Talk:Fairytale of New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What it's about[edit]

listen to "Fairytale Of New York" when you're sober- it's about Alcholism Not Emigration Lion King 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about fixing the article yourself? I try to avoid getting sober unless absolutely necessary. Kappa 01:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to fix the article,but i'm off up the boozer Mate! Lion King 11:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that it is a conversation between two Irish immigrants. Apart from the obvious Irish musical connection there is nothing in the lyrics to say that the characters are either Irish or immigrants. It is possible to be Irish-American and not an immigrant (79.190.69.142 (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • The protagonists of the song obviously came from elsewhere, and from a place where New York City is the stuff of legends. You can be pretty sure they didn't move there from Boston. 24.42.71.182 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the speculation re: Sinatra's New York, New York a little daft. To me, it's implicit that they're singing about mid-century New York, when Sinatra was swinging as pop idol of the bobby soxers. Also, yeah, protagonists are clearly not American. The woman's reaction (cars big as bars, rivers of gold) is not how an American, but how a European would react to seeing New York for the first time. And junk (as in, "you're an old slut on junk") was originally a jazz-era term for heroin. It may not be explicit to the era but it fits, you know?
    • Oh yeah, and it isn't about alcoholism. It's the Pogues, for heaven's sake. Most of their songs reference drinking. Just because he sings "It was Christmas Eve in the drunk tank"? The song is about Irish emigration the U.S., period end of sentence: how America has always been the promised land for the Irish poor, who find it's not all they'd hoped it would be. Lion King, you're way off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.11 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vehicles in the street scenes of the video are 1980s made. If it was meant to be set earlier that that, they did nothing to portray or indicate that in the video. Jim Michael (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page location[edit]

Since the article on the book now resides at A Fairy Tale of New York (and in any case is less well known than the song) I'd be in favour of moving this article in place of the disambiguation page at Fairytale of New York. A disambig line could be put in place at the top of both pages, to avoid any confusion. Anyone have any comments about this? └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Angmering 15:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been plenty of time since my above message, and no objections, I've now moved the article on the song to replace the dab page at Fairytale of New York and added a disambig line to the book. I trust everyone's OK with this! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also updated links to this article, so as to avoid the redirect that would otherwise have been introduced. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I've added an infobox to the article, but there's a fair bit of information which I didn't know still to add └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from article[edit]

Trivia[edit]

Why has this been removed from the article? Icecold (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

There's no chart info outside of the UK. Was this a hit at all in the US? Are they aware of the song?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song got airplay on college radio when it was first released, but never charted here in the USA -- Foetusized (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2022 and we are still not aware of this song in the US. Sounds like a real downer, wonder why it's such a UK Christmas favorite. 2600:1700:7C50:B2C0:E1BD:800:9970:C10A (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

God bless Mitch Benn for trying. I'm no expert on Liverpool slang but I know that, in Ireland, the word faggot either refers to a bound bunch of sticks or to a homosexual. I'll leave it to your imagination which is more frequently used. I don't think it worth making an edit to the article other than perhaps replace "commented" with "claimed", but my research (a quick Google) revealed a suitable citation Irish Slang - faggot: insult to a homosexual. Scartboy (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true now but previously (in Ireland (I'm Irish) and the UK) the term faggot or 'bunch of sticks' was a euphemism for a lazy, weak, work-shy person. This morphed into an effeminate person and then specified to a (flamboyantly) homosexual person. It is entirely true, but you have to remember both the time the song was written and the time period the song is set.
I think you are quite right. My Irish grandmother occasionally called my sister and me "little faggots" in the 1950's, and she was railing affectionately. I am sure she wasn't calling us "bunches of sticks" or "flamboyant homosexuals." Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In more recent articles by the Irish Independent, in response to the 2018 controversy over RTÉ's airing of the song, cited in this article the use of the word "faggot" to mean a lazy person is not mentioned with the focus being on the word's use as an anti-gay slur. I have yet to see an Irish media outlet talk about this seemingly dated meaning of the term. Tk420 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is helpful but I have found this article on CBC Radio[1] mentioning the word's use to mean a lazy person which is the only mention of it I have so far seen outside the Pink News article quoting Mitch Benn.[2] However, it does incorrectly claim the Pogues are Irish and misspells you're as "Your".Tk420 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot like the author has copied most of his article from Wikipedia, as it makes the same argument almost word for word, so it could be seen as a circular citation. Sadly there are a lot of these on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reminded of this in a conversation in the comments section of a You Tube video by Name Explain about the sweet midget gems which raised the subject of problematically named foods. When Faggot (food) came up, SuperPeeves remembered the song and in a reply, Yes Yes claimed "The reason that The Pogues were told off for using it (the word faggot) was because they aren't Irish so that use of the word wouldn't have been in their vocabulary." I have so far not seen any reliable sources to back this up but I have seen Mitch Benn's claim of the word being Irish and Liverpudlian slang for a lazy person quoted in a Pink News article dated 19 November 2020. Tk420 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Have we hit peak cancel culture?". CBC Radio. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2022.
  2. ^ Milton, Josh (19 November 2020). "Arguing about Fairytale of New York and its homophobic slur is Britain's worst festive tradition". PinkNews. Retrieved 7 December 2020.

