Talk:Not Fade Away (song)

Merge

No way. Different artists, different albums. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Sinnyo 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they're versions of the same song. Someone looking for information about "Not Fade Away" should be able to read this article and find information about Buddy Holly's versions, about the one by The Rolling Stones, about the one by Rush... it's the difference between having so-so coverage of versions of a song or good coverage of a song as a whole. GassyGuy 04:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The Rush article covers the single release and includes material about a second track. It really is only important within the context of Rush. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I say merge them. That's how all other singles that are covers are treated. Same song, same page. - Rocket000 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you all please notice that the Rush article is not just a single, but includes another song, too? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The other song is the B-side. It wouldn't be hard to talk about the B-side in the Not Fade Away (song) article. It's not like there's a ton of info about it. GassyGuy 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't leave well enough alone. Gee, let's merge all albums that share a single track! —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an album. It's a single. Merging albums that share a single track would be ridiculous and would not be helpful to readers. Talking about the various single releases of a song within the article for that song provides a good overall basis for the recorded history of that song. GassyGuy 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Rush has recorded a version of the song and it was their first single is already mentioned on the song's page. The remaining discussion in this article of Rush's first self-composed track on the B-side would add nothing of value to an article about the song "Not Fade Away" and in fact would be out of place there. It has enough historical significance in the history of Rush to merit its own entry.--Matthew Turnage 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The result (after one day shy of a month) is: Don't merge by a vote of 3:2. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I am voting to merge. Articles are about songs not about singles. I am placing the merge-suggestion tag back onto the articles. -- eo 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

N328KF: Firstly, Wikipedia is not a democracy; reasons for votes count more than numbers, so I wouldn't bother keeping count. Secondly, I disagree with your claim that the merge was in violation of policy [1] ; on the contrary, a merge would actually be in compliance with Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging, which suggests merging if "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap" and/or "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much". Thirdly, the vast majority of songs that have been recorded by more than one act have only one article here (e.g. Who's Lovin' You, Hum Along and Dance, Respect (song), I'll Be There, I Heard It through the Grapevine, I Will Always Love You, Lady Marmalade, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction), so I don't see why Rush's version of this song should be treated differently and given its own separate article. Extraordinary Machine 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a horrible, horrible mess. Whoever decided that articles are about songs not singles? I think it should be the other way round in most cases... With a famous, much covered song like this, general info about the song should be in the article about Buddy Holly's version, and each cover which was released as a single should have it's own article. Otherwise we drown in a sea of infoboxes and crap which is irrelevant to the original release. --kingboyk 16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I entirely concur with Kingboyk here, the editorial practice has either changed since the general notes about how to treat songs was written, or was never a reflection of the then current practice. This is particularly noticeable and irritating where there are cogent discographies for major artists, the article about the song and it's release by it's composer, if they are the same, should be at "Foo (song)" and where there is need elsewhere "Foo (single)" or "Foo (Bandname single)" is the right option.--Alf ^melmac 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Not Fade Away AB.jpg

Image:Not Fade Away AB.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Coral records crickets holly.jpg

The image Image:Coral records crickets holly.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the "Petty category"

(transplanted from Sssoul's talk page) I inadvertently re-instated the "written by Norman Petty" category (I was going through everything that linked to Norman Petty and did it twice). However, according to BMI both wrote the song. Neither of us know what contribution Petty made to the song, whether he contributed all the music, all the words or took a percentage for offering studio facilities but the basic truth is that both Holly and Petty must have both signed a songwriting publishers deal that agreed that they both wrote the song. If we use words like "credited as" or "allegedly" it just ain't encyclopedic and we'd have trouble with nearly every song. Hope you understand. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"credited to" is a statement of fact, while in this case "written by" is at best controversial. no one doubts that Petty was credited as a co-writer (as on that BMI list); doubts the credits mean he actually co-wrote anything are verified in plenty of reliable sources. that's why those doubts are mentioned (with sources cited) in the first sentence of the article.

i don't understand what you mean by "I inadvertently re-instated the 'written by Norman Petty' category"; if it was inadvertent, then it doesn't make sense for you to insist on keeping it. so please either rename the category or take the "controversial" songs out of it; and let's keep the discussion on a relevant talk page so that consensus can be established. thanks Sssoul (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Take 1 / Take 2

I have trouble with this sentence: "Along with the familiar Take 2 of 'Not Fade Away,' there exists a Take 1 whose first verse is missing; it has been released with the first part of Take 1 spliced onto it." This just doesn't parse. It would make sense if the first part of Take 2 were spliced onto it, but I don't know anything about this recording. New Providence (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reina del Cid cover

What a great cover! Touching me! Might be included in the Covers section. Howd‘d you like it … — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.238.170 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

His final concert

There is a relatively long discussion on how "Not Fade Away" was not the last song Holly performed in his final concert, because some bunch of people 50 years later said all of the acts including Buddy Holly sang some other song. But "Not Fade Away" was not performed in Clear Lake at all, according to setlists here, here and here, so the entire paragraph is off-topic. Even the fact that it appeared in The Buddy Holly Story is trivia. I'm removing the paragraph. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:3023:71A7:6AC4:26AD (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)