Talk:Menıñ Qazaqstanym

Menıñ Qazaqstanym received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Central Asia: Kazakhstan Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Menıñ Qazaqstanym is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kazakhstan (assessed as High-importance).

Songs

	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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

obviously, someone should cut the Borat translation out. Could you link an MIDI or MP3? --PeerBr 08:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done! Thanks! --PeerBr 08:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really beautiful anthem. Perhaps the most beautiful anthem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture section

There should be an in popular culture section with the Borat lyrics.

Turkish Page link

Don't connected to Turkish Page : http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakistan_Ulusal_Mar%C5%9F%C4%B1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaviAteş (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to this page

I see that the redirects to this page include "Kazakhstani national anthem" but not "Kazakh national anthem". Is "Kazakh national anthem" not the correct term? Or am I missing something? Yaris678 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remove Borat link

In the link section there's a YouTobe link to the Borat song. Someone remove it please, since the article is locked. Temp74e321 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editsemiproteced

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This should have

{{about|the Kazakh national anthem|other uses|My Kazakhstan}}

-- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page only has two entries. What about a hatnote that says {{about|the Kazakh national anthem|for the song|My Kazakhstan (song)}}? A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, but I've requested a rename at Talk:My Kazakhstan (song)... so if it moves, another request would be needed... -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done It can be changed later if required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 38 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meniñ Qazaqstanım → My Kazakhstan (national anthem) – This 2006 song has an English language title, "My Kazakhstan". Per allmusic, Radio Free Europe, The Sun, Daily Mail, The Atlantic, The Telegraph 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support, per WP:UE. AP says "'Menin Khazakhstanym' or 'My Kazakhstan'" ("Khazahkstan's parliament vote for new national anthem", Jan. 6, 2006). Kauffner (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:Kauffner but to My Kazakhstan (anthem) over the redirect, as that seems to be the convention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Meniñ Qazaqstanım seems to be preferred by sources. The move proposal mentions sources which do not use the proposed name; this is deeply misleading. bobrayner (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per use of local title in better sources: UK Ambassador Paul Brummell (wrote the Bradt Guide to Kazakhstan and) has Menin Khazakhstanym; the CIA World Factbook 2012 has "National anthem:name: “Menin Qazaqstanim” (My Kazakhstan) lyrics/music: Zhumeken NAZHIMEDENOV," Evidently romanization varies, the AP article cited Menin Khazakhstanym etc. btw was it a mislink The Sun "Kazakh stunned - Borat song plays at medal ceremony" as a source for a proposed move which doesn't even mention "My Kazakhstan" ? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to My Kazakhstan (no parenthetical). The English name is clearly more common in English sources than the various romanizations. It also appears to be the primary topic over the older song.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modified lyrics

"The original lyrics were modified by Nursultan Nazarbayev, the President of Kazakhstan, before the decree was issued."

If this is going to be mentioned, it might be a good idea to explain how the lyrics were modified. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem Republic of Kazakhstan use lyric form Borat movie

Can anyone help me please? Lyric on page from Borat movie! Please, approve my changes. Original lyric, from goverment's site - http://www.akorda.kz/en/state_symbols/kazakhstan_anthem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjr358 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meniñ Qazaqstanım. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124051647/http://www.kazind.com/newsarchives/newsvol54.html to http://www.kazind.com/newsarchives/newsvol54.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin script version

I noticed recently a change in the Latin script version of the National Anthem in that it's now based on the Revised Romanization of Korean. Now I don't know much about Kazakh's current Latin script situation or how it's going to be changed, but I'm fairly certain that it is not based on Revised Romanization right now. Could someone provide a source which states Kazakh's Latin script will be based on RR? If it shouldn't be like that, then the Latin script version should be changed back to its original version. Omegagmaster (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Omegagmaster (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized the user that made the Korean edits is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Can someone please repair the Latin script version? Omegagmaster (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was another YouTuber, baek blackbeen, who altered the transliteration. He is new on Wikipedia. Korean and Kazakh does share some phonemes, and it was possible to transcribe Kazakh in the RR. NeuPommern (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of lyrics removal

