Template talk:Queen

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Queen (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Queen, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.QueenWikipedia:WikiProject QueenTemplate:WikiProject QueenQueen articles Rock music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles

This template was nominated for deletion, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details. Radiant_>|< 09:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are over 40 Queen songs in Wikipedia - suggest we remove the 'songs' part of this template. They should either all be there, or none of them. And showing all of them would be a bit much... Stevage 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this is just huge. It scared me :) It's biger than most stubs are. Generally all templates for long lasting artist have to omit hte songs section, even singles as the case with Queen. The edit was made a few days ago, without concesus or a warning, even though it says right there in the bottom of the template page, so am I reverting it. Donny (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have redone the whole thing

including but not limited to

• removed songs (there are just to many)
• put member names in alphabetical order
• added "Box Sets"

--172.162.16.118 07:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why albums are not italicized? -- Jared Hunt August 14, 2006, 14:32 (UTC)

Should he not be added to the infobox in the same way as Hugh McDonald is in the Bon Jovi one & various people in The Who's? GiantSpider 22:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Edney is not a member of Queen. Candyfloss 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Hugh McDonald a member of Bon Jovi GiantSpider 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Edney is to Queen what Billy Preston was to the Beatles. Not a "full member" of the group, but a welcome guest. I consider him to be a member of Queen + Paul Rodgers, but not of the original band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.79.251 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Edney should not be in the info box because he was not a member of Queen, he was "paid help". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.193.1 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rodgers should be in the infobox somewhere beyond the "Queen + Paul Rodgers" link, but not up with Mercury, May, Taylor, and Deacon. Any ideas?

We could put him in the Related Articles section. Nyeguy 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videography section missing Greatest Flix, Queen Magic Years 1,2,3, Queen Live In Rio, Greatest Flix III. RB30DE 12:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have both played rolls in Queen, and I think should somehow be mentioned in the template. My current thinking is to put them under John, Brian, Freddie and Rodger, maybe with a label like "Other artists." Does this sound like a good idea? --nyeguy 04:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of liked having them in the "Related Articles" section. Putting Paul Rodgers up there with the others wouldn't be right, as he's the lead singer of Queen + Paul Rodgers, not the lead singer of Queen. As to Spike, if he were the only keyboardist the band had ever employed, sure, right up below the big four. Let's not forget, though, that Morgan Fisher handled keyboards first until his firing, then Fred Mandel finished out the Hot Space tour. Spike is a welcome guest of the band unless and until his picture makes it onto the cover of an album with Paul, Brian, and Roger.Phoneclear 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the difference between Spike, Morgan & Fred is that those two were there for half a tour each, whereas Spike has been part of whatever is left of Queen for over 20 years. He's playing at everything branded as Queen since 1984. GiantSpider 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the Discography, Videography, and Related article heading not use the division style of other templates, making them darker grey? For example, see Template:Billy Talent. -- Reaper X 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Freddie Mercury and John Deacon in the current members section of this template? everyone should know that Freddie ZMercury died on November 24, 1991 from AIDs and John Deacon retired in 1997, therefore, they are not current members, someone please fix this or I will do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noone answered, so i'll do it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.180 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay with Freddie and John in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.79.172 (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not current members, so they belong in the former members template. Saying they are current members is like saying Bon Scott is still with AC/DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote the first comment here did so without due thought process. Freddie and John should ALWAYS be listed as members of Queen because that's who Queen was --- Freddie, John, Roger, and Brian. Anyone who knows the history of Queen will know that Mercury was ultimately the driving force behind the band's enormous success and from the very start. He was the one who named the band "Queen", he was the one who designed the band logo/crest, he was the one who created the mystique and persona that was Queen, and he was the one who thrust them into super-stardom with songs he wrote that became their biggest hits, songs like "Killer Queen", "We Are The Champions", and "Bohemian Rhapsody". That said, the fact of the matter is that the band known as Queen no longer exists. That band died when its founding member Freddie Mercury died. Ironically, since Freddie's death, both Roger and Brian, who continue to call the band Queen, have said that Queen could not have been Queen without Mercury. Further proof that Queen is not Queen without Mercury is to imagine what the band would have been like without him altogether. They would have been average at best and they would'nt even have had the name Queen. Case closed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.193.1 (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Paul Rodgers to the template, below Mercury and Deacon. I wonder, though, why Mercury and Deacon were dropped to the second row in the template? They're not current members, sure, but without the two of them, Queen could never have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.68.210 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I switched John and Freddie back to the top where he belongs. Paul should not be included because he is part of Queen + Paul Rodgers. He is not part of Queen. If he was they would not have called it Queen + Paul Rodgers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.79.172 (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rodgers isn't part of Queen, so leave him out of their template. IMO, Queen + Paul Rodgers should have their own now. And I guess Mercury & Deacon are former members, so shouldn't be with May & Taylor. GiantSpider (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Paul Rodgers was never a member of Queen so should not be included in the template. July 22, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.193.1 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the album "The Cosmos Rock" shouldn't be in the discogrophy because it is by Queen + Paul Rodgers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebfan1993 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The album is not Queen's album. Queen was Freddie, John, Roger, and Brian. "The Cosmos Rock" is Roger, Brian, and Paul. July 22, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.193.1 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why my edits were reverted. They were meant to clean up the template and organize it. I don't know why that's considered "disruptive editing". Music2247 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]