Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 9

Number Ones where?
I can't help but notice this article makes meaningless references to number one hits without saying which chart is being referred to. The US Billboard Chart? The UK Top 40 Singles?

The fact about each member of the band having written more than one number one is less impressive if you are including every possible pop chart in the world! Gmackematix (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Brian May mentions it in a BMI awards interview here: http://www.bmi.com/video/entry/553073

Just to clear up a few things: That last one may sound "less impressive", but I'm not sure how many other bands in the world can boast this. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I don't think it applies to any other UK or US band. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All four members have individually written UK top 10 hits, which I believe is a unique feat in itself.
 * Three out of the four have written UK number ones, but I don't know if any other band can match that. (I suspect they can, but I'm not certain.)
 * If you take the UK and US charts, then all four members have written number one hits.
 * If you take all the national charts in the world, then all four members have written multiple number ones.

first works influenced by prog rock...
...and heavy metal. I think those were their two main genres in the 70s and should be added to the main opening article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.114.180 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New main image
I've just changed the main image to a collage I created. It's of them in the 1980s (if you want them in the '70s, I can put something in mind for you), and they are promotional shots of the members. If you don't like it for any reason just come and talk about it here, because I would like to know why. If you want in black and white I could do that for you. I would just like to see your opinions on it. --TrebleSeven (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Great job- since none of the pictures in the article showed a clear face of them, and the main image used to be blurry, quite hard to make out individual members — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.23.103 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But if any one has any problems with the image just come and tell me. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I am having a few second thoughts about the image, as they all promo images. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar?
The very first line of the article states: "Queen are a British rock band...". The sentence is grammarically wrong, and should be "Queen is a British rock band..." since "Queen are British rock bands..." won't make sense.

It's British subject matter, so expect British grammar. Groups of people that would need singular verbs in American English often take plural verbs in British English. Dave (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rock Genre
Queen did many other styles of music than just Rock. For example Their first album had a lot of Progressive influence. "Queen II was prog. Seven Seas of Rhye" tells an epic fictional story with preachers and titans and uses classical style playing of the guitar, so it qualifies as progressive rock. Sheer Heart Attack was a mixture of Glam and Hard Rock. "Now I'm Here" features hard-edged rock & roll guitar playing which is similar in style to Mud's "Tiger Feet" and other glam rock songs. "Bohemian Rhapsody" is progressive rock, because it has no chorus and has an epic operatic style that is common among progressive rock bands like Genesis. You're My Best Friend had electric piano playing similar to art-rock band 10cc's "I'm Not in Love" Later on, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" was done in the 1950's rock & roll/rockabilly style (If you don't believe me, listen to it yourself). "Another One Bites The Dust" was in the Disco/Funk rock style. I Want To Break Free" is done in the New Wave/Synthrock style (just listen to it). My point is, describing Queen simply as "Rock", is wrong. Because they have done many genres within the Rock genre, that sound very different from one another. Besides, the genre Rock is wide and not very descriptive. Rock could mean that a song could sound like Chuck Berry or Led Zeppelin or David Bowie or Journey- it is very broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.219.51 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Queen did, indeed, do many styles of music. But the genre in the info box is a summary to give a general idea.  If we were to attempt to list every genre that Queen touched upon it would run to several lines and no longer be a at-a-glance summary.
 * It would also be pretty useless to the reader. The reader who has not encountered Queen wishes to know, generally, what type of music to expect from them.  Generally, they did not do Disco/Funk.  If they expect to hear Disco/Funk on "Bohemian Rhapsody" they are going to be disappointed.   If we list Synthrock,  then can the reader expect to hear a that in "Sheer Heart Attack"?  Or should the already crowded info box make it clear where the Synthrock can be found, and where the Glam Rock can be found?  Or can we just say, generally speaking, they did Rock music.  You will find Rock in practically everything they recorded.


