Talk:Not Fade Away (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] 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)