Talk:Fleetwood Mac discography

missing 2009 Very Best of

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Very-Best-Fleetwood-Mac/dp/B002N3GD44/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1271791552&sr=8-2 I know Amazon has the year right on this - I worked at a cd distribution company in late '09 and packed hundreds of these - how does it not have its own entry by now, let alone a listing on this ? ☭ мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 19:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just the re-release of this, so it's already covered. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

missing 2005 Trilogy

This was a CD set containing three previously released albums: Fleetwood Mac, Tango in the Night and Mirage.

http://www.discogs.com/Fleetwood-Mac-Trilogy-Three-Classic-Albums/release/1827390

Not certain if it should properly go under Compilations or Studio Albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.145.22 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not under Studio Albums. If it goes anywhere, it should go under Compilations. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

a new table for box sets maybe? Mister sparky (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac in Chicago

Fleetwood Mac in Chicago is listed as a "studio album" on this page, but this throws the numbering of the albums on their own respective pages into disarray. Kiln House states that it is the "fourth studio album", Future Games states that it is the "fifth studio album", and so on, when in actual fact the fourth album is "Fleetwood Mac in Chicago" if it is an actual studio album. One way or the other there is a mistake that needs to be corrected, but which mistake depends on what we are going to class the album as. Is it a studio album or isn't it? Burbridge92 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes

Now that this article has been protected, can the two editors who want to make changes please state what they want to do. No doubt some of it is fine, but you don't agree with each other on all of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, well to start of with the number of singles in the infobox don't match the number in the singles section.

The Video section in the infobox state the number of videos is 0 even though there is a dvd section (Which should be titled videos not dvd releases as most were released on video years before dvd came out.) there should not be a section titled archival releases. How many other pages have them? so i took the releases from that section and listed them in the compilation or live album sections.

I think the Music videos and Video albums should be put in a section the same as Albums are (Studio, Live, Compilation.)

The 1968 Fleetwood Mac album has also known as Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac by it but the other Fleetwood Mac album (From 1975) doesn't say also known as The White Album, so i think both should just be simply listed as fleetwood mac, people can tell the albums apart easily without that by (1. the year or 2. clicking on the albums page.)

There should not be a list of tours on a discography page. this key is mentioned on top of the singles page Key to chart headings: UK (United Kingdom), U.S. (United States), U.S. Rock (United States Billboard Mainstream Rock Tracks), U.S. AC (United States Billboard Adult Contemporary Tracks), CAN (Canada), AUS (Australia), IRL (Ireland), GER (Germany), NL (Netherlands), FRA (France), NOR (Norway), AUT (Austria). it is not used on any other people can see what they are by clicking on the info at the top of the chart. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK, firstly the singles discrepancy is probably because new singles got added and the infobox wans't updated. No problem.
• The video / DVD section can be renamed if necessary and the infobox updated to match it.
• The archival releases are not really compilations, because it's all previously unreleased material. There's no problem with having an archival releases section – just because other articles don't have them isn't really relevant. Some of them are mixed live and studio so do not fit neatly in either category.
• I'm OK with a studio / live / compilation section for videos, as long as it's accurate.
• The 1968 album was actually retitled "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" on some releases, hence the note. It's not just a nickname like the White Album.
• Agree with you on the tours. There shouldn't be any here, in my opinion.
• There needs to be a key of some sort to help people. We shouldn't be making them click on links to find out what they're reading. Keys are very important.
• I don't really see why "albums" has to be repeated each time but it's not a massive deal. What does the Manual of Style say? "Albums" should definitely not be capitalised in any case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My Opinion SORTED

• OK, firstly the singles discrepancy is probably because new singles got added and the infobox wans't updated. No problem. (FINE)
• The video / DVD section can be renamed if necessary and the infobox updated to match it. (FINE)
• The 1968 album was actually retitled "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" on some releases, hence the note. It's not just a nickname like the White Album. (Fair Point)
• Agree with you on the tours. There shouldn't be any here, in my opinion. (Why are they here?)

TO BE DISCUSSED

• The archival releases are not really compilations, because it's all previously unreleased material. (if they mix up live and studio then it really is a compilation wether it's unreleased or not.)
• There needs to be a key of some sort to help people. (They don't need to click just hover the mouse over.)
• I don't really see why "albums" has to be repeated each time but it's not a massive deal. (On my edit they arent capitalized that was just a rush job) Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool, that's a good start.

Archival releases – they need to be separated from the greatest hits stuff because they're a totally different kind of release, whether we call them compilations or not. I'd be OK with putting them in a sub-section of the compilation albums section. The totally live ones can go in a sub-section of the live albums section.

