Talk:Auld Lang Syne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Songs (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon

Scots Pronunciation Guide[edit]

The indication that the word "auld" should, in Scots Pronunciation, sound like "ald", is mistaken. I can cite no textual authority, however as a Scots speaker (albeit Urban West of Scotland) I can definitely attest that a Scots speaker would pronounce this word to rhyme with "bald", and not in any other way. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Nuttyskin (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "pronunciation guide" is a shade on the meaningless side, "English" (or Scots for that matter) is simply not spelled very consistently - in fact an English (or Scots) word spelled "ald" could probably be pronounced several different ways including your "Rhyming with bald (although English (and Scots) speakers from different parts of the world pronounce "bald" differently, so...). The IPA spelling gives a better (although still not 100% accurate) idea of the pronunciation - remembering that it is Burns' own Scots accent (probably different from yours) that we are aiming to reproduce. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Boy Scouts use is notable[edit]

It occurs in many countries - in fact for many years it has been as closely associated with the Scouting movement - almost as pervasively as its association with the new year. This is in itself far more notable than much other very peripheral stuff in the article. In fact it warrants a mention in the lead. This has been the case for years and is in effect a long standing consensus - please do bot remove it without arguing a new consensus here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This one has been recently revived - one short sentence, as part of a general list of uses mentioned in the lead - does not seem to this editor "undue weight". But provided the mention of the Scouts in the main article remains this is perhaps a minor point - what do other editors think? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soundofmusicals:I've sung it at the end of Scout camps and sure it's in the songbook, but I had never particularly associated the song with Scouting in general. I've cite-tagged it and removed "Boy" as deprecated terminology as most are co-ed now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo:The point is that the Scouts sing it all over the world - although in some countries probably more than others - so it's one of the things binding the movement together. At least it's worth a mention. Agree the "boy" bit is very old-fashioned - plain "Scouts" more NPOV (provided it's clear we're talking about the youth movement. Will have a look at things from this viewpoint. Citation tags are best left for items that are genuinely doubtful, or even surprising. Your scout songbook would be as good a cite as any - in fact a more "academic" cite would be almost comic. why not add this if you really think we need one here? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been a UK Cub/Scout/Leader for 50 years and only sung it once in a Scouting context, at the close of the 16th World Scout Jamboree. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
My own "scouting" career was many years ago (it ended in the late 1940s, when I was 14, and due to go up to the "seniors" (I think a lot of lads lose interest at about that stage) and in Australia - which is a long time ago and a long way away. And (FWIIW) I must admit I can't remember ALS even being in our "camp fire songbook" - much less sung regularly at the end of our meetings, (never got to a Jamboree). On the other hand if you do a google on "Scout Auld Lang" or something like that you get lots of hits. It has certainly become a fixture at Jamborees, at least in recent years. All this may well be relatively recent - and more U.S. than "British Commonwealth". Still reckon it is worth this very lightweight little mention - if only to stop people who want to add a "national uses" section for their country on the grounds that "in [x country] it is also widely sung by the scouts". Is it worth going into detail about when and where and how much the scouts have used it? This would in effect be giving it MORE weight than it already has(!) In any case I don't think it belongs in the article about the song. Perhaps in one of the "scouting" articles? Anyway, I have added a "web" citation, for what it is worth. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"S" rather than "Z"[edit]

This very obviously needs to be specifically mentioned - non-Scots sometimes become quite stubborn in their insistence on "Z" rather than the correct "S". Until most people can (and do) read IPA this is important and should not be attacked. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Jipy Jay (old archive thread)[edit]

A VERY old edit was re-raised after several years - here's how we dealt with it then...

