then we'd refer to the band as a London band. -- Again, you are absolutely correct. This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the solution - if indeed there is a problem - would be to refer to them as "...a band which formed in London, England in 1970..."?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   05:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I beleive we (collectively, the Wikireadership) are better served by calling them 'an English band.' This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay then, nationality... 'England' isn't a nation, but let's not get into a debate about that. The formal title for the nation is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, Ireland, or UK for short, the denonym of which is Briton/British. Fact cannot be interpreted as opinion, because that's like asking an American person what nation they are from and them saying 'California', because it is 'their opinion' that it is an independent nation. :P ( Honestly I never thought something so simple would be blown out of proportion like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.32.100 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the nation is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, Ireland (let's give our Irish brothers a break and say 'Northern Ireland' - though in a section discussing what nationality (or the like) to apply to a band, I find this (apparant? ;)) error hysterical!--75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC))This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * California . . . an independent nation. It actually was at one point and independent nation, i.e., The Republic of Califonia, -- words that to this day still appear prominently on the State's flag -- and due to a technical error in passage of the Republic's resolution accepting statehood in the USA, it still is actually an independent republic (okay, so then why does its 'state' capital fly a 'state' flag?)--75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not belabour this, but your comparison is somewhat flawed: England at one time was an independent nation-state - unlike California - and many people in England consider "English" to be their nationality or ethnicity; they also refer to England as a "country". That said, I'd have no objection to describing Queen as a British band - but I'd still like more people to post opinions here first.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * your comparison is somewhat flawed: England at one time was an independent nation-state - unlike California That's hysterical. See above, it was, and technically still is, an independent republic. This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At one time it was, yes. But we're not improving this article 300 years ago. As for the opinions, I'm okay with that, so how about we give it 48 hours from this post here and unless we get any objections, I'll go ahead and make the changes? 86.14.32.100 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am past my time. Bob Crachet --75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) This is also a valid on-topic relevant point as concerned the quick way a consensus was done so as, IMO, to manipulate the result. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it.  Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a few weeks would be more reasonable; maybe around the beginning of December.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * December the first it is, as long as that change is going to remain consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.32.100 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStig118 (talk • contribs) 1:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (darn)--75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)This is also a valid on-topic relevant point. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure didn't waste any time, what you slept in? lol --75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC) This is also a valid on-topic relevant point as concerned the quick way a consensus was done so as, IMO, to manipulate the result. It is inappropriate to remove just because you disagree with it. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to a wave of disruptive edits made by IP’s changing nationalities from English to British I have had to change it back. I simply will not tolerate this, the guidelines on UK nationalities are very clear and it is perfectly acceptable to describe them as English. There influence comes form England primarily and not the whole of the United Kingdom.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted my edit. It’s just that recently some IP’s having been making some ridicules edits(Cf Shirley Bassy), trying to wipe English off every page, . I would describe queen as British, as they hold no real hold on any particular country of the UK. And yes, they are countries.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They can be described as 'countries' as that is short-hand for constituent country. Never the less, none of them are independent states, nor hold any official claim of separate nationalities. Furthermore, Queen always viewed themselves as a British band. I could find you many images of them proudly flying the British flag in their concerts, and all of their performances post-1975 ended with the British national anthem. Officially, the term 'English' is inaccurate. 86.14.32.100 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Get over this flag fetish already, sheesh! hehehe ;) --75.4.202.97 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)This is also a valid on-topic relevant point as concerned a focus on an irrerevant alleged fact of waving a flag having the sole and clear meaning that someone always viewed themselves as a British band. It's just silly IMO and my opinion is of equal weight and status to your here on a (bloody) discussion page! This is not the article page. Opinion are invited here, not deleted because you don't agree with or like them. It is inappropriate to remove some of them just because you disagree with certain ones. Stop these removals or you (Radiopathy) will be reported for vandalism, etc. You done enough harm that you've, IMO, got Misortie reverting his own edits, IMO out of frustration in dealing with you and those like you. Sorry to sound a bit personal here as to you, Radiopathy, but you, personally, are really acting inappropriatly and it takes all I can muster not to shorten this all up and tell you in simple plain (and admittedly insulting) terms exactly what your behavior reflects you are to the world at large, of course, IMO.  - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion would be a lot more more productive if there was far less irrelevant airing of personal opinions and more concentrating on verifiable facts. No one cares what different editors think of the merits of various nationalities within the British Isles. To get back to relevant and verifiable facts, here is an early quote from Mercury; "We're worried that the name Queen will give people the wrong impression. We want to be a good British regal rock band and we'll stick to that way of thinking." - Mercury http://www.queenarchives.com/index.php?title=Group_-_07-28-1973_-_Melody_Maker -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly bands don't have nationalities, their members do. The band itself has a country of origin. Secondly match your ref with this one where they are described as British and English all within a paragraph of each other. It's Billboard by the way if you couldn't be arsed looking. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And who said anything about nationalities? Not me.  I've just pointed out that the debate here about nationalities is irrelevant opinion.  Secondly, who cares what Billboard say?  Obviously they could be described either way, no one disputes that.  But if we want to give anyone the final say on their description, who better that the band's front man?  I'd say that out-trumps a random journalist.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 01:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Erroneous on two counts I'm afraid. You did spot the section heading didn't you? And your second error is that you've forgotten that we're on Wikipedia. A 3rd person reliable source trumps a first person source. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's Melody Maker then? Melody Maker says that Mercury says band is British. Sorry, you cannot seriously be suggesting that a passing phrase in a trivial piece in Billboard about "American Idol" should be given more weight than an interview with the band itself? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, your link is to a fansite saying that Melody Maker said he said it, whereas my link is directly to the magazine saying it. So is queenarchives.com a reliable, independent 3rd party source? So let me sum up that what you are saying is that a quote from a first person source in a non-peer reviewed fansite with no quality control or error checking says that there was an interview in a now dead magazine? And that said dubiously reliable source trumps a direct link to a reliable music source such as Billboard magazine? Add to the fact that what Freddie Mercury thinks is relevant to how things actually are? If he said "we think of ourselves as a Brazilian band" does that mean Wikipedia reports that the band is in fact Brazilian? Just think of it the way categories work on Wikipedia. You narrow it down to the most accurate level, i.e. the band was formed in England. If you like you could even say it was a London band. Whether you like it or not "English" is grammatically, geographically and understandably correct. It's a viable and incontrovertible adjective regardless of what a dead singer said 36 years ago. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is of course accurate to say that Queen was formed in England, every bit as accurate ("grammatically, geographically and understandably") to say that they were formed in Britain. I trust no-one would dispute either.  I could also, if so minded, produce another dozen similar cites to yours that say Queen are British.  But I would hope we are trying to find a fair way of describing the band most in line with how they would themselves.  After all, it is not Billboard's place to tell Queen what they are, any more than that is is yours, mine or Wikipedia's.  Should you have a cite where they make a clear preference for "English" then you have a case.  But let us leave the debate about how we would approach Mercury's claim of being Brazilian to another day.  Had he said this it would leave us with a bit of a quandary, but fortunately for us he didn't. So best not to worry about it.  His description of the band being British is quite sensible and while it may be an opinion you wish to contest, it is his opinion.

How the categories work is not really relevant. This is the lead, intended for the casual reader, not a catalogue reference. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point you appear to have missed (deliberately I'm assuming regardless of AGF) is that what the band thinks is totally irrelevant to a Wikipedia article, at least not for something like this. What the band (members) think is first person sourcing. Describing them as British compared to English is less accurate to the casual reader. Queen are quintessentially English, they show no resemblance to or demonstrate any characteristics of anything Welsh, Scottish or Irish. As soon as any of them open their mouths and talk, wham, home counties accents. They are representative of England and no other UK country (regardless of what the EU wants to do with naming conventions). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing with us what you think. Now please explain why what you think is more significant than what the band themselves think.  Please do not refer again to your cite.  As I have pointed out, I could produce just as many, and just as accurate, cites that say "British".  What we require here is an almost arbitrary selection of one or other description.  Everything you have put forward so far has at its root your opinion.  Wikipedia requires something better.