How many sales?[edit]

The website www.masterton.co.uk in which James Masterton provides a detailed analysis of the UK music charts each week, contains the following: "Before the holiday it was also reported that Fairytale Of New York had been confirmed as a million seller too, but I think this was based on a miscalculation of its original 1987 sale as the claim has now been withdrawn. Best estimates are that it is about 100,000 copies short, a gap it should theoretically make up over the next couple of years if its popularity remains undimmed." I think this is good enough reason for my edit to be reinserted.

Opinion vs. Wiki-Talk on Artistic Pages[edit]

"....(Reverted to revision 528720245 by TheOldJacobite: Once again, this is not a forum for your opinions. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:26, 19 December 2012‎ Pete318(talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,275 bytes) (+1,193)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 00:30, 19 December 2012‎ TheOldJacobite(talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,082 bytes) (-641)‎ . .(Reverted to revision 471154319 by 78.150.215.25: This is not a forum. (TW)) (undo)......."

Encylopedias - online or otherwise - are not forums for opinions, true, but it is hard to tell this in the "What it's about" Section? Further, "opinion" may not have a place in technical Wiki-articles, but a "TALK" page about the interpretaion of poetic or lyrical artistic text is another matter. The questions to debate were (a) what role does emigration and alcoholism play in the writing of the song and (b) was the reference to the "NYPD Choir" intended to be literal?

This sort of "TALK" would not be out of place in a University English Literature class.

It is also difficult to tell if both deleters were making the point that the page was not a forum for opinions or just the opinions of some contributers?

Either way, I am out of here! - wiki or no wiki - you are welcome to keep your page exclusive. I can't sing or play music - much less write the stuff -for beans anyway.

Pete318 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the header at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fairytale of New York article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This being Wikipedia, you just can't offer up personal opinions; we need reliable sources for content to be added to the article -- Foetusized (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-Protocol>> You can't place original material nor opinion, regardless of its accuracy or substance in the Article itself - fine. But how can one "discuss improvements" to an article without a "general discussion". And further, it is literature - there is a limit to how analytical one can be with literary commentary. Besides I was only genuinely hoping to participate in the "...opinion and general discussion...." already ongoing (and still ongoing) in the first section of the TALK page [hope they work it out before being deleted]. This topic brought to mind the only two Christmases that I was away from home - got caught up in the season as they say.
Don't worry about it. Delete this section if you wish - really - the arts are not my forte and I have merely one Irish great grandparent anyway. I am out of this page. Even if I find a commentary published elsewhere that supports my suggestions for improvement I probably will not be back.