 * It is exactly because Rock is such a wide genre that it is the best way to describe them. Generally speaking, Queen were a Rock band, who had a wide repertoire, dabbling in many sub-genres.  We can let the rest of the article expand on this. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rock is the perfect all encompassing parent genre that covers all the genres that the band played. Synthrock is Rock, Prog rock is Rock, Hard rock is Rock.... it fits them perfectly and it is nice that all Queen articles fall under the one single genre heading in the band article infoboxes. Cited prose describing the band's musical style is perfectly good for their pages. But for all their infoboxes just having Rock is perfection. All music articles on Wikipedia should be so consistent. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of albums sold
Was just thinking that the wording regarding the number of albums sold should be altered to put 300 million in order of precendence. At present it says they sold 150 million albums with some estimates stating over 300 million. As Queens record comany for 40 years, EMI, stated themsleves that they believe the figure to be closer to 300 million and in general, whenever i have heard the TV or radio talking about Queen, they almost always say they have sold 300 million albums. Zulu1963 (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source, correct the information.--TEHodson 07:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zulu1963. There's a major disparity there. The band's own record label, the BBC (only the largest broadcaster in the world), Billboard (only the most important music chart in the world), and other prominent newspapers give a figure of 300 million. To me it's just a case of someone downplaying the figure and getting away with it, because 150 reads like the definitive number, when it should be 300.
 * Based on the certified sales numbers, 300 million is almost definitely not true. That number was first reported by Wikipedia, and only later made it out into reliable sources.  While we can find no source that predates the Wikipedia claim, which is almost definitely incorrect (all other sources at the time said 150 million), we kept the current language as a compromise.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [] This is the edit (from an IP without a source) that introduced the 300 million figure, and no reliable source from before that time has been found to support it. In fact, no reliable source from before that time even support 200 million.  So, the question is, how did Queen sell 150 million albums between 2006 and now, and these sales haven't been recorded in any certifications?  You can find the most recent discussion on this here [] and it is probably a good idea to check out the best selling artists list too.LedRush (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to an old version of this article, "over 190 million albums" was claimed at their UK Music Hall of Fame induction in 2004. 90.201.91.232 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done a few searches in the 2004 article and haven't found the refence. Could you link to it here (both the edit that introduced the information and the cited source?)  Thank you.LedRush (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Members' role
Currently, each member's role in the intro is listed as Freddie Mercury (lead vocals, piano), Brian May (guitar, vocals), John Deacon (bass guitar, guitars, vocals), and Roger Taylor (drums, vocals).

The other three are fine but I highly doubt John contributed to vocals(except for some odd live situations). And John played guitar, yes, but so did Roger and Freddie. And I think Brian played piano and keys as much as John played guitar. But since it would be nonsense to list all those, I think we should drop John's guitar and vocals for the intro.

And Same for "Band Members" section. It's inconsistent. Bri on keys and Fred on guitar should be dropped, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.47.192.43 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The band's name
Mercury was gay. Were all the others as well, or does the name refer to something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.159.246 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the answer is in the article? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Former members
While not disputing the other former members, I think the Queen that is notable is the Queen with Freddie Mercury and John Deacon. They should be in the info box.Ytic nam (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it's appropriate in the infobox to link to the early members, but John's and Freddie's names ought to be in the box itself. They carry far more weight than the early members. I'll make that change. Armadillopteryxtalk 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not listing Mercury in the infobox, simply to put him in line with early bassists, would be a travesty. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And an unforgivable one at that. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear (read: Template:Infobox_musical_artist). If they are followed, the members would be listed as follows: Freddie Mercury, Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell, Doug Bogie, John Deacon. Removing the middle three from the infobox whilst leaving Mercury and Deacon violates the guidelines. "Notability" has no weight with regards to the infobox, and if it was about notability I would agree with you. The infoboxes are meant to be a summation of fact, not a choice on our part. In any case, a click of the link in the infobox will take anyone to the members section lower down the page, where Mercury and Deacon are clearly labeled as being important members of the page whilst Grose, Mitchell, and Bogie are clearly the opposite. This does everything you guys want it to and does so without violating any guidelines. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you must do this, then list all the names. The template usage says nothing about linking it to a section in the middle of the article, that doesn't help the infobox be a summary.  The bit about membership varying is to stop attempts to document situations where members have left and joined repeatedly.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the infobox guidelines, when followed to the letter, would require the Past members section to include Mercury, the early bassists, and then Deacon, I think that organizing the infobox this way is misleading. Mercury and Deacon were instrumental in defining the band and its trajectory for twenty years. The contributions of the early bassists, while important because they helped Queen get started, are almost infinitesimal. Listing these bassists in chronological order between Mercury and Deacon inaccurately suggests a certain equality between the five, if only through the format imposed by the infobox guidelines. According to WP:FIVE, "the principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule." I submit that this infobox is one such case where we need to follow the spirit of the guideline rather than its literal phrasing. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. There's leeway for exceptions.  Take a look at The Beatles (a FA), for instance.  The 'classic' line up are listed as members (despite two being dead), and the two early members as 'past members'.  Queen is different, obviously, as it has continued with a reduced lineup.  But we should try and find a compromise suited to this article.  These early bassist should be listed, but no-way on a par to the rest of the members.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could the opening paragraph get a slight update too? Brian and Roger did not join Queen, they were in Smile, Freddie joined Smile, the band renamed. Dave Rave (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