 * I particularly like your claim that you can determine Queen's country of origin from their accents when they open their mouths, but are not prepared to accept what Mercury was actually saying when he opened his. Quite delightful irony. But besides that, I thought we were agreed that the nationality on the members of the band is not the point, it is the country of origin of the band?  If this is the case, then the accents of the members of the band are equally irrelevant.  Besides, a home counties accent is equally British if you have an international point of reference, as does Wikipedia.
 * Please also understand that I have no axe to grind on this issue. It matters little to me what it says.  What I am trying to do is establish a compromise that isn't simply based on partisan preferences, debate about nationalities, or even interpretation of accents. Reference to the bands' own statements seems a very good place to start -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your obtuseness is increasing, giving further credence to my view that you are being deliberately obstructive in this matter. I didn't "claim" to know or being able to tell anything. You obviously haven't heard the band speak in their normal voices or else you would have known what I was referring to. I don't make the rules around here. One of those rules is that first-person sources are not reliable. That includes a band saying that they are British, therefore they are British. it's a really good job you aren't editing the Milli Vanilli article or you would be deep in the ordure with that outlook. George Bush? Is he from America or is he from Texas? Yes, correct, he's from both. But which is the most accurate statement, which narrows it down to a more precise location? This has nothing to do with OR or opinion. The band members (with the exception of Mercury) were born in England. The band formed whilst at Uni, in London, which I seem to recall is still in England. Therefore the most precise way of describing where the band is from is either London or England, though using the term English is the easiest way of getting the point across. saying they're British means that they could be from anywhere in Britain, i.e. England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Accuracy dictates that they aren't from 3 of them, as does fact and cartography. None of which are my opinion and are all fact. I take it you'll be altering the article to reflect that Mercury didn't have AIDS. After all that's what he said for years wasn't it? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything you say that is fact about England is equally fact about Britain. London is in Britain.  Stating they formed in London gives the user all the precision they need.  And again, I have to explain, I am entirely open to the definition of "English", but if we are to establish a consensus on this issue it helps if it is founded on something more than derivation through synthesis (London is England. Queen formed in London.  Therefore Queen is English) and logical fallacy  (No member of Queen is Scottish/Irish/Welsh.  Therefore Queen is English.). Otherwise we'll be back here having this same discussion within the year.  If you could provide a cite that has the band self-identifying as English and our work here is done.  Otherwise, the cite I have sourced is the best we have, and that says "British".
 * I also think you should read what guidelines and policy have to say on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, as your understanding of them is incorrect. Melody Maker reporting what Mercury said is a secondary source. queenarchives.com quoting Melody Maker is a tertiary source.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You really aren't reading what I'm writing are you, and I am increasing coming to the conclusion that you are actually trolling rather than attempting to gain consensus. What is it you don't understand about the fact that English is a more precise term. All in one word. The casual reader does not have to read any further, they know straight away that the band comes from England. And where you got the impression that a band has to self-identify itself as coming from a certain locale before we can say they come from that locale I really don't know. This is not a synthesis, it's an incontrovertible fact. The band was formed in London, the same London that is in England. Where the band say they come from is irrelevant. As for your total lack of comprehension with regard to what I actually said vis-a-vis the sources. The Melody Maker quote is, as you say, a tertiary source whereas the Billboard source is a secondary source. 2 beats 4 in my reckoning. As for your conclusion I was referring to the melody make being a primary source, well you're just plain wrong on that. All you can do with your MM article is say that Mercury SAYS they are British, you can't use it to say they ARE British, only that Mercury thinks they are. Fact, geography and timing state quite categorically that the band is from England, or are you denying that? Either they aren't from England or they are, if they are then they are English. It's very simple. So simple I'm amazed that you haven't understood it yet. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop suggesting that simply because I do not agree with you, then my contributions are in bad faith. It is not helpful.