Some people can't hover. It's to do with WP:ACCESS – we have to cater for all types of reader.

OK well I don't have a big problem with putting "albums" each time although I don't think it's necessary.

User:Fugreena will hopefully have his say here as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything that has been discussed so far i am happy with but im still a bit unsure to what will happen to the Archival releases. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's something we can discuss. Fugreena's edit seems mostly OK to me, but because he did it all in one go, it can't be separated out. I mostly have a problem with filling the singles table with dashes and saying "either didn't chart or wasn't released". That's simply not true. Some of those singles charted and we just don't have reliable sources for the information. He also removed a bunch of releases from the compilation / archival section for no apparent reason. His other stuff about removing pointless formatting and making the chart positions agree with the sources, that's fine with me. I think he also removed the tours, which is fine. Any opinions on his edit? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, i think the singles section instead of leaving the tables blank but N/A or something to indicate better. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to indicate which singles didn't chart and which weren't released – that's quite an important disctinction to make. Also, when the article has been unprotected again, don't make any big changes until Fugreena has responded, or else there'll be more trouble with 3RR etc. There's no hurry to get it all fixed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy for the page to stay like it is for now if you are.

We should keep the article as it is until we've all agreed what to do.

Might be worth keeping them all in the same section and renaming the section "Compilation albums and archival releases" or something, because it will be difficult to stop people moving them around otherwise. Fleetwood Mac in Chicago isn't really a compilation to be honest, it was a proper current release at the time. Vintage Years was a proper "best of" compilation so it has to go in (it even charted). Anything that isn't a bootleg gets listed. We are not able to pick and choose which ones we like and which ones we don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean you think we should keep them all listed together like they are now but just rename the section? Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Might just be easier. I'm trying to find the easiest way forward. Part of the reason that I kept the others separate is that none of them charted so there wasn't much point in including them in a table of chart information. But either way, the other compilations have to go back in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So what now then,(I Don't no what country your in but it is currently 3:37 A.M in the UK.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell me about it, I'm in the UK too. Got to work in the morning. Let's leave it till tomorrow and we'll figure something out. No deadline for this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Protecting admin here. I extended full protection for another three days so you can work things out over here. Now, Fugreena is making some sort of argument having to do with code and layout, stuff well above my pay grade, and I hope they will join this conversation. If not, they will have no leg to stand on once protection runs out. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The main purpose of my edit on this page was nothing but a simplification of too messy wikitable, because it makes the article unnecessarily large. I saved the article at a time (after trying a thousand times of previews), simply because making too much consecutive posts (like Lukejordan02 did) are not desirable for Wikipedia. I think there's no need to discuss about such kind of edits basically, because it's NOT a major changes at all. I have nothing to say about anything else, so I entrust any other contributions to other editors. Fugreena 04:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Unless you say otherwise, when the article is unprotected again, we will reinstate your simplification of the wikitables exactly as you did it. The rest of your edit (inserting extra dashes in the singles table), which you have for some reason not mentioned at any point, will not be reinstated. You had also validated parts of Lukejordan02's edits, like removing the key and several archival releases – presumably you don't have an opinion on that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I only reconstructed the article based on older version of it. [1] Therefore I don't have any particular opinions about issues that you all discussed above.

However, I must say that the above list still has several problems you have missed altogether. First, Some information were not correspond to the sources at all, such as chart positions in France and number of the certifications in New Zealand. Moreover, the article couldn't even distinguish between Switzerland and Sweden. I only wanted to modify those horrible mistakes. You should have noticed that before you reverted the article again and again. Second, we can't use Wikipedia as source. I deleted some of older Australian certifications for Fleetwood Mac (1975), Mirage and Tango in the Night, because there is no online sources except for the Wikipedia article. Those information can't be listed there, until the proper source were cited. Third, discography should note only certifications from selected countries. (e.g.: Adele discography) We don't have to list certifications from all over the world. Fugreena (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem. With regard to what you say about chart positions and certifications, I agree with you, but you must appreciate that it was extremely difficult for anyone to see what you did all in one edit, and your edit summary did not explain it properly. I reverted both of you (not just you) because I saw too many mistakes and things which should have been discussed, like the singles table. I asked for discussion and explanations and just got reverts, and that was not acceptable. Now you explain a couple of things and it starts to make sense. See how easy it is. We can incorporate some or most of those points when we re-edit the article. It will be a mix of your edit, Lukejordan02's edits and the original version. If there are more questions, I will ask you on here. I have never added certifications or sources, so I can't comment on how it happened that way, but we can fix it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have took my previous edits and added in the things we have talked over, here is a preview. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So far so good. We can readd the part of Fugreena's edit which was concerned with formatting ("style text align center" etc) when the article is unprotected. I don't think we have a problem with that part. We will still need to restore the other archival compilations though. What did we decide with that list of music videos? It's not very accurate – some of those early ones are just video recordings of live performances or TV shows, not actual videos. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We also need to place the UK chart positions at the left-hand end of the columns, like Fugreena did – I don't know why the US should come first. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the incorrect videos being removed but I don't no what's what. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I will check through them all and delete the inappropriate ones. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit the tables above to show how it should look when it's done then that's fine. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do, probably tomorrow. Need more sleep than I got last night... Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have several questions regarding this page. 1) Why do we have 10 references that cite Wikipedia? You shouldn't includeWikipedia as a reference on a Wikipedia article. It's not logical! 2) According to the table, "Tell Me All The Things You Do" wasn't released as a single anywhere. Isn't it redundant to include that song if it was never released as a single? 3) How come New Zealand and Canada aren't included in the compilations section? They've had several albums chart there. 4) In addition to chart positions, the album section also includes certifications. Shouldn't we do the same with singles? 5) Both "Go Your Own Way" and "Oh Well" have re-entered the charts in 2012 and 2013 respectively. How come they are missing from the singles table? If you know the answers to these questions, please do so! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Fugreena has already brought that up and it will be fixed. This is what we get when random editors pass by and make tiny edits that nobody notices.