and who's going to take the next step and change the opening paragraph, Queen formed in 1970 with not John Deacon. It says so in the same paragraph and later on, that John joined in 1971, don't we want it right ? Dave Rave (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we have a citation for 1970? [Queenonline] says "Queen formed in 1971..."Ytic nam (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * former band section, currently 303,4,5 Dave Rave (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Music Videos
any chance of a good section detailing the involvement of the Queen Fan Club in video productions Dave Rave (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not moscow - Kyiv!
Queen will have a performance not in Moscow but in Kyiv Olympic stadium on 30th of June.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.50.253 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

--46.211.213.0 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) --- Hey guys, you desinformate fans for a long time! Queen visited KYIV on 30th of June, not Moscow

Queens Influences
Marilyn Manson and Twiggy have talked about using queen as an influence for some of their melodic tracks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imputanium (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lambert is the new lead singer of Queen
Adam Lambert is the new lead singer of Queen and it hasn't been listed yet, sorry I am new here and didn't know where to post the info.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/adam-lambert-is-queens-new-singer-20120203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagger8812 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article you link to says "apparently". I think we should wait until there is a clearer indication whether he is a member of Queen, or whether he is simply touring with them similarly to how Paul Rodgers did.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't list him as a member, but we should include that they are touring together, per the sources.LedRush (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports on what his role will be:
 * Adam Lambert Queen Report Was False, No Tour Set
 * Adam Lambert not Queen's new singer (yet)
 * Adam Lambert's tweet
 * http://www dot aceshowbiz dot com/news/view/00047551.html Adam Lambert Denies Queen Rumor, but Flattered by the Suggestion (can't link because it's on the blacklist)

So I don't think we should add him to the "current members" roster without something a little more definitive. ... disco spinster   talk  05:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys need to cut this out. The sources are very clear that this is a possibility, not a certainty, and is the repeating of a rumor several times removed. Nothing should go in the article that is not fact, well-sourced and verified. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, nor a rumor mill. I'm taking out the whole paragraph, and it will remain out until someone from Queen announces it to someone we can rely upon.--TEHodson 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So can we PLEASE remove Adam Lambert from the current members list? Someone's added him to it! 94.72.192.176 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what the source says: "A representative for Hollywood Records tells Rolling Stone, "The Daily Star item only mentions that Adam may perform with Queen at Sonisphere. This is not confirmed. Nothing has been signed. However, if this were to happen, Queen would be returning to the setting of their final concert with Freddie Mercury, which took place in 1986."


 * Lambert took to Twitter to clarify his comments. "Them clever reporters takin my quotes outta context ... I haven't confirmed any guest appearances. I was talking about the EMAs," he tweeted. "That being said, I'm truly flattered by your jump to such glorious conclusions."


 * Please stop putting this obviously untrue rumor back into the article. Repeating the rumor here on Wikipedia is not going to make it come true, and rumors do not belong in an encyclopedia. It will not be permitted to stand until it a statement has been issued by the band, so don't waste your time (and ours) by continually re-entering this bogus information. Thank you.--TEHodson 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the rumor shouldn't be in any encyclopedia. For that reason I can't understand why you undid my revision and reintroduced the false information I had cut out. Please look at these diffs. It appears that the software glitched after you initially removed that paragraph:
 * Removal of paragraph
 * The very next edit (also yours): The removed text does not appear in the diff at the top of the page, but if you scroll down to look at that version of the page, it's apparent the text was still there.
 * The change I made, removing all information not explicitly stated by the source
 * Your restoration of the entire rumor
 * I'll AGF and assume you hadn't already looked at these diffs and don't realize what your edits did, because I see we all want the rumors removed. But please pay attention so as to keep the false claims out of the article.
 * Cheers, Armadillopteryxtalk 20:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Armadillo: I'm not sure what happened! I thought I was removing the entire paragraph again--I must have lost track somehow. Thanks. (Added) I see--they buried it down in the article, so I was looking in the wrong place when I checked the preview. Clever of them.


