Talk:Queen discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion[edit]

Is this article even neccessary? Queen's discography is included in their main article. TheImpossibleMan 21:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's necessary and standard practice. Queen have an extensive catalogue and the full discography is way too large for inclusion within the band's main article. I support the retention and improvement of ths article, and the severe trimming of the Discography section in Queen (band). --kingboyk 10:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to list the chart position and every track on this page. The page is too long and cumbersome that way. Just an album list would be better, with the other info on the pages for each album.71.205.222.97 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demos/Unreleased materials[edit]

Last night I found out there are tons of demos recorded circa Innuendo era, and some before that. We need to add those to the list. --Badshans (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list[edit]

I think if we work hard enough on this page, we could probably make it into a featured list. I'll start fixing redlinks, but someone needs to get missing pictures, because I suck at finding images (and not having them deleted). - Zone46 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing pictures: see queenpicturehall. - Candyfloss 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Flix[edit]

The list makes no reference to the Greatest Flix. Queen, ground-breaking as usual, released video versions of the Greatest Hits CDs on VCDs long before the DVD format was a reality. Jon Harald Søby 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen In Nuce is missing...[edit]

"In Nuce" seems to be missing from the list. Isn't it an official release? 71.236.196.246 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely not, its a bootleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.24.239 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 January 2007
It isn't listed on the bootlegs page...gonna have to research. Detriment (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use on discographies test case[edit]

Please see Talk:The_Beatles_discography#Poll_on_the_use_of_fair-use_images_on_this_page_and_the_interpretation_of_policy which is acting as a test case in this matter. Jooler 09:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without critical commentary, fair use cannot be declared; the article as it stood was in no way meeting with fair use requirements. Ral315 » 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Complaition album?[edit]

My friend let me borrow a copy of his Quuen album, and it was made in 2004, yet, I can't seem to find it in the list. The tracks are Bohemian Rhapsody, Another Bites the Dust, Killer Queen, Fat Bottomed Girls, Bicycle Race, You're my Best Friend, Don't Stop Me Now, Save Me, Crazy Little Thing Called Love, Somebody To Love, Seven Seas of Rhye, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Under Pressure (Live), and Tie Your Mother Down (Live). That's the order. If anyone has any information on this, please, let me know. Metroid0630 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Greatest Hits (Queen album)#2004 U.S. edition. –Candyfloss 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits[edit]

The section on Greatest Hits lists its status as 11x Platinum however it gives its sales figures as 5.5 million + which would actually make it 18x Platinum as the BPI awards platinum status on sales of multiples of 300,000 copies. Is there a reason why this hasn't been changed or should I just go ahead and update it? AulaTPN 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song links[edit]

At least one song's link leads to a sub-section in the album's article, but there are entire articles about the individual song, and the link takes the reader to a little snippet about the song in the album's article. In fact, one of the songs linked to one of these sub-sections, and then under the song name it had a main article link. Can't we just link the songs with their own articles to those articles? Why the indirect links? I think we can be more helpful to the readers. Fdssdf (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numeration of songs (IMPORTANT)[edit]

I believe that something's wrong with the numeration of the tracks on the studio albums. For example "Keep Yourself Alive" is the first track on the "Queen" album but here on Wikipedia it has no number (only "#") and "Doing All Right" is numbered as the first song (in real world it's second). I've tried to edit that, but nothing happens to work. Pacio (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: User Wantnot has edited this article and now everything looks nice. Thank you Wantnot. Pacio (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change the format of the album section...[edit]

Seriously, we really don't need to see the track listing itself on the first page...it makes the article too long, and it's tough to compare record sales/certifications of each album in the current state.Maplejet (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, that section needs to be fixed. I've removed the tracklistings now. - Aphasia83 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-side comp[edit]

Is there no compilations of B-sides etc? AJUK Talk!! 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Albums[edit]

