Talk:Queen (band)

Queen (band) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Queen (band) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:FAOLdone

To-do list for Queen (band): edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-01-23 Refs 2-5, 26, 81, 82 need extra information on them, currently they're just links. Author, date etc. Refs 16 and 101 have been marked as dead, these need fixing Disambiguation links bring up Amandla, Band Aid and Dave Stewart, point these in the right direction. Alt text needed for all images.

Archives:
Talk:Queen (band)/Archive 1 (archived April 1st 2006)

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.

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

• Bolden each year.

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - CorbinSimpson 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]: "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [2] That's a lot better than a DigitalDreamdoor quote. Ral315 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - CorbinSimpson 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Things wrong:

1. Unsourced
2. Doesn't refer to the picture in question
3. Shouldn't be in the introduction Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I find amusing about en: 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{[citation needed]} into the text on at least 15 occasions - this is a sign that referencing really needs improvement! TheGrappler 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I don't mind the new way that the history section is being broken up, but some of it isn't being done well. Calling 1970-1981 the "Hard Rock Years" is misleading because every Queen album includes hard rock tracks. Saying that Queen's "New Sound" began in 1982 is likewise misleading; Queen's new sound began in 1980, when they introduced synthesizers. I think we should create a separate article, where we can title the sections thing like "New Sound Era" and stuff like that, while the History provided here should stay divided into decades. TheImpossibleMan 22:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • This article is getting rather large, but it should still contain a summary of the history even if a different history article is created. Now, the precise way to break the history down doesn't have to be the same in both of them, but in general breaking down by decade is really arbitrary and should be avoided, especially if it possible to identify phases in the the history. The stage prior to the existence of Queen, for instance, would be such a stage, and similary the stage after Mercury's death. It's how to break up the middle that seems to be the sticking point here - there are multiple ways it could be done. You are right that the current titles of the sections are misleading, so they should probably be changed. However, their main thrust seems to be sensible. If the use of synthesizers constitutes a major change in Queen's sound (seems fair comment to me), then why not extend the "New Sound" section back to 1980? That would make more sense, rather than reverting to decades again. As for referencing, WP:CITE does a pretty good job. One possibility is to split footnotes and references (Corinthian War does a good job on that) - give your main reference books in full citation format, then use a <cite> footnote with a page number to say precisely where you are getting the information (and just abbreviating it e.g. "Fine, The Ancient Greeks, 556-9" would be the footnote to say you got the fact from pages 556-9 of "Fine, John V.A. The Ancient Greeks: A critical history (Harvard University Press, 1983) ISBN 0674033140" (which is how you would write it in the "references" section). There isn't any magic to citing a magazine, I'm sure it would be acceptable to write: "Rolling Stone, 29 Foobruary, 1978, p.19" (where the review is, obviously, on page 19 of the 29 Foobruary edition, 1978). ISBN and publisher can go out of the window really, but if you are citing Hutton's book you'd need it (and remember to give which edition you are using in case different editions have different page numbers). If you have a reference that is quoted online, you might (for the convenience of readers) append something to the effect of "Quoted/available online at queen.musichall.cz (URL accessed 9 April, 2006)" but it would probably not be a great idea to link to a copyvio. If you have a newspaper story (e.g. the Scotsman one) then it would be good if you could identify what "dead tree" copy the story was printed in - this won't necessarily be the same as the date listed in the online edition. Then you can give: "Queen closer to King as UK chart-toppers", Sherna Noah, The Scotsman, 29 Foobuary 2005 (available online at scotsman.com, URL accessed 9 April, 2006) - citing sources in this kind of manner adds to credibility, as well as verifiability once the link stops working! TheGrappler 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that is always a problem - spliting up the ages - I made new sound since 1982 because 'the game' is, for me at least, more to the first phase of Queen - it is somewhere in the middle, but still more rock, while the later albums 1986- are simply Queen phase 2. Hot Space is then the ground braker - as teh worst album and being unseuccesfull - it made them search for something new, since it wasn't near the fenomen of Game.

propositions : call 'finding..' -> 'early years', or 'early albums'. I think that is nicer.

'worldwide success' is ok I guess - but as above I think 'the game' should be in that section... and then we need a new title for the 1982-1991 section - which is 'phase 2'? 'new sound'. 'synths' are problem since they start at 'game'.