 * The issue here stems from the fact that Mercury was not English. Some feel, therefore, that calling the band English is misleading.  'British' was, until now, an acceptable compromise and has been in the article for many years.  If you wish to change this you need consensus.  You do not have this.  Beyond that, anything based on personal analysis is open to challenge.  What Mercury has stated isn't.  It's as simple as that.
 * Something that is backed up with a cite is far less open to challenge than your basis on the the fact that "London is England". Why? Because  London is also in Britain.  Therefore Mercury saying the band is British is perfectly logical and not some crazy idea he came up with that can be automatically discounted.  If Mercury thought the band was British, it is not your place to decide otherwise.  You cannot say he was wrong.
 * As for your Billboard cite, it proves nothing. It itself also says "British".  But if you wish to play "cite top trumps" I can give you plenty of secondary sources that say they are British.
 * (BTW tertiary means 3rd, not 4th. Please read the links I gave you).  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My observations of obtuseness are not based on bad faith, nor are they based on the fact that you disagree. They are based on the assumption that you are deliberately not understanding some of the points being put to you. For factual data such as where a band is from then what the band thinks it's from is totally irrelevant. Also your total non-acceptance that London being in England is a synthesis. Additionally your understanding of consensus and the ability to count seem to be sub-par. In this current version of this discussion there are three people who believe English is better and there is you who thinks British is. Regardless of the fact that Mercury was a British citizen, the other three are English, the band was formed in England. That my friend is a very strong argument for the band being considered to be English. There's no confusion, it's more accurate than "British" and it is supported my the facts. So far the only argument you've put forward is that they're British because Mercury said so 36 years ago. I'm sorry but that is a rather flaccid premise. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you I am not deliberately not understanding you. But as I keep trying to make clear, your assertions about England are every bit as valid for Britain.  Therefore your preference for English is simply that; your preference.  And I think I made it quite clear on a number of occasions that yes, London is in England... and Britain.  We have two choices here, I'm backing up what I suggest as the best, and existing, wording with a sound cite and a clear explanation what is the issue with using "English".  All you have is opinionated hand waving about what we can tell from their accents and a claim about "accuracy" that seems to think people are confused where London is, something that numerous sources seem oblivious to.  It doesn't matter when or where Mercury said anything, it is still far, far more significant than you saying "I prefer English".
 * I'm not sure I have anything further to say on this. We disagree.  There is no consensus for changing the lead.  If you wish to establish a consensus, can I recommend you contribute to the discussion at the foot of this section, where  R ad io pa th y  may have an acceptable compromise.
 * (Please also read Wikipeida policy on consensus. It is not the result of a (flawed) vote count.)-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I opt for English as it's far more precise than the ambiguous, post-1707 term British, which is fine when describing governmental institutions, political parties, universities, newspapers, companies, etc., but for people, the article should pin-point that they are an English band just as the Rolling Stones, Beatles, etc. If there was a Scots, Welsh, or Manx member within the group then British would be appropriate; however, that's not the case, so I say we should go with English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I was done with this three months ago! If we're noting where the band originated, then "English" would be appropriate, and frankly, I think that their origin should be the focus in the lead.  As was noted much earlier, Freddie was born in Zanzibar, which makes him British but not Engish, but I don't think the lead of a band article is the place to dissect an individual's origins.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this has come back up again. As much as I disagree with Fred the Oyster, as he said himself, it is not about Freddie's opinion, although Freddie is indeed correct. As Fred said, it is about factual content and the fact of the matter is, if you were to examine the passports of the four members, it would state "Nationality: British." Also Jeanne my dear, I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in 2010 now. Not 1706. To refute fact is to be an idiot, and I trust none of you are but I'm beginning to have my doubts. I don't really see why this needed to be brought up again?  