I realized that the lyrics suddenly got removed. I also noticed this in several anthem articles. I know the lyrics are retrievable in the archives, but an admin on Wikipedia may revert me if I re-add the lyrics. So I came here to question the purpose of the lyric removal. Furthermore, the lyrics have been on Wikipedia for over a decade, why did an admin suddenly remove them? I am overly curious. If anyone can explain, I look forward to hearing from you! NeuPommern (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see the lyrics violating copyright policies in Wikipedia. The lyrics have been on here since 2006 (the year the anthem was adopted) and then bam, an admin decided to omit them. NeuPommern (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I know you on youtube with an icon that resembles the flag of Rwanda. Now I think Yunshui should explain what he did. 来来来，云水老铁，别客气，怎么想的进来聊聊？呵呵。Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT: "An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion." Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics. Given the recent adoption of these songs, it is highly likely that the lyrics are still under copyright, and unless clear proof can be provided that they are not, we must assume that they are. We do not simply use material on Wikipedia in the vague hope that it's free to reuse; that's not how copyright works, that's not how we work. Just because no-one spotted it for a long time (and in some ways, I'm grateful to Diabedia and his many sockpuppets for highlighting so many various instances in the last week or two) doesn't mean it's not contrary to policy and in need of removal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulysses Faye Ohkiph: I have undone your re-addition of the material per the policy quoted above; either prove that these lyrics are public domain or stop disrupting Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

呵呵呵。I think it's a kind of duty for an Administrator. Everything on this site, you ought to look them up to verify if it is illegal. Or this site will be all empty if "unless clear proof can be provided that they are not, we must assume that they are". As my point of view, you may consider that handover your administrator right to me, for I can do this if you disdain to do, huh? Of course I am serious. Now look at this:

Мыналар авторлық құқық объектiлерi болмайды; 1) ресми құжаттар (заңдар, сот шешiмдерi, заң әкiмшiлiк, сот сипатындағы және дипломатиялық сипаттағы өзге де мәтiндер), сондай-ақ олардың ресми аудармалары; 2) мемлекеттiк нышандар мен белгiлер (жалаулар, елтаңбалар, ордендер, ақша белгiлерi және өзге де мемлекеттiк нышандар мен белгiлер); 3) халық шығармашылығы туындылары; 4) оқиғалар мен фактiлер туралы ақпараттық сипаттағы хабарлар.
— Авторлық құқық және сабақтас құқықтар туралы - 1996 ж. 10 маусымдағы № 6-I Қазақстан Республикасының Заңы

Shouldn't I teach my dear Administrator about the translation of these Cyrillic letters? Oh, sorry, I don't think so. 鄙人嘗聞东亞文字，雲水大人無一不曉，突厥諸族亦東亞之密鄰，學貫中日朝之通才雲水君必亦曉其文也。

P.s.@Yunshui:: After reading this passage above please revert your revertion yourself, and consider my request above, 本当に有難うございました。Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the Kazakh text you provided and it brought me to a Wikimedia Commons copyright template which translates it as [...]The following shall not be the subject matter of copyright:[...]2) state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and other state symbols and signs);[...] (omissions mine).

Wikipedia:NPS states that "If out of copyright, shorter texts – such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) – are usually included in their article." and in my experience that is usually the case: national anthems almost always include the lyrics and translations but actual song articles (like ones with song and album infoboxes and chart performance tables et cetera) never do, so in light of the facts that the lyrics appear to be exempt from copyright and that national anthems are apparently exempt from WP:NOTLYRICS, I think that the lyrics should be included in the page. @Yunshui:

@Ulysses Faye Ohkiph:"Or this site will be all empty if "unless clear proof can be provided that they are not, we must assume that they are"" - Yunshui prefaced his comment with "Given the recent adoption of these songs, it is highly likely that the lyrics are still under copyright", which implies that he was not saying that all content on Wikipedia must be removed unless there is clear proof that it is legal, just content that is highly likely to be illegal, such as recent songs. The lyrics were removed because it appeared as though they were highly likely to be a violation of copyright law and of WP:NOTLYRICS and clear proof to the contrary had not yet been provided. 58.165.61.56 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP user above: My meaning is: AS AN ADMINISTRATOR, YOU SHOULD CONFIRM THE COPYRIGHT, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THINGS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE AN EXEMPTION, JUST LIKE NATIONAL SYMBOLS. To assume that "unless clear proof can be provided that they are not, we must assume that they are" is IRRESPONSIBLE and NEGLECTION OF DUTY for an Administrator like 雲水. 58.165.61.56Got it? She/he is irresponsible, but more people is not like her/him.

