Jump to content

Talk:McFly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMcFly was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 8, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 25, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: O. K. with few citations needed
3. Broad in coverage?: Nope
4. Neutral point of view?: O. K. (minor adjustments are needed though)
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Fail

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.


Additional comments :

  • Image:Wonderland Album Cover.jpg and Image:RoomOnThe3rdFloor.jpg don't state their fair use rationale.
  • Lead section not big enough (See WP:LEAD).
  • This subsection Early years needs inline citations for the part about the name of the band is dubious without a citation.
  • Despite the band's pop image and reputation, there are musical differences from other contemporary boybands sounds like OR without a citation. Other statements look like original research in the Musical style section.
  • Filmography & Personel sections are unnecessary or should become part of other sections.
  • Acting career isn't big enough to have its own section IMO.
  • Awards section should be better sourced or have better prose.
  • Half of the Fansites should be removed as they are spin-off of their official site.
  • What about performance/tours in their History section.
  • What about people reaction, criticism, response to the music that they make?
Although a lot went into creating this article, it still lacks in many important subjects and there are still some parts that need more text. Good luck and ring me when you need assistance/help or if you disagree.

Lincher 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added slightly more information to the lead section, added citations in the "early years" section concerning the band's name origin and where they met, removed the "filmography" and "personnel" sections, re-wrote the "awards" section and removed some fansites. --Stacey 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend added the fair use rationale for the covers --Stacey 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

killer's mr. brightside cover

[edit]

Mr. Brithside didn't reach no.1 in the UK or US, I'm not sure why it is labelled no.1 hit "Mr. Brightside" unless it was no.1 in another country but this should be stated.

Haha you're right. That was my fault. --Stacey 13:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McFly troubles

[edit]

McFly is having troubles with Danny interested in leaving according to The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2006040690,00.html. We could mention this in the profile I think. User:Green01 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Is that an old article? Because there were rumours about Danny leaving a few months ago and he denied them. --Stacey 10:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covers section

[edit]

This could possibly do with being reworked into a list format, rather than prose. It looks a bit messy right now. Opinions?

mattbuck 09:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it's fine now it is. I think having it as list form may make it look a little..pointless? Although, I'm biased as I wrote most of it, haha. --Stacey 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a rewrite will do. The information is a bit messy. Just my 2-cent worth. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!!! IT's 2008 and DANNY IS NOT LEAVING!!!!!!!!!! THERE ARE NO MCFLY TROUBLES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.107.89 (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE NOT MOVED -- as there was no consensus for the move per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McFly (band) → McFly

No offence to whoever decided to move this page but I think it was pretty pointless. I don't think anybody looking for Marty McFly is going to type in "McFly". The disambiguation link at the top of the article was good enough. Also, about 100 pages now link to the wrong article. Can we move the page back? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, and I was looking for Marty McFly. Lost (TV series) is not located at Lost, and Sublime (band) is not located at Sublime. Also, according to this article, this band is named after the BTTF movies. Should John Locke be replaced by John Locke (Lost)? --Indolences 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course you're right. I was just in shock :) Those links still need to be changed but I'll help with that. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this there's also a US band named McFly that existed 2 years before the British one. They've changed their name to The Mighty McFly now, but some people searching for "McFly" may be trying to find an article about the original McFly. 172.201.240.223 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lost (TV series) may not be located at Lost, and Sublime (band) might not be located at Sublime, but Friends is located at Friends and Lolly is located at Lolly. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think Marty and his family hold the primary topic on McFly but the band would merit McFly to be a disambig page. However the band title should stay disambiguated. 205.157.110.11 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is fine as it is. (With perhaps a dab distinction for the other band.) -- Beardo 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was fine as just "McFly". There used to be a link at the top about Marty McFly..I don't think it needs a seperate page. --Stacey 13:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's complete unnecessary. Fair enough, if there was quite a few pages to go on the disambiguation page.. but, there's not. So why change it? -Mikay 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support If one was looking for Marty McFly, one should type Marty McFly, not just McFly or just Marty. Re: people could be searching for an obscure US band... fair enough, but it's unlikely. I think the band is fairly obviously the primary topic. There can always be a disambig notice at the top of the page. GassyGuy 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this being moved to McFly now if that changes anything. -Indolences 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Vandalism