 * TO EVERYONE ELSE: Please note that the above quote says "Adam may perform..." at one show. Not even will perform with them there. The EMAs Lambert is referring to were last year's, when he sang with them on a couple of songs. Stop trying to turn this clearly untrue rumor into an encyclopedic fact. If you really want to make an accurate addition to this article, you will have to write something that says, essentially, "Rolling Stone repeated a rumor, which Lambert denied" etc, etc., which is equally ridiculous, but at least would reflect what the source says. If it's going to happen that they sing together, there will be a proper announcement, at which time that can be added to the article someplace appropriate, but one guest appearance by a non-Queen singer would not merit inclusion in the lead. An announcement about a new, signed singer would, but until that happens, please allow the article to not be an embarrassment. Thank you.--TEHodson 20:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense. I looked at it for awhile and wondered how the paragraph magically reappeared. We could easily change the "will perform" to a "may perform" in the first sentence to make the paragraph true. The second sentence is purely historical and not contentious, so I think we should leave in the first sentence but word it carefully. Thoughts? Armadillopteryxtalk 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My thought is that changing "will" to "may" is accurate, but absurd. On a fan page it would be fine, but not here. Leave it till there's something real to report, then report it properly. My other thought is that this a real time-waster and I don't understand why people are working so hard to include it. If it keeps up, I'll probably just give up on the article, but I think some integrity is in order. This is, again, an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --TEHodson 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I am perfectly happy leaving this Adam Lambert report out of the article. However, as you've speculated, it's likely that people will keep reintroducing it. That's why I think it might be better to leave in the two sentences that were there and change the will perform to may perform. That way no one will get excited about adding the "news" and do so inaccurately. I have this page on my watchlist and will continue to monitor this, but I think it will be easier to manage if we leave the report there, at least until the hype dies down, and just ensure that the statement continues to reflect only the source's claims. In this situation, I see this as the most practical form of damage control. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but it seems a shame to pander to the worst of impulses. Do as you see fit, but I cannot help but think that every such concession lowers our stature. It's Rolling Stone's job (apparentlY) to print nonsensical bits of fluff about musicians (although I can remember better days, when there were serious fact-checkers employed by every periodical, even RS), and given that the original source of the report RS is quoting was The Daily Star, for god's sake, to do so means Wikipedia is quoting RS quoting TDS, who is reporting a completely unfounded rumor. It's no wonder people make fun of this site.--TEHodson 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to weigh in on this one as another wiki user. Every 'maybe' performance of an artist simply does not belong and should not be entered into a wiki article. Any form of this needs to stay out of the article until it is confirmed by Queen or Adam. Until then it is conjecture and rumor and nothing more. Please remember as TEHodson says the original source for this was a tabloid and said tabloid was also RS's source, RS does not always print the truth and when they don't they cannot be considered a reliable one.  God help us all if wiki articles included rumors, conjectures or every 'maybe' performance of a musician. (Omgoodnessme (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

WP:CRYSTAL  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, I'm not pushing for the addition of this info and do prefer that it stays out. I had a suggestion for damage control if needed, but happily it looks like that's a non-issue anyway. Armadillopteryxtalk 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The concert with Adam Lambert at Moscow's Olympic Stadium is rescheduled to 3 July 2012. Please, correct the date in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.39.91 (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No he's not! He just sang with Queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.150.158 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline
I was wondering... What about putting a "touring keyboardist" line in the timeline? As it stands now, we have early bassists listed, but Spike has played with Queen since 1984, I think. It would be cool to see him, Fred Mandel and Morgan Fisher represented. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.35.254 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Liza Minelli at Tribute also
Name can be added to list. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwLoK0P-zpA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.187.60.40 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Website Link is broken
The link www.queenonline.com returns a 404 page DavidChipman (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Queen Performance during the 2012 London Olympic games closing ceremony.
Can the History section be updated stating that Footage from the 1986 concert at Wembley Stadium featuring Freddie Mercury leading the crowd prior to singing "Under Pressure" (at the Wembley concert) was used during the closing ceremonies of the 2012 London Olympic Games. With the crowd and athletes in attendance reacting just like the crowd in the concert. Also that Brian may and Roger Taylor performed "We Will Rock You" with Jessie J (who had performed earlier during the closing ceremonies) singing the lead vocals of the Song.