Another thing: Nazarbayev wanna change the alphabet form, we ought to use the new form instead of the "romanization", though this alphabet is ridiculous, in my own opinion. The alphabet is hard to deliver its meaning, and obviously copied from Uzbek alphabet, so maybe an IPA version is necessary also.Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that commons template to suggest that the national anthem is free to reuse (I wouldn't have said it was a "state symbol or sign", particularly since the template does not specify the national anthem in its explanation). Even if it is free to reuse, Wikipedia's policy on lyrics (that excerpts for the purpose of commentary are acceptable, but wholesale reproduction should be left to Wikisource) still suggests that Wikisource, not Wikipedia, is the place for this content. I'm not even going to respond to the ridiculous assertion that the burden of proof lies on an administrator to prove that content is under copyright, that's simply nonsensical and runs contrary to Wikipedia's entire stance on copyrighted materials. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before you appear, every anthem of the world has their lyrics on the site, and the condition had been keeping by decades. That's what I want to say. I'm not unreasonable for I've deleted the lyrics of anthem of China, BUT I'VE PROVIDED ALL VISITORS WITH THE TRUSTABLE REASON AND THE LINK TO A VERSION OF LYRICS WHICH IS LEGAL. That's all. And if you, 雲水, and user:ScrapIronIV, really wanna be article destroyers using any other various excuses, I wanna say it's none of my business, and I will fight to the end. If you have something to say about STANCE, go to WP:LYRICS and see the part mentioned God Save the King. Which kind of lyrics should be transwiki? The page has already told you: "do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source." So do this page consists ONLY of lyrics? I think the answer is obvious. In a word, I only trust the explanation by articles begin with "Wikipedia", your POV is nothing important.

p.s. I'm glad to see the two allies. Thanks you two!:}Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP (NeuPommern, the guy in YouTube) is a sock puppet. Zombie Dragon (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion About Lyrics

The original lyrics can by shown, but the various translation should not be shown here. Only an English one is enough, maybe languages like Chinese, Russian are even also proper to be shown for the Kazakh people in these countries... But what's the meaning of Bashkir, Turkish... The Pan-Turkic propaganda?Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, those are not official languages of the country... what foolish editors... Zombie Dragon (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge My Kazakhstan (1956 song) into Menin' Qazaqstanym; dated: November 2017. Proposer's Rationale: They are actually one thing with two different versions, and the former one is too long in its title, and too short in its main body. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the proposer is me. As everyone know, Kazakh law has only put the national anthem itself into public domain(see my sources above), but not the original song, especially the last verse which was discarded from the song. That causes the article of the original song useless, and inconvenience. The 1956 version might be a section in this article. Ulysses Faye Ohkiph (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Menin' Qazaqstanym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move.

Menin' Qazaqstanym ---> Meniń Qazaqstanym in accordance with the new alphabet change yesterday or so. 66.76.2.61 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I don't know how to format this.

Done. -- pne (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lyrics from the article

User:ScrapIronIV has relatively recently decided to remove the lyrics from this page, citing WP:LYRICS. I discussed the issue in detail on the user talk page (if the link expires). Based on the edit message provided ("Per WP:LYRICS - feel free to link to them on WP:COMMONS") and comments on the user page, I have understood that the idea is to transfer the lyrics out of Wikipedia onto another site of the Wikimedia project, such as Wikisource. However, User:ScrapIronIV has maintained that someone else must do the actual action of moving the content onto the other site and asks some other editor so in the edit message in question.

I am opening the discussion here to get opinions from a wider range of users about whether the lyrics should stay on the site or be moved elsewhere. I've attempted to suggest adding a template like Copy section to Wikisource under the Lyrics section, but even this has apparently not been enough for User:ScrapIronIV, instead preferring to plaster this notice onto the edit message, where people are unlikely to notice it. I personally believe that the lyrics are fine as is on the article itself, but have nothing against moving them to Wikisource and linking the Wikisource page into the article concerning the national anthem. For this, I believe the ideal solution is to add the template I mentioned earlier under the section rather than delete it outright.

What do other users think? Should the anthem lyrics be moved to Wikisource or not? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent restoration of lyrics