I updated the studio albums section and changed the format so it won't be so cluttered. It keeps getting reverted and I've gotten messages to stop vandalizing. I strongly believe the current section is inferior to the one I made. --FreddyFreak (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this apparent edit war can end then. To help the process along, what reasons can you give for believing your changes are more valid than the one made by the other editor? This provides a groundwork for discussion on the finer points, which should hopefully lead to consensus! -Rushyo (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edit makes the section less confusing and it removes unnecessary information. Like a user above me sated, we don't need the tracklisting on the discography page. Thats what the Album pages are for. My edit also makes it look more updated and professional. My edit includes the names, dates, artwork, and chart positions in a chart wheareas the the current one just has it in confusing sentences sans the album artwork. Plus, do you really think its fair that Britney Spears has a better discography page than Queen? --FreddyFreak (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Maplejet wrote above on this page, the studio albums section really doesn't need the tracklistings. I've removed the tracklistings now. - Aphasia83 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

I strongly believe there should be few tables for all of their albums. This is pretty confusing and barely readable, especially compilations and other non-studio albums. I hope something could be done. --SonjiCeli (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiments in many above posts. This page is much too long. A simple table of albums would be preferable to individual listings. A discography page should instantly give you an idea of an artist's overall catalogue and help you locate specific albums and their release dates. Other details should be in the articles covering the albums. Elcalen (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this page reall needs sorting. I'd do it myself, but i don't have enough, if any, knowledge of HTML. =p Slayer 909 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone really needs to fix the album listing...it's really unreadable. It needs to be formatted into a table. Maplejet (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put the Studio albums into a table, someone else can do the rest if they want. BocoROTH (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmos doesn't Rock?[edit]

Does anyone else agree that 'The Cosmos Rock's' should not be included under the Queen discography, as it is in fact not by Queen, but by Queen + Paul Rodgers, who are a completely different band. Just want opinions before i change it. Slayer 909 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but I think I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. The band have continually positioned their partnership with Paul as effectively being Queen + a guest singer, had they marketed themselves under a completely different name then I'd agree. AulaTPN 06:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect error?[edit]

Singles Collection 1 redirects to the Queen discography.. Is this an error or is it intentional? 80.62.222.30 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this seems like an error; there isn't even a fitting description of the box. I suggest that both single box 1 & 2 are made into one article (covering the lot). But I'd really like some other opinions of this? (Preferrably from signed-in users; I know I am not - I prefer not to edit from my current physical location with my account since I cannot delete the cookies on this system... Don't bother pointing it out) 212.10.48.104 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rodgers[edit]

Since there seems to be a disagreement about whether or not the entries about Queen + Paul Rodgers should be in the article, I'm starting a discussion here about it. My personal opinion is that they should not be included, because Queen + Paul Rodgers is a whole different band, and have a discography of their own. What do others think about the article? (X! · talk)  · @742  ·  16:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only 1 dynamic IP user (and his/her occasional single purpose accounts) that keep re-adding the unreq'd content. Q+PR is a separate band from Queen and their recorded content details go in the article specific to them, not this one. Queen stopped being Queen in any official standing in 1997. So any projects that Brian May and Roger Taylor do are no t "Queen"... they are "X featuring former Queen members Brian May and Roger Taylor". I am having every IP that tampers with the article blocked for disruptive editing. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Queen stopped being Queen in any official standing in 1997." mean? Define "official"! The surviving two of the three founding members of Queen continue to use the name - why isn't that "official"? Other bands have continued under the same name with different personnel (Sugababes springs to mind as an extreme example), so why are you so pedantic about Queen? Your suggestion to block users who differ in opinion seems only spiteful. To the point about the inclusion of Queen + Paul Rodgers in this discography, I note that Queen: The Ultimate Illustrated History of the Crown Kings of Rock (ISBN 978-0760337196) includes The Cosmos Rocks in its Queen discography without setting it off in any way. So why shouldn't we do the same here? --Ant (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, what the heck is this dictatorial stance about what is and is not "Queen"? Bottom line is that Brian May + Roger Taylor are marketing themselves as "Queen," not as "X featuring former Queen members Brian May and Roger Taylor." That is a fiction invented by an editor who has a rather unreasonably dogmatic view of the subject. If you want to run this in any manner resembling a professional encyclopedia, the legal entity "Queen" is now composed of Brian May and Roger Taylor. That is why the "Cosmos Rocks" album is listed as "QUEEN" + Paul Rodgers. The point is that the band and its music is a continuation of the 70s band that once also included Freddie Mercury and John Deacon. Whether some purist agrees with this decision is besides the point: legal recognition and ownership of the name "Queen" as the name of a rock band now belongs to Brian May and Roger Taylor and that his how they are marketing themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.111.111 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The official Queen web site includes the Rodgers material. I think that makes it clear that they consider the "Queen" part of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" to be the same Queen, therefore it is all part of the same discography. 24.149.45.52 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loopback link[edit]

