Talk:McFly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McFly article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	McFly was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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 Date Process Result September 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed June 8, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 23, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 29, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 6, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents 1 From Talk: McFly (disambiguation) 1.1 Fansites 1.2 Video sighting 1.3 Controversy 1.4 Early Beatles 1.5 Criticisms Section 1.6 Pointless Information 2 Copyvio 3 Date and Number formats 4 The Wonderland Tour 2005 5 Motion In The Ocean 6 Musical style 7 Failed "good article" nomination 8 killer's mr. brightside cover 9 McFly troubles 10 Covers section 11 Page move 12 Recent Vandalism 13 Top Gear of The Pops 14 Restoring deleted subsection 15 Apologies 16 TakeFly - Tribute band to McFly...and Take That 17 GA fail 18 Re:Musical style 19 GA quick fail 20 Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg 21 Logo 22 Genre 23 Failed GA nom 23.1 Checklist 23.2 Comments on checklist 24 Disambig Page 25 Island / Super Records 26 Pop Punk

[edit] From Talk: McFly (disambiguation)

I've moved the comments below as they seem more relevant here and removed the redirect RicDod 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fansites

Please can people not add further links to fansites, especially those that require visitors to sign in, or contain very little information. The number of links we have now serves adequately, but Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sanguinus 12:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Video sighting

Okay, since I think no one has seen the talk page for Five Colours In Her Hair, I will repost this question on the more popular McFly talk page.

But just checking, does anyone know if the video to Five Colours In Her Hair in the United States? I think I saw it there on MTV early to mid-last year, but I'm unsure if that was the British McFly (I forgot the contents of the video but I remember it saying the band name) or a song from the American McFly (The Mighty McFly)? Can someone check for me? --Akira123323 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

"However, the members have been playing instruments and writing songs for several years, so any implication that the instruments were used as a marketing ploy to make them more 'real' are deeply cynical. The fact is, they are a 'real' band whether the cynics like it or not."

that sounds very like a POV to me. Especially with the words "the fact is." The last line really shows the writers fustration with these "cynics"

I agree, and I have now edited that sentence to (hopefully) a more neutral point of view. --Sanguinus 00:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Was also a bit of controversy when they played at the London Big Gay Out (2005) with (wait for it) the Christian community.

[edit] Early Beatles

The article stated that McFly are similar in musical style to early Beatles material... this isn't the case at all; they share very few similarities to the Beatles' Merseybeat era. in fact, they are much more akin to their mid/later later stuff circa Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour... Though they certainly share more similarities with McCartney's style than Lennon's or Harrison's, so I changed the reference accordingly.NaLaochra 02:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms Section

I notice the ciriticisms section has dissapeared. Who and why did they do that? User:Merlov 11:4, 13 March 2006

The sections above were moved from Talk: McFly (disambiguation) RicDod 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless Information

Is this really needed? I'm sure it isn't 100% true either. --Stacey 14:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HELLO, THIS IS ALL TRUE!!!!! APART FROM THE GIRLS ALOUD STUFF, WHICH WE DIDNT PUT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS TRUE!!!!

Well..where did you get it all from? I still don't think it's really needed. --Stacey 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I follow the band, and it's all stuff that they have said to me and my friends. i know tom has been on this website, and read information that wasn't true, so my friends and i put some information up that was true, so he and other people could read some information that they perhaps didnt know.

What a stalker claims to have heard isnt a reliable source.

