Talk:Fleetwood Mac

Hall of Fame Members section

This issue impacts a number of articles around popular music. Why are the current members so prominently featured? This is just one example of many bands whose current incarnation is certainly not the one that should be featured in an encyclopedia. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame provides a good third-party source for who the most prominent members of a band are. For Fleetwood Mac, they are Mick Fleetwood, John McVie, Peter Green, Jeremy Spencer, Danny Kirwan, ,Christine McVie, Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham.

I feel those should be listed as members of the band. I am not making this edit because all the articles seem to be written in this style. Perhaps this issue has been discussed and resolved on another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcusa (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fake Mac section

This newly written section is very biased towards one version of events, and basically uses one source, the not-terribly-reliable Brunning book. Needs a complete rewrite. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet: your comments are noted. I will reply soon. Please explain what you mean by "you are not listening as usual" in the edit summary. 194.81.226.131 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Because I tagged the section as suffering from one-sidedness due to excessive use of a single source, and you promptly added more references solely using the same source at Clifford Davis (music manager). Brunning's books are only one, rather questionable source on what is a very complicated story. He wasn't remotely involved in the situation anyway. I've tried to talk to you before about making hundreds and hundreds of minor edits using different IPs. For example, in rewriting the Danny Kirwan article, you made roughly 1500 minor edits to that one article over a period of more than 18 months. That makes it almost impossible for anyone else to follow and monitor what you're doing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

BB: I hadn't seen your 'single source' tag at that point. Brunning's two chapters on the subject quote six of the people involved, who appear to confirm each other's versions of events. But yes, it's a complicated story. He is writing a history; it doesn't matter if he wasn't involved. Continuous editing is how I work. Apologies if it causes problems. The library system I use seems to operate on two consecutively numbered IPs.194.81.226.131 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Consider registering a Wikipedia account to make it easier for other editors to see which edits you make. It's free and easy! Popcornduff (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Brunning was only interested in the side of the story that favoured the band, so only spoke to those people. Using only once source is never a good way to go, no matter what it is. Popcornduff is right, please register so people can see who is doing what. Also, taking 18 months to work on an article makes it very hard for others to assess the whole picture of what you're doing. Consider working on something in a sandbox and making an edit when you're happy with what you've done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Album Listings

Is there a reason the 1997 Live album The dance is not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.1.24 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The list of "Studio albums" does not include the live album because it is not a studio album. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Chess Records album 1969

Under the history section for 1969 the article states:

"On tour in the US in January 1969, the band recorded an album at the soon-to-close Chess Records Studio with some of the blues legends of Chicago, including Willie Dixon, Buddy Guy and Otis Spann."

There is no reference for this. Was the album or any of these recordings ever released please? John a s (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac in Chicago. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, article updated.John a s (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Rumours album Grammy date

There is a conflict in dates within the Fleetwood Mac article for which year the album Rumours was awarded the Grammy Album of the Year. In the introductory section it is stated that it won the award "in 1978", while in the section about the period of 1975-1987 it is stated that it won the award "in 1977". It's possible that the conflict is caused by the award for the 1977 Album of the Year being awarded in 1978, but the phraseology is nearly identical in both cases so I don't think this is the reason for the discrepancy. Hopefully someone can clear this issue up! 75.168.97.246 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

sources

There is way too much unsourced material in this article. Amandil21 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Amandil21: You're free to fix them at your leisure. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I know. I only mentioned this to explain why I tagged the article. But I tend to think that the editors who inserted the unsourced text should be the ones to provide the missing sources. Amandil21 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Christine McVie

Someone forgot to list her as a band member. Way not cool! 2600:6C55:6A00:1EDB:14EE:DBFA:7A87:478F (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Um... She is all over the article. Not sure what article you are reading, but I find her name everywhere in the article. --Jayron32 13:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

She died, so she is no longer a member. I hope that's simple enough Mr "Way not cool." Sellpink (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I believe that it might be a good idea to add more to the hidden text in the first sentence of the article -- more specifically, we should explicitly let editors know NOT to change "Fleetwood Mac are" to "Fleetwood Mac were," until/unless a credible source has been found that confirms the band has broken up. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh. It will have zero effect on the matter; it's not like people who add this information are likely to read such a comment. It'll either blow over in a few days or get confirmed. Either way, it's not a big deal. Revert as needed, because there's not much you can do to stop people. --Jayron32 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mick has called it quits, it's official. Just because he couched it in hopeful language like "I think" and "never say never" does not mean the group exists. Let's just put them in the past, put the Rumours five in bold at the bottom and keep it that way except in the unlikely event of Mick announcing an album and/or tour. Bostart (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Fleetwood's comment was clearly not definitive. These are still very early days (especially by Fleetwood Mac standards), and no harm is done by leaving it as "are" for now. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your inference from Fleetwood's statements may be correct, but it's still inference. The article doesn't make any pronouncement on this until it's unequivocally said. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't have to reflect every recent passing suggestion made on the media. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't a substitute for fact. When it's stated unequivocally, then change it. Sellpink (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Fake Mac tour edit

This statement is contradicted by members of the fake band, and Fleetwood has said that Davis told the real Mac in advance what he intended to do. The facts are difficult to untangle and we are not aiming to fuel controversy. I think the paragraph is best left as it is. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Active?