[edit]

I'd like to suggest this topic be made locked to all unregistered users. There has been a lot of vandalism recently. mattbuck 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear of The Pops

[edit]

Should we put something about what they did for comic relief on that top gear special this year. That "Sofa,Hyundai,Administration" song Droobey 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did they do? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring deleted subsection

[edit]

On February 17, a vandal deleted the entire "Early years" subsection and replaced it with vulgarity. Another editor removed the vulgarity but didn't restore the deleted information. I'm restoring the removed passage, with some cleanup. JamesMLane t c 08:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Sorry for whatever was submitted here under my name – I had a friend round who's a bit of a fan... I was a bit confused as to why it was in my contributions list, hehe Rubberkeith 16:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TakeFly - Tribute band to McFly...and Take That

[edit]

I feel that TakeFly, the tribute band, should have some recognition on this page. TakeFly sing, depending on what you define as sing, McFly, and Take That songs, with respect. We formed as a band to raise money for Comic Relief. We were featured on Radio 1, local radio stations and also local newspapers in Chester, where we come from. Together with other tribute bands and acts, we raised £500, we also were mentioned by Harry Judd of McFly at the gig in Liverpool this year after he saw our banner we took along. We also have a MySpace, a website, and an actual email address, we may want to generate interest, but we also are having a laugh, but not in a dumbass way, living life to the full, enjoying ourselves. It's not like we want to vandalise the site! Therefore I believe, we should be included, especially if a member of the band actually mentioned us!

No. You can be mentioned on your own page, if you have enough merits to be mentioned. Just because McFly mention you, or because you sing their songs, doesnt mean it has anything to do with their career.Babygurl1853 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

[edit]

Way too many uncited paragraphs, and trivia too. Why is there a non-free image in the infobox? Alientraveller 09:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Musical style

[edit]

I removed this section as it is classes as originally research and no references are available so I think until this paragraph is re-written with references included, it should be left out. --Stacey talk 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA quick fail

[edit]

Unfortunately I'm going to have to quick fail this nomination, due to the large numbers of {{Fact}} tags littered throughout. I would also suggest considering developing some sort of 'Reception' section before renominating. All the best! Frickative (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I shouldn't have added those. 81 references, and I still couldn't find cites for everything. Still, almost the entire article is properly referenced now, which is definitely an improvement. And what's more, it's a day utterly wasted :D mattbuck (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg

[edit]

Image:Nocover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is there any reference or critical commentary for the "logo"? If not I think it fails fair use. Furthermore it appears also to be original research as it only appears on a couple of the albums. I would like to see some improvement or the removal of the image. --John (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused how a logo can be OR... it was def announced on the website around summer 06. As for whether it's fair use, fine, stick in a line about how they changed their logo and we're good to go. -mattbuck 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. --John (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the reference, it still fails fair use unless there is third-party critical commentary about it. It doesn't belong in the infobox either. --John (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use always confuses me, could you explain? It's definitely their logo - they had a previous one but now this one is used everywhere (singles, posters, their MySpace etc). -- Stacey talk to me 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to McFly's website calender here, they changed it to this newer version. The link, as of right now, isn't working; so here is the Wayback Machine's version. Does this constitute usage of the logo? --Opt05 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

I do not feel Mcfly are 'pop-rock'. I feel they are pure pop, there is no rock in their music. Also I feel they should be classified as a boyband as they are Christian1985