For information to be included in Wikipedia it has to have been published by reliable and reputable sources. Please see WP:V. Additionally, original research is not allowed (WP:NOR). RicDod 17:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Two of the paragraphs were from external websites, word for word. I've since removed them, please don't add them back in, as it would be a copyright violation. Thanks. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I just did that. I'll remove them in a sec. Could you show me the website? Because some of that stuff I've seen people add to and some of it I've done myself...so it wasn't all copied but all of it was removed. --Stacey 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say guitarmasta.net is the website lightdarkness was reffering to. They have the same information as the Wikipedia page and have it as their references which is why I think they got the information from Wikipedia rather than the other way round. I've contacted the owner to make sure though :) --Stacey

If in doubt, please reword the paragraphs and cite the site as your source JayKeaton 21:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date and Number formats

I noticed that throughout the article, dates where linked or not linked; numbers were no. 1, #1, etc. Where a date was a full date, I linked it, if it was a month and year, I left it unlinked, but made sure they all appeared the same (spelled out). Where a number is referenced in the body of the text, I converted the numeral to a word. Where the number was a list denoting ranking, I left it as #n, but made sure they were consistent (no. 1 mixed with #1). I just happened on this while looking at recent changes. There are a lot more editors that have invested more time in this article than I - I just thought I would explain what I did (slightly verbose) --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 05:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wonderland Tour 2005

I created a page for The Wonderland Tour 2005 DVD. Needs more information though.

[edit] Motion In The Ocean

There are two articles for the album. Motion in the Ocean and Motion In The Ocean. I think the correct title is "In The" [1]. Should they be merge or redirected or something? Not sure how to do it myself. --Stacey 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, my friend did it :) --Stacey 11:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical style

I personally think that the "Musical style" needs to be updated. It's been there since I first started editing this article (nearly a year ago?) and must be a bit out of date by now. For instance, they had a noticable image change from Room on the 3rd Floor to Wonderland, so does "Despite the band's pop image and reputation..." still stand? --Stacey 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of musical style, I just removed the comparison to Rhoderick Gates of Australia. I don't think he's particularly famous (has he even released anything?), and a Google search doesn't really bring up any information about his music. He even had a Wikipedia page once and it was deleted after a vote. At the least, he seems non-notable enough that there's really no point in using him as a reference point to create an impression of McFly's style. At worst, it could be an attempt to promote him by writing about him on the Wikipedia page of a far more famous band. If anyone disagrees, though, feel free to provide evidence and add the comparison back in!

That comment was from me, by the way. Kingka 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they even deserve do be in the "pop punk" category? Is there anything 'punk' about McFly? I don't even enjoy punk rock that much so I'm not particularly biased, but is there anything about them which has anything to do with the punk ideology?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just jumped in here after seeing them in the LiLo movie. McFly is a power pop band in the movie. I haven't heard anything else by them, but the movie soundtrack pulled me in from the other room 'cause you so rarely hear power pop. Lacking any objection from the more knowledgeable, I will change the introductory para. Ortolan88 (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on this is still just put it as pop rock and leave it be. It seems to be the only genre that people agree on. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

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)

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)

My friend added the fair use rationale for the covers --Stacey 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] killer's mr. brightside cover

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)

[edit] McFly troubles

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)

[edit] Covers section

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Page move

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

[edit] Recent Vandalism

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)

• Support - It's really getting annoying at times reverting edits and then gets vandalised yet again minutes later. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Omg there's tons lately. Never used to be this bad. --Stacey _talk 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the three people doing it was banned today. I think other person is on final warning. BTW, I did suggest this a while back and it was rejected. Not enough vandalism :/ mattbuck 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Gear of The Pops

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)

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

[edit] Restoring deleted subsection

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)

[edit] Apologies

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)

[edit] TakeFly - Tribute band to McFly...and Take That

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)

[edit] GA fail

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)

[edit] Re:Musical style

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)

[edit] GA quick fail

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)

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg

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)

[edit] Logo

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)

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)

See Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. --John (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Genre

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)

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)

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)

The Hoosiers are considered "pop". -- Stacey _{talk to me} 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Just say pop rock and have done with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Failed GA nom

• 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)

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

[edit] Checklist

• 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...

[edit] Comments on checklist

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)

I give up :( I refuse to remove the cover songs section! -- Stacey _{talk to me} 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Disambig Page

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)

I (still) recommend reversing the move of McFly to McFly (band). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm for redirecting McFly to McFly (band) and having a {{other}} at the top of McFly. --Indolences 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Island / Super Records

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)

[edit] Pop Punk

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.

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. 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)