Given statements by Fleetwood and Nicks, at what point do we declare the band inactive and close off the timeline bars? It feels like at the moment it's being 99% confirmed but holding off from certainty.... (but we've often declared bands retired then reopened them before, like Pink Floyd). TSP (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Usually, we wait for definitive statements before declaring a band to be inactive, although they haven't toured since 2019. Fleetwood said that "I'd say we're done, but then we've all said that before", while Nicks stated "When she [Christine McVie] died, I figured we really can’t go any further with this. There’s no reason to." These comments don't necessarily state that the band has officially broken up, but rather that they are unlikely to continue any further under any lineup. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the recent article from Neil Finn published in Mojo Magazine (https://www.mojo4music.com/articles/stories/neil-finn-on-joining-fleetwood-mac/) confirm that Fleetwood Mac is no more and the page can updated accordingly. Fmfanuk (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

He said it doesn't currently exist, which isn't the same as the band being finished. If we're going to use what he says, it's important not to extrapolate it into something else. I'd also say that with the greatest respect to him, the decision as to whether the band is permanently over or might reconvene in the future will not be Neil Finn's. The band existed for a long time without Christine McVie, so there's no physical reason why it couldn't again. The band is clearly at least on hiatus though, which I would think would be an uncontroversial statement to make. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I would mark the band as being finished after the 2019 tour wrapped, does not make sense to me to list the band as being active . I would also think though the 'members' listed of the band should addressed with both Mike Campbell and Neil Finn being removed, basically they were only touring musicians, not full band members. Fmfanuk (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What do we think about Stevie Nicks saying ‘without Christine there is no chance of putting Fleetwood Mac back together’ in her recent interview with mojo? Back and forth I travel (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The band has not toured since 2019, although on Wikipedia, anything short of an official statement is usually inadequate for labeling a band as inactive. One exception that I can think of is the article for The Blue Nile, which lists the band activity as 1981-2004 with a special annotation that says "informal indefinite hiatus". With that precedent, it is certainly possible that we could do the same for Fleetwood Mac (I would not be opposed), but I would prefer further input before we proceed any further. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering, why are we stating the band is currently active in the first sentence, while later on there is sourced information that the group is finished from members themselves (including the Mojo ref noted above by User:Back and forth I travel)? Pinging @DuncanHill:, who pointed out that I should discuss this matter on this talk page, and @Dobbyelf62:, who was involved some of the discussion above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence doesn't say they are currently active, just that the band exists. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd argue that the fact that it says "are" instead of "were" basically reaches that conclusion. But more to the point, members of the group have stated they are not continuing (which is supported by the sourcing), so I don't see why it should be "are" instead of "were." JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source where members of the groups actually say "we are not continuing", or similar? Sources that have been provided so far are all distinctly vague and inconclusive. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Nicks has said the band would not continue without Christine McVie, but with all due respect to Ms Nicks, it's not her band and very likely not her decision. The last album was made without McVie, so a precedent has been set there, and the band has also existed without Nicks, so could do again. I'm not edit warring over the tense of the first verb in the article, but I would say it's not over until a group statement is made, or Fleetwood says it's over. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

An official statement from Fleetwood Mac has yet to be made, and like Bretonbanquet said, Nicks is not speaking on the band's behalf. They have still been inactive since the conclusion of their An Evening with Fleetwood Mac tour in 2019, so this can still be factored into the equation. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it would be controversial in any way to emphasise that the band is inactive, and has been for five years or so. But I don't think there's enough here yet to conclude that the band is "over". As someone said above, a band can be inactive, yet still exist. Performing live is not everything: recordings can be made, and even working together on archive recordings could arguably be a degree of continuation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless if it ever does anything again I very much doubt it will be with the five piece Nicks-Campbell-Finn fronted lineup which this website has indicated as existing since Christine's passing. I would strongly suggest that we at least just put Mick and John in bold at the top and have the other various members underneath.

I mean seriously everything we're getting... a statement from Mick is surely as good as a statement on behalf of the whole band and we can record them as disbanded as of then... unless a miracle happens. But we all know Nicks doesn't want to do it without Chris and doesn't want to do it with Buckingham, Campbell and Finn are both committed to their own bands and... need I say more? Bostart (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've read all the statements now also. This band is toast. If it ever decides to get back together we can alter it, but it should be talked about in the past tense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's probably at an end, but as Fleetwood is quoted as saying "but then we've all said that before". So I would not be comfortable with Wikipedia editors taking stock of the situation, and tallying up quotes of he said, she said, to reach a conclusion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

They're not even toast - they're crumbs! Bostart (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

gossipy intro?