In my opinion, they're not pop because they're not really along the lines of Britney, Girls Aloud etc. I think pop rock is the best thing to describe them, especially as they have both pop and rock influences. -- Stacey talk to me 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They also fit Wikipedia's description of pop rock: "Pop rock is a hybrid of pop music and rock music that uses catchy pop style, with light lyrics over top of guitar-based songs." "Typical instruments: Guitar, Bass guitar, Drums, Vocals" -- Stacey talk to me 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel they justify classification as 'pop-punk'. They are no way in the same league as Offspring, Blink 182 or Sum 41. They are not 'punk' in the slightest in my view. Also to add to that someone has added citations for the 'pop punk' claim. I still disagree I see no way whatsoever they should be called pop-punk they are a boyband. The citations might say they are 'pop punk' but according to the wikipedia pop-punk article there is nothing that relates to Mcfly and anyone who knows the general sound of bands like Greenday and Sum 41 can see there is not the slightest bit of similarity.Christian1985 I am glad the 'pop-punk' genre has been removed that was totally wrong. But still in my personal opinion they are not pop-rock. They are pure boyband/bubblegum pop, there is not a hint of rock in them. Bands like The Feeling and The Hoosiers are Pop-rock and Mcfly are no way in their league. Christian1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.207.175 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoosiers are considered "pop". -- Stacey talk to me 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider The Hoosiers pop/rock or indie pop they are certainly more 'rock' than Mcfly by miles. Mcfly are pop in my view they do not justify 'pop rock'. Christian1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.207.175 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can't edit all the genres on Wikipedia according to your preferences :P-- Stacey talk to me 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel they fit wikipedia's description of bubblegum pop, based on reading the article, the simple catchy melodies and 'childish' themes. Christian1985 00.08 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.147.229 (talk)

I don't particularly see how any of those bands are "punk". That genre confuses me but it confuses me even more that people would consider them ANY type of "punk". I can't see why people don't view McFly pop rock.-- Stacey talk to me 15:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just say pop rock and have done with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when a band sounds like a cross between Bram Tchaikovsky and The Shoes, then that band is power pop, particularly if they release a song called "Star Girl", which is as close to a classic power-pop song title as you'll ever see. There are two kinds of of genres in pop music, genuine distinctions, such as rhythm and blues versus country and western and then there are marketing categories, which can be as pure as swamp pop or as meaningless as pop punk. Power pop is some of one and some of the other, but even in the marketing category there is a long line of bands branching off from the Rubber Soul era Beatles, starting with Badfinger, bands with two guitars and rhythm, strong harmonies, uplifting hooks, et cetera, that most historians would call power pop. My three cents, Ortolan88 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA nom

[edit]
  • No free image in the infobox, but a few in the article?
  • "debuted at #1 and is certified as double platinum." - on which chart, and certified where? Same applies for all of lead
  • "The two then began collaborating together." - the prose would be better if you'd avoid short sentences like this one...
  • "recruited via a classified advert in NME." - NME should be in italics
  • The history section is more of a chart position listing...try and talk about what they actually did, and why. It's a biography, and it doesn't meet GA criteria for broadness as it is...
  • "The idea for the album name came from where Danny and Tom wrote most of the songs for the album" - refer to them using surnames
  • "The single reached #1 for a week on 13 March 2005[20]" - need some sort of punctuation under the ref
  • "and were supported by The Click Five[44]" - again
  • The Fourth Studio Album section is short and kinda irrelevant until more information is made available...
  • I don't see how the cover songs section is needed, and I've never seen a band GA/FA that has such information.
  • Incidentally, nothing on musical style...

At the moment, just to many major issues on broadness that need to be fixed. Gimme a yell if you've done some work and want me to take another look. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
  • No free image in the infobox, but a few in the article?
  • "debuted at #1 and is certified as double platinum." - on which chart, and certified where? Same applies for all of lead
  • "The two then began collaborating together." - the prose would be better if you'd avoid short sentences like this one...
  • "recruited via a classified advert in NME." - NME should be in italics
  • The history section is more of a chart position listing...try and talk about what they actually did, and why. It's a biography, and it doesn't meet GA criteria for broadness as it is...
  • "The idea for the album name came from where Danny and Tom wrote most of the songs for the album" - refer to them using surnames
  • "The single reached #1 for a week on 13 March 2005[20]" - need some sort of punctuation under the ref
  • "and were supported by The Click Five[44]" - again
  • The Fourth Studio Album section is short and kinda irrelevant until more information is made available...
  • I don't see how the cover songs section is needed, and I've never seen a band GA/FA that has such information.
  • Incidentally, nothing on musical style...