ThanksRafaelRodriguez1 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Rafael Rodriguez

Associated acts
At the moment there is no real logic to the associated acts that are included. They're not alphabetical, chronological, or in order of any conceivable measure of 'importance'. There are also several important omissions that can't really be justified, given those present. I edited it to "Smile, Ibex, Mott the Hoople, David Bowie, The Cross, Wyclef Jean, Five, Robbie Williams, George Michael, Elton John, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Adam Lambert", which is (sort of) chronological, but someone was unhappy and reverted back to the previous illogical version. My rationale for inclusion was bands and artists that have featured members of Queen, and bands and artists that have released collaborations with Queen. There may still be some omissions.

Any thoughts on how to go forward with this? Tommurphy86 (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I can't really see the justification for Mott The Hoople. If it's that Queen supported them, 10CC should also be included. If it's that Brian, Freddie and Roger performed background vocals on an Ian Hunter song, then it should really be 'Ian Hunter'. Tommurphy86 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the Wiki guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts) the only ones that are justified are Smile, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Adam Lambert, and at a push, The Cross. Seems crazy not to include Bowie though, and if he gets in, so should Elton John and George Michael - they're both featured on Greatest Hits 3. Tommurphy86 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say Smile, Queen + Paul Rodgers and (sigh) Lambert. Cross is a band associated with a solo career. Bowie is a one off collaboration, even if it is a famous one-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC).


 * I sort of agree, although The Cross did feature Freddie Mercury on Heaven For Everyone, which was then reworked for Made In Heaven, so arguably there's a stronger link than just Roger Taylor. Also, Bowie collaborated on Cool Cat as well, but his version didn't make Hot Space. So I think The Cross possibly just about sneak in, but Bowie doesn't. 78.86.150.78 (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And Elton John - both the Freddie Tribute and The Show Must Go On...arguably he's got a reasonable claim, as the version of TSMGO on GH3 isn't the Tribute Concert one (in contrast to George Michael's Somebody To Love) 78.86.150.78 (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I change it to Smile, Q+PR and Adam Lambert, is anyone going to revert the edit? Tommurphy86 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The page Template:Infobox musical artist does provide a guideline for how to differentiate acts that should and should not be included. Personally, I generally like to follow the guidelines as closely as possible but following previous discussions I'm aware that on this page people feel strongly about using different methods and I appreciate that, so I'm going to duck out on this one. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Influences
Is it absolutely necessary to list every singer/group that is influenced by the Beatles? Isn't "influences" a section for who influences them? Maybe some of these people can be included under "legacy". Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 11:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres
I would like to propose the edition of Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Symphonic Rock, Progressive Rock, and Glam Rock to the list of genres, instead of just simply Rock.
 * Thanks for bringing this here. This issue has been much discussed in the past (for example see Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 8). Basically the guidelines indicate this field should be as general as possible and rock covers the general output of the band best.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Queen have had a long career and ventured into many sub-genres of rock and others. The info box is a summary.  It cannot hope to cover them all, and if it attempted to it would just be a long list that left the unfamiliar reader clueless as to what kind of music Queen generally played. Attempting to list some, and not other, sub-genres usually means that the list just gets long and longer as other editors add their preferred genres, for their preferred Queen era.  So it is best if it sticks to the more general rock. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your content concerns should be worked into prose (article body) if not already there. Sabrebd is correct information in the infobox is meant to be used as "quick referance".   Mlpearc Phone  ( Powwow ) 20:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For me, it's okay that the genre "rock" is listed in the article about the band itself. I understand this is the summary of all the variety of their music. But I see just plain "rock" on every article about their songs or albums. Why? Does, for example, "I Want To Break Free" sound different from "Road to Nowhere" by Talking Heads? It also has the same instruments, the same style. It's both plain New Wave. And is Blue Öyster Cult's "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" sound heavier than "Liar" or "Tie Your Mother Down"? Is "Stone Cold Crazy" not as protopunk as "School's Out" by Alice Cooper? Look deeper, Queen's style is very varied, just as varied as Led Zeppelin's. Again, I'm not asking you to add something for the article about the band. Only ones about songs and albums have to be edited. What I see is just not fair. That's all I can say. Thank you. Queenrainbow99 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC) omgg forgot touring members Adam Lambert!