The consensus has been to remove lyrics from national anthem articles if they constitute an excessive portion of the page's contents. While it may be argued that the official Kazakh and English versions of these lyrics do not constitute such an excessive section, including unofficial translations definitely does (and likely violates WP:OR). The lyrics can also be found on Wikisource, rendering having the lyrics on the main article itself unnecessary. For these reasons the lyrics section has been removed from the article. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other related pages: WP:NPS and WP:NOTLYRICS, the latter of which states: "Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article." SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surjection: What you said regarding the excessive length of the articles is valid. I am willing to compromise, and I feel that I am justified in saying this, if the primary lyrics are left intact with the addition of the English translation and the unofficial translations are moved to Wikisource with an indication of their destination. The reason the main lyrics are left is because, despite their unnecessity, the alternative is much-more inconvenient to readers. If we can agree to these terms, I will reformat the article accordingly at your command. We both want to end this war, and I believe this is the most reasonable solution; what say you? -User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 14:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Учхљёная: The unofficial translations should just be removed: they violate WP:OR, as they do not originate from a reliable source. As for the main lyrics, I argue having a single extra click is less "convenient for the readers". If anything, the otherwise succinct nature of the article gives all the sufficient information to readers and allows them to access the full lyrics (including an official English translation) to be just a click away. I do agree that a conflict like this with active edit wars is not productive (e: for) either party. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surjection: So, we can agree that the unofficial translations be removed. However, I would argue that the main lyrics be included because of the inherent nature of articles detailing songs, and, correct me if I'm wrong, there is nothing mandating that Anthem-articles meet a certain quality of "succinct"ness. We can add the official translation, or better yet, transclude what has been placed on Wikisource, but the primary Lyrics must not be deleted in whole from the article. -User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 15:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Учхљёная: "...the inherent nature of articles detailing songs..." Most Wikipedia articles about songs do not include the full lyrics. The primary reason to include them is to provide an interpretation . "...here is nothing mandating that Anthem-articles meet a certain quality of "succinct"ness..." There is; I linked it in the very beginning of this thread. The guideline in particular is WP:NOTLYRICS. I already picked out the important part above as well, which states that Wikisource is the ideal place for full lyrics. Compare this to other national anthem articles; God Save the Queen, for instance, includes lyrics and variations of thereof, but is also populated with other material and constitute at most 20% of the vertical space of the article. The official lyrics section alone takes 50%, and with the unreliable unofficial translations, 80% of the vertical space of the article. I do not see this as "reasonable length". SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 15:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing now is somewhat dishonest behavior from User:Учхљёная - an edit that claimed I had "approved" the existence of lyrics on the page, which is clearly false from my statements. The user has also agreed to not have unofficial translations, but then contradicts this by reverting an edit that removes them with the message including "The translations are original, useful, and cannot be found in any other location." (Compare the dates: this discussion came before) So which one is it? I have stated quite a few times that the unofficial translations violate WP:OR and yet it seems this point has been completely ignored. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

I'm asking for a third opinion on this issue, as I feel the edit warring has gone on for too long (even though the consensus so far is not have any lyrics (and yet reverts keep going on even against WP:QUO). The dispute concerns this question: whether to have the full lyrics of a national anthem in articles that are too short for them. The part about unofficial translations seems to have the consensus of not including them. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

First of all - no "OR" translations. You shouldn't have a problem finding an official translation (or at least an RS one) of a national anthem. Second, length isn't an issue up to 3 stanzas (with a hard border of, say, 4-5 stanzas if they're <4 lines of <4 words each) as long as there's some informative reason to include the lyrics. Lyrics in general aren't necessarily that informative in this sense, but national anthems are always meaningful and culturally loaded, making them an exception and worthy of inclusion even if slightly longer (example) (but not necessarily in annoying, exhaustive tables like here). An acceptable way of including an entire poem is given here. Bottom line: keep one non-English script, one transliteration and one translation, drop the coloring and the verse subtitles (I know it's the "second verse" - I can count), and you'll have something that's both faithful and compact. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. If I understood correctly, the lyrics provided in a more compact form should be included in the main article, even if the lyrics are available on Wikisource (with a link provided by a template)? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 09:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It's the sort of material that merits inclusion here, and raises no concerns of turning Wiki into something it's not (eg. a lyrics database). The only problem is the formatting, which needs to be subdued. Bear in mind that with time the article will grow around it (eg. with an "analysis" section), so even if it was slightly longer we could've included it with little disturbance to layout. François Robere (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A similar content dispute occurred at Anthem of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic over whether or not WP:LYRICS applies in situations where copyright is not a concern (such as national anthems). Many involved editors, uninvolved editors that contributed to the article, and third-party voices were pinged, and a near unanimous consensus was achieved: WP:NOTLYRICS does not apply to national anthem articles because the policy explicitly regards copyright. Please keep this in mind. The lyrics should not be removed from this article based on WP:LYRICS, nor should they be from National anthem of France, National anthem of Burkina Faso, or any other song article where there's obviously no copyright infringement. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of lyrics?

Please join discussion at Talk:Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic#Discuss inclusion of lyrics.--Nø (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]