Template talk:Fleetwood Mac

Inclusion of compilations

Do we really need to include some of these compilations in the template? There are quite a few red links for albums that don't merit articles of their own, and there are plenty of compilations that exist that aren't on the template, so it pretty much falls between two stools at the moment. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic Woman (album)

The article as named above has been created to replace Black Magic Woman (The Original Fleetwood Mac) as we are dealing with two entirely different albums here. I have changed the article name in the template, but I do not know the year of release of the Black Magic Woman compilation album. I shall try to find out and add it later. Bretonbanquet 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Rose (album)

English Rose, 1969, is listed as a studio album. It is not, but rather a compliation album that contains 6 tracks from the UK release of Mr. Wonderful, 3 B-sides from released singles, 2 from yet-to-be released Then Play On (album), and 1 from the yet-to-be-released . It eerily overlaps the compilation album The Pious Bird of Good Omen by 5 songs, so why is the Pious Bird album listed as compilation, but English Rose is not?? English Rose should be listed under compilations, since it contains very little new material. I changed the template to reflect this, but the chronology still shows English Rose in the studio line-up. How can I change this, or can someone here do it? Thanks. --Chÿna 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChÿnaDragön (talk • contribs)

The problem is that as far as the USA is concerned, it's a studio album. Nearly all the material was new there since Mr Wonderful didn't get a release there at that time. I have been through this before with someone and nothing was achieved. I think that if the articles were changed with regard to chronology, someone would change them back. Maybe a discussion could be started at Talk:English Rose (album)? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine McVie

I'm moving Christine to the top line; I'm gobsmacked that she's not there, and can't imagine the logic behind omitting her... and frankly, I'm a huge fan of the band, but not of her. 98.192.1.182 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top line is for the current line-up, so she goes back with the other members. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment about the top line usage of the template

What happens when the band finally disbands completely? Will the top line be deleted? The current usage is likely to be a source of confusion/annoyance. It's strange not to see Lindsey Buckingham there, for example. Michaelmross (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how best to show this, maybe just a chronological list of all members? It seems strange not to have Peter Green in the top line too. --wooden superman 11:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, I'm curious why the singles are no longer categorized by decade. @Woodensuperman, I noticed that you made this change. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be, it's arbitrary to split by decade. The albums and other songs aren't, what's the justification? --wooden superman 19:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sheer quantity of singles released by Fleetwood Mac (there are roughly 50 included in this template), a reader might find it slightly overwhelming to locate a specific song. Other artists with a large amount of song articles, including David Bowie and The Beach Boys, divide their singles section by decade for the purpose of organization. The aforementioned artists also have their own dedicated singles template, which could be considered here, but for the reasons mentioned above, I would be in favor of reverting to the previous format of stratifying their singles by decade. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50 really isn't that many. And many other navboxes do not split. It's arbitrary, and you end up with some groups with a lot of entries, and some with only a couple. If a split really is necessary, then split by eras (Peter Green, classic, etc) as that is not abitrarily split by decade. --wooden superman 08:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]