The Stig  17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some how I rather doubt that a passport exists under the name "Queen", Nationality: British. We're discussing the band. Band's do not have nationalities, they aren't citizens. They are entities that were founded somewhere. They don't have passports, they don't have birth certificates. "British" is not precise enough. The band emanated from England, 3 of the members were born in England. Why not say they are a "human" band if you want imprecision? "English" narrows down the reference and gives greater understanding to the casual reader. They don't have to guess if they're really from Northern Ireland, or they came from up t'North. Anyway, what the hell do passports have to do with Wikipedia? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well put, Fred. In response to TheStig, I think you might want to brush up on your history as the Acts of Union occurred in 1707 and not 1706. And nobody can be refuting fact if they describe Queen as an English group. England is a country which happens to exist, whether you my dear Stig, like it or not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And nobody can be refuting fact if they describe Queen as an British group. Britain is a country that happens to exist.  Which rather negates your whole argument.  As I have tried to explain to Fred the Oyster above, if we are to get a solution to this question and some consensus, you you need to provide something better than "English is more precise and my preference".  I don't think calling them British, and that they formed in London is likely to confuse, mislead, or leave any reader requiring any greater precision.  Calling them English, on the other hand, may mislead, as Mercury was not English and it is not unreasonable for the reader to assume that what is being described is the nationality of the band's members.  Neither descriptions are perfect, it is true.  But "British" is always accurate, no matter how the reader interprets it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Queen are a British band which that formed in London, England in 1970."  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not perfect, but may be an acceptable compromise. It removes any room for confusion between location of where they formed and nationality of the members.  But can we phrase it "Queen are a British rock band, formed in London, England in 1970"?  It sounds a bit less clumsy to my ears. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "that" isn't really necessary.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   18:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I forgot to include the term "rock" in my suggestion, but it definitely belongs, so I propose that your suggestion become the consensus version.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•

18:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

sl1993locko - I would debate this consensus. The Beatles are listed as English, the Proclaimers are listed as Scottish, why is it different for Queen?
 * There is no consensus: we're trying to work out a compromise to appease one editor! I think, one one hand, that Freddie's birth in Zanzibar rules out the possibility of Queen being properly referred to as 'an English band', (The Beatles were born in England; The Proclaimers were born in Scotland) but, on the other hand, they formed in England, and that may be what we want to convey in the lead.  I am prepared to accept either "English" or, "...British rock band, formed in London, England".   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   18:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar
Moved the following from the article page at the request of user/editor EscapeOrbit to this discussion page in the Good Faith Assumption (see Assume good faith) that user/editor EscapeOrbit will NOT then reinsert those parts of the discussion that he favors back into the article page to the exclusion of those parts he does not favor. Everyone should be given the opportunity to act in the good faith and fair dealing manner we all expect of each other. EscapeOrbit, this is your opportunity to live up to the good faith belief (see Assume good faith) we are extending you as a fellow editor (Surely, in good faith and fair dealing, you didn't mean that we were to take part of the discussion from the hidden note and move it to the discussion page and leave behind other parts of the discussion -- just those parts that expressed only your personal views on the subject -- no one really ever would request that, would they? Of course not.):


 * !-- Please read the cite and contribute to talk page discussion before changing this the word "are" -- DO NOT CHANGE THIS TO IS OR WERE. 'Are' is the correct UK primary compulsory education reading level term and Brian and Roger still perform together, so the band in present tense verbiage exists at the time that these words are read --

- - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)  (sorry Sinebot - lol, my little bot buddy)


 * I am happy to extend to you all assumptions of good faith. However, you must understand that if an editor reverts what you have added, with an explanation, a response of simply adding it back in with added insults is not the way to behave.  You have been bold, now is the time to discuss.   The facts are that this note has been on this article in one fashion or another for some while. It been acceptable to many editors over many weeks.  It is similar to a note that I frequently attach to British musical band's articles, particularly those well known in the US, because they frequently get altered due to a misunderstanding of how grammar varies between the two countries.  I believe it is doing the job intended.
