Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleBohemian Rhapsody was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 6, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 7, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 16, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
June 11, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
July 3, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

WikiProject
Queen logo.svg
General
Project Page
Article Overview
Participants
Portal
Tasks
To-Do List
Article Quality
Quality Log
Assessment
Useful Stuff
Media
Books
Templates
edit


Symphonic rock[edit]

symphonic rock goes straight to the prog page, no distinction is made between them on the prog page

it doesn't say that symphonic rock is a genre, though, does it, it says it was a strain, and if it's so significant, why isn't there more on it in the prog article, let alone a separate article establishing its significance?

  • "Bohemian Rhapsody could easily have been dismissed as a fitting farewell to the dying genre of symphonic rock"[2]
  • It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.[3]

I don't need to look at the Paul Fowles source, I know it well because I originally added it to this page, but that was when symphonic rock had its own article, which is precisely my point, it no longer does

Nothing else to say except: wtf? Just because Wikipedia does not currently have a dedicated article for symphonic rock (as opposed to a dedicated section, which it does) doesn't mean the genre has vanished from the earth. It has only been made part of a broader topic (progressive rock)... It would be like writing "krautrock/kosmische musik"—it suggests they're the same thing when they're absolutely not, they're just sometimes thrown around interchangeably similar to "art rock" and "progressive rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, Wikipedia "did" have a dedicated article for symphonic rock, which was deleted due to questions over its importance and almost complete lack of sources. Art rock, by contrast, has a very detailed article with plenty of sources. So there is no comparison I'm afraid. Unless you care to find a load of good sources and build up a good article on symphonic rock again. Rodericksilly (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Again. WP:NOPIPEDLINK advises against this. It makes no difference whether symphonic rock has an article. It is a distinct topic covered in sources, most of which distinguish it from prog-rock. Therefore, Wikipedia must also distinguish it from prog-rock, and be careful not to mislead readers into thinking that people generally consider it the same thing. They don't.
  • It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.[4]
What policies or guidelines support your preference? Do any exist? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it makes it very clear in the opening line of the progressive rock article that "symphonic rock" is often used as just an alternate name for progressive rock. It does not establish anywhere that it is a distinct genre from "progressive rock". I have even seen people attempt to classify "Who Wants to Live Forever" as "symphonic rock"... Why? Guess what, because it's got an orchestra on it! So some people think symphonic rock is any song with an orchestra on it. But of course, the constant with all this is that sources are never used to define exactly what symphonic rock is and how it is different from progressive rock. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Progressive rock Seems to be the logical choice, I agree with Rodericksilly. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say "often used as just an alternate name". It says it's "sometimes called art rock, classical rock, or symphonic rock", while sources contradict each other on whether there are differences between the terms. "Progressive rock" has also been mixed up with "electronic rock". You're acting as though your opinion is the widespread consensus. It's not. (WP:ADVOCACY) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't directly quoting the opening line of the prog article and you know that, so don't make out that I was. Whether it says "alternate name" or "sometimes called", now you're just arguing for the sake of it. As for your comment on "sources contradict each other on whether there are differences between the terms", that sounds like a very good reason for doubting the reliability of anything to do with symphonic rock. There are hardly any mentions of symphonic rock in the prog article, nothing about how it is distinct from the general term of progressive rock, nothing to say it is a separate genre, or even a subgenre like neo-prog. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
You've been backpedaling this entire time. "Sometimes called ..." is completely different from saying "is also known as ..." If there is no consistency to the use of "symphonic rock", then we should be going by what the individual sources state in their given context. In the "Bohemian Rhapsody" sources, nobody suggests that "symphonic rock" is the same thing as "progressive rock". That is OR on your part. Besides that, more sources regard "symphonic rock" and "progressive rock" as distinguished terms than they do synonyms. So why are we defaulting to "they're the same thing"? Because they share the same article space? Does that means Synth-punk should always be piped to Punk rock, or Psybient to Psychedelic trance? Nonsense. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've not "backpedaled" on anything. Oh, and "Sometimes called ..." and "is also known as ..." don't sound "completely different" to me, they sound extremely similar. We obviously don't speak the same version of English. And "more sources regard 'symphonic rock' and 'progressive rock' as distinguished terms than they do synonyms"? Where are all these sources to which you refer and why aren't there enough of them to build an article which explains how symphonic rock is a distinct genre from progressive rock when there's even one on neo-prog, which was a widely derided derivative version of progressive rock? Rodericksilly (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anon (n.d.). "Prog-Rock". AllMusic.
  2. ^ Fowles, Paul (2009). A Concise History of Rock Music. Mel Bay Publications, Inc. p. 243. ISBN 978-0786666430.
  3. ^ WP:NOPIPEDLINK
  4. ^ WP:OVERSIMPLIFY

Beach Boys[edit]

The article stated: The Beach Boys' 1966 single "Good Vibrations", which also consisted of disparate music sections recorded separately, was a precursor to "Bohemian Rhapsody".[1]. That is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. -- Zz (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"That is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards." Why? Rodericksilly (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Fraser McAlpine is contributor to The Guardian, BBC America, and The Independent. He's not exactly a high-quality source, but still acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Articles like these are clickbait. He needs ten facts, and he gives an opinion. Yes, that is his right and his livelihood, but it is neither reliable nor reputable. -- Zz (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Intro Missing Any Explanation of Song[edit]

I read thru the entire Intro twice, and was astounded that there was no explanation whatsoever of what the song is about. Not a single word. Very disappointing. Then I skimmed down thru section after section before finally reaching the very lengthy discussion on that question. (Whew...) There really needs to be some indication of what it's about right there in the Intro. Not easy to summmarize, to be sure, but surely somebody is up to the task? Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But if nobody knows for certain what the song is about, how would we summarise that? "The meaning behind the lyrics has been speculated over by many critics, with theories ranging from Mercury's attempts to deal with issues from his childhood or his homosexuality, to a story of a man making a Faustian pact with the devil, while others believe the lyrics have no meaning at all; Mercury would only say that the song is about relationships". Richard3120 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

One Billion Views on YouTube[edit]

This song has reached 1 billion views on YouTube but I am unsure where this would go in the article. Source: https://www.udiscovermusic.com/news/queen-bohemian-rhapsody-billion-youtube/. It's also on the band's Facebook and on the video itself on YouTube. Since this happened very recently, Billboard and other more reliable sources should probably pick up on it in a few hours or a day. Not sure if y'all want to wait for them to pick it up or if the sources available now are enough.

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done [1] - FlightTime (open channel) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)