Let's hear the ideas Donny 12:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less flowery descriptions tend to be best, because there is less chance of them seeming "POV". Also, section headings should have sentence capitalization (i.e. Not Like This). Also, I like the new lead a lot more. How about altering it slightly, to something like:

Queen is a British rock band formed in 1970, consisting of Brian May, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, and, until his 1991 death, charismatic frontman Freddie Mercury. [You may disagree with this ordering, but at the moment, the first mention of any member is when it says Freddie Mercury designed the band's crest - if you didn't know he was a member of a Queen, that wouldn't make much sense!] The band came to popularity during the mid-1970s, amassing a large ["enormous" doesn't sound encyclopedic] worldwide fanbase [weasel word and probably inaccurate: are they big in Africa? India? China? Eastern Europe? That's well over half the world's population! However, "large fanbase in the United Kingdom and United States" or "large fanbase in North America and Western Europe" or even "large fanbase in the Americas, Western Europe and Oceania" - whichever is more appropriate and citeable! - would be better] that persists today. Although traditionally panned by critics, especially those in the United States [don't abbreviate to "US", it gets on people's backs here, for some reason!], Queen's critical stock has improved considerably as they have more recently been recognized as pioneers of arena rock, hard rock,^[1] glam rock, heavy metal, and progressive rock^[2].[Could this section be rewritten to take account of changes/progression in Queen's style, and perhaps to give a better impression of the distinctiveness of their sound?]

The group has also been cited as influential to many later artists, including [name some later artists influenced by Queen, preferably who have talked about the effect of Queen's influence on them, and cite some sources to back this up e.g. an interview with the artist concerned or a review noting the influence of Queen] In 2001 the band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio^{[citation needed]}. As mentioned at [not "in", surely?] their 2004 induction into the UK Music Hall of Fame, Queen's promotional video for Bohemian Rhapsody is credited with "jump-starting the video era."^[3] Bohemian Rhapsody and We Are The Champions remain two of Queen's most popular/well-known songs [cite using those two "global" opinion polls; preferably backing them up using sales figures - if Queen had any better-selling songs, then this sentence could be adapted].

The band's crest (pictured) was designed by Freddie Mercury and includes the zodiac [why not wikilink?] signs of all four members surrounding a phoenix. [umm, is this right? It looks to me that the Phoenix is on top of the zodiac signs, not surrounded by them?]

Somewhere in the lead - not sure where - it ought to mention what post-Mercury Queen has been doing. It's probably true to say they are no longer pioneering very much. That would be the place to mention Deacon's retirement. (In fact, there seems to be an edit war going on here - you need to sort out Deacon's status, guys! If he is "officially retired" then a citation would be good.) Just a general thing, and I probably haven't corrected it as such, is that some more consistency with wikilinking years woud be good. In general, years should be wikilinked if they are felt to be "relevant" but I'm not sure how that's determined... TheGrappler 16:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know I think that "worldwide" is just OK, we don't say the whole world loved them just that they were popular on many places - yes UK and US, but also south america - with the pioneering concerts in their stadiums, Japan was very fond of Queen, west europe, but as far as I know east europe too - the concerts in Hungary for example gave them a lot of credit. I for one am from Yugoslavia, and maybe they weren't the top group for everyone, but they still have their not-so-few audience, and earlier it was bigger - look for the 'Mustapha' single that had a special issue in Yugoslavia, and I had the "Seven seas of Rhye" single in my hand - YU issue. And I think I recall someone mentioning south africa, though I'm not sure about that.

the pool links were somewhere there don't know when they dissapeared. there were some cutings of the article on demand...

Donny 20:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Africa-excluding-South-Africa, China and India make up half the world's population and we haven't got on to them yet :) I take the point. What about "including Europe, North and South America and Japan" - concise but completely verifiable, and not a sniff of POV (record sales/concert figures would cover all these for references)? To put this in perspective, if a band was wildly popular in Africa, India and China alone we almost certainly wouldn't call them a "worldwide" success, although in terms of numbers they'd have exactly as good a claim as Queen... TheGrappler 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheImpossibleMan wrote: "Deacon retired in 1997, when he recorded 'Only the Good Die Young' with Taylor and May. I challenge you to find something he did afterward)"
(1) Deacon did not retire in 1997. I challenge you to find any interview or any official statement by Deacon stating he had retired in 1997...
(2) In fact, we don't know exactly when he retired. There is no evidence that Deacon was not involved in decisions regarding Queen projects in 1998 or 1999 etc. He wrote articles for the official fan club magazine until 1999.
(3) I made one mistake (sorry!): The Five/Queen collaboration single WWRY was, of course, released in 2000 (and not in 2001). Bass guitar was played by Brian May.
(4) That does not mean Deacon had officially retired until 2000. In 2003, Roger Taylor said in an interview: "John really has retired. (...) He wrote us a letter in which he said 'I fully endorse whatever you are doing or what you do and you have my wholehearted support behind it but I feel I don't want to be involved' basically." (Undercover magzine, http://www.deaky.com/weekly/2003/dw11E.html)
(5) But we don't know when Deacon had written this letter. As the Five/Queen single was the first project where Deacon was obviously not involved, we should say: "retired circa 2000." -- Candyfloss 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I have always said that he retired in 1997 is that his last involvement with the band (or an band, for that matter) was when he recorded No One But You (Only the Good Die Young). Writing articles is not the same as touring or being involved in decisions for the band. And the letter Taylor said he recieved from Deacon has no date - who's to say he didn't recieve it years earlier? I still maintain that we should said "Retired 1997", as oppossed to "Circa 2000". But let's avoid an edit war; what do you other people think? Let's reach concensus.TheImpossibleMan 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following bit to the article a long, long time ago:

'At the Knebworth concert held with some 150,000 in attendance on August 9th that same year, Freddie makes the following statement:

"...and earlier on, there were rumours of us splitting up, but I mean, fuck 'em! I mean, really, look at this! (cheers). I mean, how can you split up when you have an audience like this, I mean, really! We're not that stupid!"'

Since it is now marked as Citation Needed, I'm wondering if someone could help me with the format of it. The quote can be heard on Electric Magic, a fairly well circulated bootleg of Queen's Knebworth '86 concert. I'm currently listening to it through so I can find the track that it appears on. How should I format the citation, since I can't really link to any online source? Andymc 12:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online source: http://queen.musichall.cz/index_en.php?s=ru&d=kneb_en -- Candyfloss 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You rule! Cheers...hope I've done it right...feel free to correct it if I haven't. Andymc 13:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there are a lot of quotation marks in this article. Most of them are for song names. The correct convention is to place punctuation inside the quotes, "like this," but "not like this". I've fixed all of them twice now, but other editors seem intent on adding them back outside of the quotation marks. Can we please settle this? It's a real eyesore, and was one of my points for when I failed this article's GA nomination. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess most people didn't know (I know I didn't). I think that this point in the talk page will be good for the article... Donny 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct convention is NOT to have punctation inside quotes. That some kind of American shit (no offense intended), and is considered wrong everywhere else in the anglophone world, and in must other languages as well. Leave it as is. Jon Harald Søby 09:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You failed a GA nomination because the article follows a different convention than the one you're used to? FWIW, I prefer punctuation outside quotes, but I wouldn't fail a nomination over it...Stevage 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure what is better, but wikipedia HAS defined style conventions, WP:MOS, and as far as I got it it has to do more with how the text looks taking into consideration the italics that are made when the double quote is set.

Donny 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to be more precise, in the Manual of Style, it says

When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations).

and some examples follow. So then not all punctuation should be in quotes, or am I missing something? Donny 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the correct convention is to place punctuation outside of the quotation marks: See Wikipedia: Manual of Style: Punctuation: Quotation marks : (...) quotations, that is, "quotations 'within' quotation". (etc.) -- Candyfloss 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm very new here, but don't change the founders or the foundation year please. John Deacon wasn't a founding Queen member, there were 3 unsuccessful bassists before him.

Yes, that is a problem, I think most of us are aware of those facts. But I think that althoug Queen got their name in 26 June 1970, an opinion is that Queen was whole only when John joined. <br\>p.s. use ~~~~ to sign yourself Donny 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that User Page:Queenfan had changed a parargraph under Influence on Modern Music from “Queen is remembered for its never-before-seen theatrics, showmanship, camp and bombast so much that critics have since classified the band as a major player in the evolution of rock music. Queen is noted in particular for its musical eclecticism and ground-breaking live shows.^{[citation needed]}” to “Queen are remembered for their never-before-seen theatrics, showmanship, camp and bombast so much that critics have since classified the band as a major player in the evolution of rock music. Queen is noted in particular for its musical eclecticism and ground-breaking live shows.^{[citation needed]}”. I was unsure if this is correct. If it is, then Queen is not an entity itself, and as such, could not be sued (just an example). However, I was thinking that Queen was an entity, so can someone who knows the answer please respond? Thank you, Billvoltage 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one is correct. The sentence is referring to the group Queen, not the members of Queen. Jon Harald Søby 09:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they were an entity Donny 13:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your input. However, Donny, as they are still an entity, your verb tense is incorrect. It should be "Agreed, they are an entity." Billvoltage 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, you were right. ;) just kidding a bit. I ussualy don't watch so closely what I'm writing in the talk pages as I am trying in the main pages.Donny 09:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:P Billvoltage 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]