2) TMATTYD was a single in France, I have a copy. I have no information as to whether it charted or not.

3) NZ and Canada can be added if there is reliable chart info for those countries. If you have any, please add it.

4) Yes, if we have reliable certification info for singles.

5) I don't know what the situation regarding digital chart re-entries and Wikipedia discographies. Those two songs weren't technically re-released as singles but I guess they could be re-added, unless there's anything that says we shouldn't. "Dragonfly" was re-released as a physical single this year, so that needs to be added as well. It scored on a US chart if I recall. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Dragonfly did chart on the physical single chart. Some record store was having a vinyl sale. Combined with the fact that we never got a US release for Dragonfly, the song hit #9. I don't think these minor charts are supposed to be included on this page. I may be wrong though; the Rock Mainstream chart is one of the charts included, so maybe other minor charts can too. As for Canada and New Zealand, I only have some information on peak positions. 25 Years hit #1 in New Zealand and Opus Collection hit the top 200. When I get the chance, I'll include Canada and New Zealand. "Go Your Own Way" and "Oh Well" are already included. Don't know about the certifications though.

I was also able to obtain chart information for Italy, so I'll be sure to add that sometime. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There's still the question of the other compilation albums which were removed and have to go back in. I can either put them in the table with the others, or have two groups – one in the table consisting of albums that charted, and a second list of albums that did not chart. I don't mind either way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have them all listed under the one table (as the Rolling Stones & the Beatles pages have for example.) If you could add them that would be great as I don't no what's missing. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've done that (thanks for doing the infobox), and I've added notes to explain the repeat releases of certain compilation albums, rather than adding them all to the table. That should avoid people adding them to the table later thinking we've missed some. I've also removed the excess formatting from the singles table. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the help the page looks really good, adding notes for repeated releases is a GREAT idea and should be the way forward on all discography pages (rather than add 4 or 5 of the same album under different names as it is really confusing.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :) If Dobbyelf62 or anyone else finds more chart info, then we can fill in some of the gaps. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Fleetwood Mac discography

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fleetwood Mac discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ARIA":

• From ARIA Charts: "ARIA Charts - Gold and Platinum ARIA Accreditation Awards". Australian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
• From Stevie Nicks discography: "australian-charts.com - Discography Stevie Nicks". australian-charts.com. Retrieved 2 April 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As Long As You Follow

I think the chart positions for this song are mixed up. I believe it peaked at 43 in the U.S., based on the As Long As you Follow page not the U.K.BrianHagan (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Singles Certification

How about listing UK and US certifications in singles instead of some 'lesser' countries chart positions - like you do in albums.

UK

Albatross - 250,000 Silver (physical) Tusk - 250,000 Silver (physical)

Go Your Own Way - 400,000 Gold (download) The Chain - 200,000 Silver (download) Dreams - 200,000 Silver (download) Everywhere - 200,000 Silver (download)

and in the US Dreams - 1,000,000 Gold (physical) 1 million for gold back in 1970s The Chain - 500,000 Gold (download)

(Coachtripfan (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fleetwood Mac 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005083401/http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_F.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_F.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_album.asp?chart=1G50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601152354/http://www.infodisc.fr/CD_Certif.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/CD_Certif.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528162635/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-1997.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-1997.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906185517/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721125210/http://irishcharts.ie/search/placement to http://irishcharts.ie/search/placement