The addition to the article about a song called Jipy Jay has been removed because it appears to be original research, which Wikipedia does not permit, and is uncited. Before adding it again could a source be provided that connects it to Auld Lang Syne, either by explaining it is the same song, a translation, or bears musical similarities. Otherwise it appears that the connection between the two is just someone's personal opinion. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-Peruvians, at least, need a bit more information here to decide whether this should remain as part of this article. It is important that we get this right - since this is one of those articles that attracts a great deal of trivial, irrelevant, and otherwise "non-notable" information, as well as interesting things that simply belong somewhere else.
  • Is this (more or less) a translation of Auld Lang Syne into Spanish, with (more or less) the same melody?
If so it is probably not notable - there are many, many translations of this "universal" song into different languages - we could not possibly note them all in this article - which is after all essentially about the original song.
  • Is it used more or less like the original version of the song? (for New Year, graduations, funerals, farewells etc. etc.).
So many countries have a version of Auld Lang Syne that is used in this way that we have stopped listing them, unless there is something unusual about its use (have a look at the examples we have kept to get some idea what we are talking about here).
  • Is it really quite a different song - with its own lyrics and/or melody?
If so it may even be notable enough to have its own article - but it probably doesn't belong here.
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I believe that you haven't heard the song or read the citation that i put there so that's why you believe that you need further information to decide if my contribution should be in the main page of ALS:
I believe it's really unfair that many countries have their own section because of international versions of auld lang syne that are only sung in universities or parades, while "jipy jay" is sung all over Peru, has very distinctive peruvian music (but still with the main tune of ALS), and it's usually sung as a farewell song (see videos on youtube if you are unsure).
Thanks! Juanmaklaot (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about a Scots song called "Auld Lang Syne". Because that song has become a universal part of world culture and has been translated into many languages, and is sung (especially to greet the New Year) all over the world we do have a section about its international use. This is NOT there, however, as a "we sing it too competition", with rules, the breach of which would be "unfair". Fairness or unfairness don't come into it. From your own statements the Peruvian version of the song is not in the context of this article unusual, either in substance or in the way it is used. In other words it is a rather "straight" version of the song, and is used in the "normal" way. The specific "national" versions of the song that we DO mention all have something interestingly different about them. Sorry, but as I have already said - we need to keep this article a reasonable size - we just don't have space to describe every variant. Is this the sort of thing that belongs in a Peruvian (or a general Spanish language) version of Wikipedia? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Some dear little American person thinks Scots language is racist. Oh dear. Americans should talk! As Professor Higgins famously remarked "In America they haven't used it [proper English] for years". Of course everyone knows that true "proper English" is only spoken by well-educated Australians born earlier than (say) 1940 or thereabouts - and is therefore dying out. Sad, but inevitable. Fortunately the badness of all English spoken outside my own nationality and age group is normally masked by our use of conventional spelling. Scots spelling, on the other hand, is "conventional" on its own terms rather than "phonetic" - we didn't make it up to poke fun at ignorant Scots (honest). Scots poets like Burns wrote his Scots verse using Scots spelling and his (standard) English verse, which he would have pronounced with a strong Scottish accent of course, using standard spelling. This means that we assume that the English spoken in Alabama and Tasmania are the Same Language - while Scots is a Variant Dialect. (This post is satire) and composed in a holiday spirit - please do not take it seriously. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have (already) got some feedback from someone who feels my levity in the last post is quite inappropriate. It probably is and all - I do have a very serious point to make however - but it is NOT one that can be made in a serious tone without being impossibly "preachy". Lighten up - and be assured I am not the slightest bit racist (even about Americans, and even after the recent presidential election). I am very old now, and grew up in a totally different world from this - bear with me. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A section does not necessarily need to contain a list.[edit]

A section is not "nul" because it doe not contain a list, or even if a list it used to contain has been deleted. The need to point this out seems very silly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A section is null if it does not contain any information. It's expressly labeled and linked in the TOC as a subsection titled "Recordings" under the section "Notable performances" and not a jot of information about any recordings is found there. Note, I was not removing the information, just the vacuous subsection heading as it is disingenuous. As a simple intro paragraph/sentence noting the that section "Notable performances" will not contain any information about notable recordings, it then proceeds to the "Live and broadcast" subsection (please note the capitalization here, as that, per the MOS, is what the section should be headed, but the editor above acting uncivilly in edit summaries, exhibiting behavior of WP:OWN, and incontrovertibly guilty of violating 3RR in lieu of discussing, insists on capitalizing the subsection incorrectly as "Live and Broadcast") for easy readability. I can see no rationalization for these changes, other than the editor simply "wishing to win" rather than contribute meaningfully and collaboratively to the encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
In the version of the article I have been in this case trying to preserve - Notable recordings used to contain a list of such recordings - the section remains after the list has been deleted, with a little note about why, in this article such a list isn't really appropriate. I assume you are in agreement about deleting the list, since you have neither restored it (or perhaps an edited version) nor argued in talk against its removal. Incidentally, if you were to think that the original list was basically a good and useful thing, one might have a separate article with a title something like Auld Lang Syne (discography).
Do we still need a Notable recordings section? On the whole I think the truncated section, without the original list that was its primary point, still needs a little explanatory stub. Its showing up in the contents list is even a good idea, as a reader looking for the section in its former state will at least find a little note explaining why it has gone. It is not "nul" in spite of the list going. The note remains useful (well, I think it does, anyway, for what that is worth).
Your first edit corrected an MOS capitalisation error that I should have noticed and left as it was - the second edit amounted to deleting the heading Notable recordings- but moving the explanatory paragraph about why we don't list them now up to the top of the main section, where it was not only out of context, but potentially very confusing. The heading, as is often the case, is really part of the section itself. Removing the section whole (complete with its heading) might have made more sense, especially if you thought it was "nul", although this would have meant further re-organisation of the remaining headings.
Might I suggest that next time you make an edit that is disputed, especially by a fellow editor with an established record revealed by his/her talk page, you consider the possibility that you are wrong. If you are, on consideration, still sure that you edit was an improvement to the article, and should stand, then it is YOUR responsibility, as the instigator of the change, to justify it on the talk page. This will open a discussion, which will result in either the edit being re-instated, deleted, or replaced with a compromise that satisfies the concerns of both "sides".
Assume good faith. This includes not leaping to the conclusion that anyone with a point of view not identical with your own, or questioning the value of your work, thereby intends a personal attack on you. The odd grump is natural and human - but there is generally nothing whatever to be gained by answering in kind. And the complaints page is not something to fly to whenever you feel piqued - especially before you have made any attempt to open a discussion on any genuine point at issue. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)