Is it just me or does the first part read like a gossip article? I came looking to learn more about a band I like but didn't know much about and was immediately met with what felt like TMZ article about celebrity marriages and name changes I'd have preferred a holistic look at the band and their legacy in the first paragraph just my opinion you guys know best I guess 2600:1006:B186:DAD0:0:50:B55B:3A01 (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how the intro is gossipy? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible deletion of Category:Female-fronted musical groups

The category Female-fronted musical groups is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_6#Category:Female-fronted_musical_groups, and this music group article has listed it as a category. If you have an opinion either way please join the discussion. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

It is absurd to have half of the opening paragraph dedicated to Bob Brunning’s involvement in the band (and how he was replaced after the gig at Windsor in 1967). Unnecessary level of detail in a paragraph that doesn’t mention Lindsey Buckingham or Stevie Nicks. 2A02:6B6F:E513:1400:5CB:CC2:8D99:D9D (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you simply read the article, you will find multiple mentions of Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Why would a paragraph covering the band's history from its inception until 1968 mention Buckingham and Nicks? Just keep reading and they show up at the relevant point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet Well that's the problem. The paragraph should not be covering that. The first sentence suggests that the most notable thing about the band is it was formed in 1967. The rest of the first paragraph should be giving the reader an overview of the entire article, it should not be focused on the first year when they were at their least notable. Absolutely no one needs one of the first things they learn about Fleetwood Mac to be the name of the bassist who left a few weeks after they formed. It is all details better handled later in the lead, or in the article. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The lead is a synopsis of the most important aspects of prose, and the lead paragraph needs to be the most well known rendition of the band. Chronological shouldn't really enter into it. That first paragraph needs to say the most famous and most successful incarnation was with Mick Fleetwood, John McVie, Christine McVie, Lindsey Buckingham, and Stevie Nicks. That needs to be first and foremost and should hit everyone right between the eyes when they start reading the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:6B6F:E513:1400:5CB:CC2:8D99:D9D Agreed. The opening paragraph of an article should be giving the casual reader the main facts, not immediately delving back into the depths of history to deliver what is essentially the answer to a trivia question. The reader should have a basic idea of what Fleetwood Mac is most notable for by the end of the opening paragraph. This article totally fails to achieve that. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead was constructed as it is (not by me) to try to explain a very complicated story in a structured way. The problem with trying to provide a short synopsis of a very long career in one paragraph is already highlighted by the idea that the most successful lineup of the band was with Buckingham and Nicks. In the US, sure. In the UK, the Green-era lineup enjoyed more chart success and outsold the Beatles and the Stones in 1969. So whatever "main facts" you want to put in the lede could perhaps include those. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet I think you'll have problems finding any source that says Green-era is more notable than Nicks\Buckingham era, especially in retrospect. And that is taking an international view. But one of the things certainly deserving mention in the lead paragraph, notably and defining of the band, is the varied line ups it has gone through. What the lead shouldn't attempt is to explain a very complicated story, in strict chronological order. Especially one as long as Fleetwood Mac's. It should present the key facts and "highlights" from the article below, and let the article unravel the detail. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to satisfactorily claim that any lineup is the most notable without causing controversy, and the opening paragraph is not the place for that. I agree about noting the many lineups, preferably without listing them all. I agree that telling the story chronologically in the lead section isn't the way to go, and it's not how I would've written it. But it wasn't that bad. In any case, I'm sure between us we can construct a lead section that pleases everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If the lede is to establish notability, I would think that it should concentrate on record sales and chart success. Mention the number one singles in the UK and the US and the number of number one albums, and specifically Rumours being one of the best-selling albums in history. Maybe mention the number of total record sales, which is somewhere around 120 million. I wouldn't mention any band members in the opening paragraph, because it takes up room and doesn't establish notability. The success the band enjoyed is the vital aspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the lead is for. The lead should really need no sourcing at that is handled in the main body of prose. If you have to source something in the lead then we likely didn't do a good job of sourcing in the main body. This lead section is actually way too long. The prose in Wikipedia as a short synopsis of the band Fleetwood Mac. That's what encyclopedias are. The lead is an even briefer highlight of what is written in prose. This lead, not lede, could easily be cut in half and only give the highest of high-points about the band. When it was formed, it's most important incarnation, biggest sales numbers like Rumours, etc. But there is actually way too much on Rumours in the lead. That's for a "Rumours" article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't need any extra sourcing; I'm not sure what you think would. I agree entirely that the lead section is too long, and another editor has gone some way to address that. It's certainly a lot better. The lede, i.e. the opening paragraph, is too short though, and I feel that it should address the level of success the band achieved, in a relatively general sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Extra sourcing? No, the lead section needs no sourcing... it should all be removed if possible and relegated to the main body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)