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Albatross

...reached #16 on this Canadian Adult Contemporary chart, but I couldn't get the table to co-operate to include the info. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/028020/f2/nlc008388.6027.pdf 2001:56A:F414:D300:8832:46C4:A535:A13D (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The more basic problem is that this would require adding a new column for what might be just that one listing. Did any other of their recordings appear on that same chart? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Time missing

16th studio album, Time, seems to have dropped out of the discography. It's still in the category Fleetwood Mac albums, and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(Fleetwood_Mac_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcleish (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac in Chicago, continued

Someone posted about Fleetwood Mac in Chicago in an earlier talk page section, above. That was seven years ago, so I'm starting a new discussion. This album is definitely a studio album, not a compilation album. I'm going to wait a little while to see if anyone else has an opinion about this, and then update the discography to reflect it. The infobox chronologies should also be adjusted accordingly, and so should the text of the articles, as mentioned in the previous post. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely a studio album, but the question is really whether it's a Fleetwood Mac album or not. Originally it was a "various artists" type album, but was later repackaged as a Fleetwood Mac release. The 1969 album was "Blues Jam at Chess" (UK) or "Blues Jam in Chicago" (US) featuring Fleetwood Mac, Otis Spann (and a bunch of other folk who weren't in Fleetwood Mac) etc etc. To call it a Fleetwood Mac album is either revisionist or inaccurate, take your pick. That's not to say it shouldn't be included here or in the chronologies, but it shouldn't be described as a Fleetwood Mac album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. It's an interesting point. Here's another question about all this: Should the article be renamed to Blues Jam at Chess, since that's the title that was used for the original release? If the album was mostly known by a particular title -- Fleetwood Mac in Chicago, Blues Jam at Chess, Blues Jam in Chicago, or whatever -- then that should probably be the name of the article. But I'm not seeing any one name as really predominant. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That is also an interesting point. As far as I know, the original 1969 release was Blues Jam at Chess in the UK and Europe, and Blues Jam in Chicago in the US. Fleetwood Mac in Chicago came along in 1971, I think only in North America. It's still in print under all three titles, as far as I can tell. So which to choose? Fleetwood Mac were a British band at that time but the thing was recorded in the US and had several American artists involved in the recording. So whether to plump for the British title or the US title, it's pretty much 50/50 to my mind. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I admit that this is not definitive, but according to Discogs, the U.K. release of Blues Jam at Chess came first. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree although I'm not being very scientific about that. I think it's likely that the UK release came first since Blue Horizon was a British label. I notice that the track listings on that article are not consistent; the UK version has the vinyl track listing and the US version has the CD track listing. Do you think it's worth retitling that article and rearranging it a little? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

About rearranging the article, I did change the track listing around, yesterday. Before, it looked like this, and I changed it to this, which is what you looked at I believe. I was thinking that the LP track listing is the original one and the CD track listing is what's currently in print, as far as I can tell. (I'm in the U.S., by the way.) But I would be open to a different way of improving the track listing. As for the title, we should probably start a discussion on the article's talk page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. What you've done there is a huge improvement on what was there before. Yes, I'd agree that the LP track listing is the original one and the CD is what's available today. I think that the track listings for the UK and US LPs are actually the same, so there might only be minimal changes to be made. Might just be a case of "LP track listing" and "CD track listing", regardless of the title of the LP or CD. I agree that the retitling discussion should take place there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've adjusted the chronologies in the album article infoboxes, and I've moved Fleetwood Mac in Chicago from Compilations to Studio albums here in the discography. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

missing 4 albums

I know of four albums not listed on here, which I'd like to add, but I've got questions about each of them:

Albatross (credited to Fleetwood Mac and Christine Perfect): https://www.discogs.com/master/38646-Fleetwood-Mac-Christine-Perfect-Albatross It's a compilation but as it has dual credits, I guess this needs a new category?

Rhiannon and other tales: https://www.discogs.com/release/12683073-Fleetwood-Mac-Rhiannon-Other-Tales Never break the chain: https://www.discogs.com/release/12815323-Fleetwood-Mac-Never-Break-The-Chain These two are both live, but unofficial releases, can they still go in?

The Alternate Rumours: https://www.discogs.com/release/15923982-Fleetwood-Mac-The-Alternate-Rumours This is an RSD special edition, featuring alternative mixes of the classic Rumours album. Does that make it a studio album or a compilation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedwheelnut2 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The two unofficial records are bootlegs, so we don't need those. For the other two - The Alternate Rumours if anything would be a remix album, and it would either be put in a remix section or in a subsection on the Rumours page; the joint compilation album if we're going to include it would be in the regular section, noted as being with Christine Perfect. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)