The Queen videography link shouldn't be in the See Also section, as it just redirects to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.5.7 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many countries[edit]

Isn't the number of countries where the studio albums have charted is just too much? The table doesn't fit the monitor and totally unwatchable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.49.2 (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

most definitely! MOS:DISCOG states that there should be about 10 and this has many more than that! if this article stands any chance of regaining featured list status alot of things need to change. Mister sparky (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record labels[edit]

Hey, I never thought they released albums through RCA, Atlantic and Sony? Please rectify this as it can be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.233.64 (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warner compilation[edit]

is there a reason this isn't included in the discography? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Live at Golders Green Hippodrome[edit]

Could someone try link to this orphaned article? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links[edit]

I would like to see the source for Netherlands and Norway in terms of certified sales (gold,platinum,etc.) the links on the citation are dead links. I have tried searching myself, but to no avail. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of live albums[edit]

The summary box a the top shows 81 live albums but not nearly that many are listed. Is the 81 a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.159.248 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the sales numbers don't add up. Even in the main article about Queen it talks about 18 number 1 albums and 18 number 1 singles, and that can't be supported by the info in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.215.136.11 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Queen discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EPs[edit]

Queen did indeed release 7 EPs but only one has got listed separately. This is therefore incorrect. Either the choice is to list all EPs as singles with a footnote that it actually were EPs released, or one has to consequently list all EPs separated from the singles releases. The main title tracks on those EPs may be regarded as songs releases aimed at the singles buying public, nevertheless they are NOT singles releases. EPs got listed in UK singles charts from the 70s on, but not in the 60s. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Queen discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queen discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashbox chart positions[edit]

This is the second time that I've tried to add Cashbox Singles chart peaks to the singles section of the page only to have them be removed. Those peak positions come from a very real and reputable source (Joel Whitburn, who has researched the Billboard charts for years) and I properly cited those sources. It is for that reason that the Cashbox chart positions have a place on this page.

Flash Gordon is a studio album[edit]

Like the title says Flash Gordon is a full-fledged Queen album even if it's a soundtrack to a film. There's absolutely no reason why the album shouldn't be added the the studio albums and I suggest to add it because the way it is now, it doesn't reflect the real Queen catalogue.RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody[edit]

Bohemian Rhapsody didn´t peak number 9 in the United States, the highest position of the song is 2 in 1992 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.51.60.104 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody peaked at no. 9 on April 24, 1976. The re-release peaked at no. 2 on May 9, 1992. The discography does not mention the re-release; one would assume that the record reached no. 2 on its initial run. 156.63.69.179 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/1992-05-09

Removal of Queen + Paul Rodgers and Queen + Adam Lambert albums[edit]

Not sure why this was removed. The Queen + Adam Lambert album was added when it was released and Queen seems to be considering this as part as their discography as they called it their first #1 since Made in Heaven. There is a section under singles for 'singles as featured artists' where the Queen + Paul Rodgers singles are included. For that same reason I would expect the 'Queen +' albums to be included as well in this article. Perhaps in a separate section under albums as well? skaschep (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle RIAA Certification[edit]

According to the link provided for the source, the US RIAA artist certifications for gold and platinum albums, The Miracle is not on the list.

Does anyone have another source, or is it simply missing?

It would be the only Queen studio album not certified gold, or better, in the US.

SJCreecy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Is there another image that can be used in the infobox that isn't the band's logo? I would like to do it, but I am too inexperienced to change it. Can someone do it or teach me how to change it? 2601:407:4181:4260:2C5E:1528:5957:6024 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Singles Discography: 1977: We Are The Champions listing[edit]

I don’t believe anyone has commented about this, but according to “Joel Whitburn’s Top Pop Singles 14th edition 1955 – 2012” Page 684, #6, this entry should be listed as “We Will Rock You / We Are The Champions”. In the US, both sides were hits where "We Will Rock You" shared the #4 peak position, (Can't verify peak positions for the other charts) and were and to this day are still played together on the radio. GRZ45RPM (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_discography&oldid=1223473562"