Talk:Buddy Holly

message: The lead is overly detailed and is too long. I know that the main editor is interested in taking this highly important article to GA but it won't pass unless the lead is dealt with. Best, jona(talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is too long 

message: MP3 of phone call. Details on blog.wfmu.org. Fascinating. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that recording a few years back and forgot about it while I was working in the article. It's probably worth mention in the article that he taped a call. Being a Holly fan I was also truly amazed.--GDuwenTell me! 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reveals a lot about Holly. The intention behind the recording shows he doesn't want to be messed with, and would be prepared to go to court. He's even told the operator that he is recording the call so there can't be a later claim he did it secretly. It's no wonder he ended up having creative control over his own recordings - I don't think that was an accident. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You couldn't even say he was ahead of his time regarding those things, by nowadays standards you can still say he was too clever. Not to mention his later work with producing and all, he was right on the spot for everything. As Keith Richards said, not bad for a guy from Lubbock, Texas.--GDuwenTell me! 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddy Holly phone call to Decca 

message: Per MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:LEGALNAME, if the artist didn't legally change their name to their stage name, then their birth name is introduced first in the lead sentence. Other examples: Ringo Starr, Bono, and Flea (musician).
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies: Investigation may sometimes be needed to determine whether a subject known usually by a pseudonym has actually changed their legal name to match. Reginald Kenneth Dwight formally changed his name to Elton Hercules John early in his musical career. Where this is not the case, and where the subject uses a popular form of their name in everyday life, then care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Do not write, for example "John Edwards (born Johnny Reid Edwards, June 10, 1953) ...". It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name.
Wash whites separately (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking WP:COMMONNAME applies here as opposed to this change.  Mlpearc (open channel) 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME is talking about the title of the article, not the lead sentence. The paragraph from the Manual of Style above makes it very clear what the protocol should be if there is no evidence that the person legally changed their birth name. The title of the article should remain "Buddy Holly", yes—I never disputed this. But the first name introduced in the lead sentence should be his birth name, and his stage name afterwards, per MOS:LEGALNAME. Wash whites separately (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name should be the first name mentioned in lead sentence. 

message: In the article's Influence section, it previously said that Elton John's eyesight was damaged by some glasses he wore. I have removed the claim, since it is a misconception that glasses can damage one's eyesight. On a side note, the citation for the claim is unclear, since the -link is dead; there's no 1979 book by John Goldrosen in the Sources section.--Stempelquist (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, piano playing singers don't become rich and famous. Many academies advise partying like he did can kill an average person. But there was something about him the defied expectations in those regards, and maybe there is here, too. Always better to counter a particular claim with a particular denial. But I don't care enough to argue it further. Consider me out of your way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of claim about Elton John's eyesight 

message: At , this seems unnecessarily gory:
:
Is it really insufficient to know, from the previous sentence, that they were:
:
? How about adding the AutopsyFiles.org ref to this sentence or External Links for those who really need to know? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary level of detail 

message: The "External links" section is a link farm with eleven links and needs trimming.  Otr500 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I burned six, was thinking about a seventh, but figured at least his fellow Texans would expect to see something from Texas there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I see you had to revert a lot of edits by non-registered users recently. In this reversion of your reversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_Holly&type=revision&diff=993175413&oldid=993161326), the person infobox was lost, which means the field for spouse was lost as well. I just put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the edit history. That was annoying. How do we put the spouse field back? I tried, but it just wouldn't show up. Givemedonuts (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I originally added it a couple years ago, I made the main infobox a "person" infobox, then embedded the musical artist infobox with the "module" field name. Then the spouse field goes into the "person" infobox (note the diff link I posted above). -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed the infobox -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wow. I have nooooooo idea about these things. Cheers to you! Givemedonuts (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by 1.43.142.179