From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen (band) article.
Pink Floyd Man, Wednesday, March 11 1977
Hey! That bass player's name is John Deacon.
but the best band is the Beatles ¬¬
No you f***tard, Queen owns all.--Neppset 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
not since pythons queen victoria handicap has there been rumblings of such cosmic dimensions over dead ant crushings. off with their heads or let them eat cake, you decide.
Queen is the best.There should be something on here other than homo jokes. Freddie Mercury was the only one who was a homo (And he was bisexual, not even completely "gay".)--Herzog 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've begun a complete overhaul of this article. It's not neccessarily funnier but at least it's not just a homophobic rant. I'm a Queen fan and having fun taking the piss out of your heroes is a privilage. Thanks Uncyclopedia! 18.104.22.168 01:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome! Looks like you are doing some good stuff there. Why not get yourself an account? You only have to pay me £350 for the privilege... OK, I admit it... They are free. ;-) Sometimes your IP address will change, so it's nice to know I'm talking to the same person should you ever decide to edit anything else. (It's in the top right of the page) Either way... Have fun with Uncyc. MrN 02:02, Dec 22
Thanks for your comments Mr N! If someone is going to send up the career of one of my favourite bands, I'd rather it was done with some accuracy at the very least! If you can make my changes more amusing, go right ahead and join in the fun :) Anything we do has to be funnier than what was originally here. I'm having a load of fun coming up with ideas. 22.214.171.124 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
More updates folks! Enjoy. --126.96.36.199 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Woohoo! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Track listings (even when each has a toilet pun) are discouraged here. (See UN:LIST.) One thing that happens is that anonymous editors add new tracks forever. The same jokes are welcome in the paragraphs. 14:27 23-Mar-14
So a paragraph citing the track names such as
'Queen's album The Clinical was universally panned for its laboured medical themes. Tracks such as Scrotal, Pancreoplasty and The Invisible Mammogram were described as "disgustingly graphic", "horrendously explicit" and "inscrutable" by a number of reviewers'
would be a better alternative?
--188.8.131.52 16:13, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Of course that beats lifeless lists of pun after pun after pun. And it would be even better if it had additional techniques to puns; and also if it were written to amuse even people who didn't merely want to read about sex organs. That is: seriously entertaining for the average person to read! Please pick a user name and stick around. 16:24 23-Mar-14
- The thing that is missing from all the sex-organ humor is the link to the real world. There is a gaping wide one available for use: The band achieved such success with the issue of Fat Bottomed Girls (nowhere mentioned in the article!) that they adopted writing songs about sex organs as their trademark. That would be clever. Whereas toilet puns with no relation to anything simply means we have another junior-high-school editor, yawn. See the difference? 16:34 23-Mar-14
- Then for those horrified reviewers, use the words from bad reviews Queen actually got (for another reason entirely). 16:38 23-Mar-14
Can't agree with any of this I'm afraid - a spoof bio of a band is for the fans and punny song titles are part of the genre. Witness The Rutles for example, widely considered to be a classic and yet it made liberal use of everything Spike is criticizing here. Plus Queen are a British band and toilet humor, lewd references and puns are very much in the tradition of British humor. Methinks Spike has very limited comedic tastes, which is his right, but his overzealous aggression in enforcing those tastes is spoiling this resource for a significant group of people. This is made more ridiculous when one considers the utter drivel in the current version of this article which has somehow remained unscathed. I propose this is reconsidered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
- Do please read UN:AD about how to address editorial disagreement without excuse-making or speechifying about "overzealous aggression." Anonymous typists do not have any rights against perceived "aggression." Deleting lists of toilet puns is a consistently followed style here. Toilet puns may make a fine literary garnish but these lists serve them as the main course, which is not funny enough. 03:06 20-May-17
I appreciate you are trying to enforce high standards but your approach is very heavy handed if I may say so. It's very off-putting for budding editors who are merely trying to improve the articles to be almost instantaneously banned for "vandalism" when they have merely made small adjustments. A little more flexibility over the content may help encourage editors to spend time refining and improving the work instead of being instantly turned off by the dead hand of the admin passing judgement on their efforts. Let the user community do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- Guess you didn't read UN:AD. You are emphatically not a member of the "user community," most of whom appreciate their articles being protected from hack edits, which is a priority over avoiding "off-putting...budding editors." Although you keep changing your IP address, it is clear to me you did not arrive to improve the content but to scold. 11:50 20-May-17