Queen (rock band) in Poland in 1986 in Wikipedia???
Queen (rock band) in Poland in 1986 in Wikipedia??? In Russian Wikipedia article about the Queen's magic tour in 1986 argues that on 24.07.1986 rock band Queen played two concerts in Poland. Maybe this is a previously unknown fact, as the articles in Polish and English information about this is lacking. In confirmation of the schedule of concerts (in Russian)

19 июля 1986 Кёльн Германия	Müngersdorfer Stadion

21 и 22 июля 1986 Вена Австрия Sutadthalle

24 июля 1986 Варшава Польша Stadion Dziesięciolecia

24 июля 1986 Катовице Польша Spodek

27 июля 1986 Будапешт Венгрия Непштадион

In addition, the Stadion Dziesięciolecia In 1983, due to technical problems, was abandoned.

Please fix or find this information in Wikipedia!!!

Alex Bakumov, Volgograd, Russia. bakumey@mail.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.51.95 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Queen +" Vocalists
Maybe the members section could use a list of all the guest vocalists that have performed with Queen since '91. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Queen Extravaganza
I noticed that there was nothing relating to the Queen Extravaganza tribute band on this page, with the exception of the performance on American Idol. As it's an official tribute band, surely it's worth a mention?GingerTheMinx (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing studio album: The Cosmos Rocks
I think the discography summary should contains the new studio album The Cosmos Rocks 79.182.174.201 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The album is included in the discography on the Queen + Paul Rodgers page. I think it would be a mistake to include it here as it would not distinguish the album from those performed by the original Queen lineup. In short, Queen and Queen + Paul Rodgers should be treated as two separate artists. GingerTheMinx (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Influence
Swedish band Sabaton have a song 'Metal Crue' which is made up of rock and metal bands that they cite as an influence on their music. Queen features a several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.123.34 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Posthumous Albums?
I don't think that Made in Heaven and the upcoming Queen Forever should be listed as "Posthumous Albums" when the band is still very much active. If they were Freddie Mercury solo records, maybe, but as long as May and Taylor are still performing as Queen they count as studio albums, not posthumous releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.113.133 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sort of a silly question, but...
English not being my native language, I was having issue with the lede Queen are ... since I was under the assumption that unless the name of a group is naturally a plural term, it should use a verb that is singular? Please clarify, as it's not very natural to me. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In British English groups take the plural, in American English they take the singular. This article is written in British English because it is about a British subject. See Comparison of American and British English for more info.
 * Ah, thanks. That's exactly what I couldn't find... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 01:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Musical Theatre section - We Will Rock You
This page still refers to We Will Rock You running indefinitely. Actually it finished on 31 May 2014. Below is a suggested edit.

Does this page ever get updated by whoever it is that has editing rights?

The original London production was scheduled to close on Saturday, 7 October 2006, at the Dominion Theatre but, due to public demand, the show was extended a number of times. The 12-year run came to an end on 31 May 2014 with Brian May and Roger Taylor joining the cast on stage for the final performance. We Will Rock You became the longest running musical ever to run at this prime London theatre, overtaking the previous record holder, the Grease musical.[297]

78.144.49.231 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014
The 2nd word in this article should be "is" not "are".

Danielwarta (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is a British topic; see MOS:PLURALS regarding British use of collective nouns.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  04:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Bacon Bowl" commercial
What song of Queen doing the "Bacon Bowl" commercial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.200.56 (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Other guest vocalists"
Is it worth listing all the names that are currently there under this heading? Or should it be limited to only those who have actually made it onto a Queen single or album? Because, as it is, the list either needs trimming to only the most noteworthy appearances, or expanding to include them all. For instance, Annie Lennox is listed for her part in the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, but not (say) Axl Rose or Roger Daltrey from the same night. Jessie J is mentioned because of the Olympic closing ceremony, but not the likes of Will Young or anyone else from the Golden Jubilee. Boyband Five don't get a mention, and that was a number one single! We need to decide one way or the other, as at the moment it just seems random, and I'm in favour of trimming it right down. Opinions? 80.5.147.237 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)