Comments on checklist

[edit]

Finding a free image should be a high priority - I know a couple of teenies who probably have photos I can use, so I'll ask if they could upload to the commons and I'll do a collage or something. The current images don't really show the band as a whole. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up :( I refuse to remove the cover songs section! -- Stacey talk to me 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep that, just because no one else has it doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm looking for images, but we need to work on the history bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with the history as I was thinking that when we submitted it...but I honestly do not know what to put in. The boys don't really do much, lol. -- Stacey talk to me 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a collage image, which frankly is utter shit, but it's the best I could do with the resources available see commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig Page

[edit]

I have yet to find one article that links here looking for Marty McFly of almost 200 disambig links. I recommend pointing all Mcfly links to McFly (band). --Knulclunk 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (still) recommend reversing the move of McFly to McFly (band). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for redirecting McFly to McFly (band) and having a {{other}} at the top of McFly. --Indolences 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree. Nobody who's searching for "McFly" is looking for Marty; they'd search "Back to the Future" or "Michael J. Fox" sooner. Thor Rudebeck 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why McFly (band) is needed, really. It's not as if there's another McFly. People don't talk about "McFly" when talking about back to the future. -- Stacey talk to me 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island / Super Records

[edit]

The box of information at the top of the article says 'Island 2004-2008', but I'm pretty sure Tom has said they left Island before Christmas 2007 and that they just didn't make it public until this year. If it's true I think it should be 'Island 2004-2007' instead.

Catherine (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having seen another interview where Tom says they left Island around Christmas time, I've changed it. Hope that's OK. :)

Catherine (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Punk

[edit]

McFly suck donkey balls They are NOT punk pop. They dont even deserve to be in the genre :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roytenneban (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added 5 refs and the one is from allmusic.McFly have pop-punk in their music their my space also has them pop-punk.We write info on this article not our personal thoughts.Pop-punk is said by almost any site.They are pop-rock/pop-punk for sure but not just pop-rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.19.227 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Mcfly are not pop-punk. Their music contains no elements of pop-punk in any way. I don't even class them as pop-rock because there is no rock either. They are just cheesey manufactured pop to me. That Myspace has got the wrong idea from somewhere. If you listen to proper pop-punk bands there is no comparison to Mcfly at all.[reply]

poppunk rocks (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)From what i know wikipedia has info of the press not our personal thoughts.And if you think that McFly has nothing to do with pop-punk better search again.I listen to pop-punk from12 years old i still like McFly.They have elements of rock and manufacted is not a music genre.The classic punk-rocker who thinks Green Day And Offspring are punk and McFly are manufacted pop.If "The Heart Never Lies" , "Home is where the heart" and "Not Alone" are pop then better search again why Green Day are not a punk rock band by any way.[reply]

I never said Greenday and Offspring were 'punk rock'. Punk rock to me is bands like The Buzzcocks and Ramones. But I have heard Mcfly's songs and they are not the slightest bit 'rock' at all. It is just cheesey pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.207.175 (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What any editor thinks is irrelevant. References exist saying they have been described as pop punk, that's all we need. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--85.75.16.121 (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Please leave this genre's they are the trues.Wiki article about pop-punk mentions them and also myspace is the genre they choose not myspace's one.And i don't believe that mettalica are metal but everyone in the world could find 10 refs about metal and mettalica.[reply]

really?

[edit]

honestly?no critisism? Luke12345abcd (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be a criticisms section. This 'band' are loathed by plenty of sources within the music industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.207.175 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, there probably should be one. Got any citations for us to use? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just watch like one episode of Never Mind The Buzzcocks,lol you'll see ALOT of critisism,but seris i cba doin it can someone else,coz im on ma final warning (for some moronic reason) Luke12345abcd (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the loopholes and tricks they use to get their high chart positions? Using the whole 3 for a fiver deal. Its futher noticed they always drop a lot of positions the second week. One for the radio dropped from 2 to 21 77.99.186.110 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a reliable source to state it and it can be added. As for buzzcocks, a comedy show isn't really reliable source for such matters - we want critical reviews, not humourous jibes. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genres?