 * Your addition, on the other hand;
 * is over long
 * expands to include your own personal analysis of the grammatical differences.
 * includes reference markup within a hidden comment, they don't work there
 * even if we were to agree with your analysis, all this detail is needlessly confusing,
 * Wikipedia is not the place for your to voice your opinions, and this article is certainly not the place for this discussion. If you believe the note could be better and more succinctly phrased then everyone is happy to hear your suggestions on this talk page.  But what has already been removed 3 times is clearly failing to reach a consensus.
 * You can also not be surprised that given the nature of your combative statements on this page, and references to "fascists" and "punches on the nose" in your edit summaries, you are not endearing yourself to other editors, however much good faith is intended or extended.
 * May I also ask that you create a user account for yourself. Given the nature of some the edits coming from the shared IP address that you are using, and they way they overlap with them, it would help reassure other editors of your intent.  Thank you.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SPELLING
To those correcting my spelling: Bless you and thank you. I promise to make better use of available spell checking features, for which lack of thorough use, I cannot think of an excuse, though those automated features are never as good as the well trained eyes, such you have proven yours to be.. - - 75.4.202.97 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen vs. Queen + Paul Rodgers
Queen is a different artist compared to Queen + Paul Rodgers, thus they have their own page. Queen is no more, so all four of the members are former. Any objections to this? (If there are none after a while, I'll change it to suit this) TheStig118 (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So who have I just seen on the X-factor playing behind a drum-kit saying "QUEEN"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be Roger Taylor (not Paul Rodgers), drummer of Queen. :) TheStig118 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As it says in the article, Queen have never officially broken up. Queen + Paul Rodgers consisted of the remaining members of Queen, plus Rodgers on vocals.  Therefore, Queen should still be considered an active band, or at most, currently on hiatus.    R ad io pa th y  •talk•   16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Radiopathy here, Queen is still active. When they played on American Idol last year, they weren't "Queen Reunited", or "Queen minus Paul Rodgers." Dayewalker (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found a reliable piece of evidence regarding this, in the FAQ section of the official Queen website. Are Queen still active as a band? Very much so. Queen ares still releasing live DVDs and albums plus the remaining members of Queen recently toured to sold venues with former Free & Bad Company vocalist Paul Rodgers. link Queen are an active band.  The Stig  21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Glam?
There's no mention of Glam rock in the article, though I was around when the band came out and I certainly recall that it was considered a glam rock act. Any WP:RS for this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Queen did indeed have glam rock connotations. TheStig118 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though they are not normally associated with traditional glam rock artists such as David Bowie, Roxy Music, etc., at the time they first appeared on the music scene, I recall they were loosely associated with glam; however, that genre was on its way out by the time Queen had their debut hit in the US (1975).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Improving the Article
I've put in this article for a peer review so that we can analyse what we need to do to improve it. In the next few days I intend to nominate this article as a 'Good Article' candidate, however I feel work still needs to be done. I will be making major improvements to the history segment of the article, I feel we also need to develop a Further Reading section and add a lot more citations throughout the article. Any contributions, no matter how small, would be sincerely appreciated. Let's do Freddie proud and get this to Featured Article status.  The Stig  21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear you'll not get very far with a GA nomination while there is still near constant edit warring over whether Queen still exist or not. The "were"/"are" in the lead and dates in the info box get changed almost daily, and have done so for years.  Is there no where we can get a definite answer that can be cited on this?  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out my latest response to the 'Queen vs. Queen + Paul Rodgers'.  The Stig  20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Looks like the final word on this. Queen are still a band.  Although but what it says at the end of the cite only dates it as far as 2007/2008.  But I suppose nothing notable has changed since then.  Can we get things changed with the former/past members on the info box, 'Present' added in the dates and the tense changed in the the lead then?  And above all, cite every last bit with this link.
 * I then suggest that reference in the lead is made to the 'vintage' lineup of the band compared to the present day reduced lineup. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)