[edit]

Somebody keeps altering the genre on Mcfly articles to 'Rock'. On top of the fact they have no citations Mcfly are clearly not 'rock'. Can someone please stop them changing it as we all agreed 'pop rock' was a suitable genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.207.175 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busted

[edit]

I'm confused about the Formation section. For ages its been one story but now it's changed. I remember on The F Word that Tom said he didn't get into Busted and so created McFly - so why does it say he got accepted into the band? There's no references. -- Stacey talk to me 23:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is a lot of different views on it. I'm confused to. I fought Danny and Tom met and wrote Room on the third floor, or was it the busted thing? He might of asked to join Busted inbetween the writing of ROT3F and forming Mcfly i just don't know--77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Records

[edit]

Super Records Ltd. is an independent label operated and owned by English pop/rock band McFly. Inititally McFly were signed to major record outlet Universal Island Records. Since leaving Island and creating their own label to manage themselves, they have signed X-Factor contestant, Laura White.[1]


"Hey everyone, As you may have heard, we have created a brand new record label called "SUPER RECORDS"! We are all unbelievably excited to be releasing our new album and singles through our own label as it now allows us to have complete creative control over our music. This means that from now on, everything you see and hear from McFLY comes 100% from us and no one else! Obviously this is a huge step in our career and we would not be able to do it without all our incredibly loyal fans. Your support was a huge factor in the decision to start this new venture and we hope you are all as excited as we are. We are almost finished making our 4th studio album and we truly feel it is the best we have ever made. We hope you are as eager to hear it as we are to release it...it wont be long! The single will be out on July 14th and the album on the 21st but you will start to see and hear a lot of changes before then. So, watch this space! Tom, Danny, Dougie and Harry SUPER RECORDS - Saving The World, One Song At A Time"[2]


Clareh-xo (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ <a href="http://angryape.com/labels/super-records-ltd">[1]</a>
  2. ^ <a href="http://www.myspace.com/mcfly">[2]</a>

5th Studio Album

[edit]

According to the BBC Newsbeat, the 5th studio album is due out in November, not the September rumor mentioned in the article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10632573 -Opt 05 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to the article, they are launching a "supersite". Should this be included in the article somewhere? -Opt 05 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mcfly On The Wall

[edit]

This should be in the Television and film. Why include a detailed description of every episode? Ely23 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pub rock?

[edit]

Surely subtle vandalism? --EddieBernard (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Vandalized

[edit]

"McFly are an English awful, manufactured pop-[crap]rock "band" of questionable talent, who were put together by a faceless corporate pop factory in 2003"

Lots of subjectivity. -- Bilalakhtar96 (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on McFly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on McFly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McFly. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on McFly. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on McFly. 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:

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) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on McFly. 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:

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) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mc ≠ Busted

[edit]

I will delete all information that cites James Bourne and Matthew Willis as members of McFly. This is not due to any silly ill will or whatsoever towards the supergroup that McFly, Bourne and Willis decided to form to tour and eventually record as during 2014 and 2015. But McBusted was it's own thing, despite being priority during that time period to all musicians involved. Busted eventually reunited, and McFly regrouped for a one-off in 2015 and a short tour in 2016, with it's future being very uncertain.

My point is, the page somehow cites James Bourne and Matthew Willis (or even Charlie Simpson or even past members of the band Busted from even before like Owen Doyle and Ki Fitzgerald) as part of McFly. That will be deleted. Any mentions and all Hyperlinks to the McBusted wikipedia page will remain.

The Lost Songs

[edit]

Just curious, but is anyone going to make a page for The Lost Songs as there's now 7 singles out from the 10-track album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.77.91 (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McFly&oldid=1205683862"