Pete318 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions[edit]

Per WP:SONGCOVER, cover versions need multiple reliable sources to prove that those recordings are notable in and of themselves. As none of the examples in the cover versions section had such sources, I deleted the section. If sources can be found to prove that some of those versions are notable, please readd them. And local papers covering local bands do not fit the definition of a reliable source. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE:
Quite so, but a case of the BBC radio service broadcasting nationally-played cover versions is quite a different matter altogether. As Wikipedia's policy states: "You are invited to show that information is verifiable by referencing reliable sources."
Wiki policy WP:SONGCOVER further states:
Cover versions/multiple renditions
"When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
    • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition),
    • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."
The BBC clearly meets the criteria, and the cover version is not an album-inclusion but has been released in its own right.
You claim that local papers covering local bands is against Wiki policy which is wholly incorrect - the policy states nothing of the sort, and this has been added here arbitrarily by yourself to try and justify your repeated vandalism of a wholly-correctly referenced line entry.
the cover version is not listed as a separate page, but conforms totally to the existing Wiki policies, even if it doesn't conform to your own misinterpreted skew on those policies.
On the notability side of things, the song had over 3,000 national radio plays, and the official video has over 10,200 views on YouTube. Amazon and iTunes also list the cover version as a worldwide-downloadable MP3, and both those organisations don't tend to offer non-notable or amateur recordings.
In all, the vandalism, arbitrary and non-policy editing and what can only be construed as personal prejudice from both TheOldJacobite and Sjo are clear breaches of Wiki policies, Wiki's standards and the basic ethic and mission statement of Wikipedia of allowing people from around the World to contribute to this global project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.147.177 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
There was only one source (the BBC source didn't work, at least not for me). Also, there is nothing that supports that the cover version is notable per WP:NSONGS. If you have sources that show notability, please add them. I have to agree with TheOldJacobite here that unless there are sources per WP:SONGCOVER the cover version doesn't belong in the article. Sjö (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I've come across this argument while on vandalism patrol, and have a few comments from a disinterested party, for what its worth: First, the BBC link to the episode is "not available" on the online page, so it says, so that doesn't work as a reference. The other one (ref 18) does support the assertion of the cover, with the associated details. To me, as a relatively new wikian, it seems reasonable to include that cover, as it is cited to a reliable source. Saying it is otherwise not-notable would seem to be assigning worth to it based on personal opinions, which should be avoided. If a cite to a reliable source is the benchmark, which it seems to be given Jacobite's warnings to the IP, then it should stay. Second, to the IP, Jacobite undoing your addition based on his interpretations of policy is 100% not vandalism, so please do not refer to it as such. See WP:VANDALISM for what is and is not vandalism. Rather than attacking the messenger, the goal is to calmly discuss whay you think it should be there, and he will respond with why he disagrees, and we all come to a nice agreement and move on. Electric Wombat (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
all well and good Electric Wombat, but TheOldJacobite left numerous unreferenced covers on here, and only started getting involved when I added another version. He then asked for references ( and I agree that at least one reference should be given) and he then agreed that the BBC was a credible source - see his comments, but still removed the entry. Wholly hypocritical! I put it back and he seemed to leave it alone for a while only to remove it again arbitrarily, and then argue against his very own must-include-reference argument from earlier. A narcissistic reaction if ever I saw one. Anyway, I am glad that you agree that a properly referenced entry should remain. Maybe TheOldJacobite will now grow up and stop thinking he owns this page, or Wikipeidia for that matter... The same goes for Sjo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.147.177 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would again ask that you temper your accusations. We all have the same goal: a complete encyclopedic article on the subject, but you'll probably find that your "opponents" will be more receptive to a calmly worded argument than an invective-laced one. Regards, Electric Wombat (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that TheOldJacobite has once again removed the referenced entry despite your determination that it seems a reasonable edit. So, when is he going to be dealt with and told to leave that particular edit alone, or is it one rule for newcomers and a different rule for those with the contacts?109.148.147.177 (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there is one source, and it's on the subject of the rendition, not on the song. That means that the criteria in WP:SONGCOVER aren't met. For the cover version (any cover version) to be included in the article it needs at least a discussion of the rendition in "a reliable source on the subject of the song (not on the subject of the rendition)". If the rendition is notable enough there should be no trouble finding sources. Sjö (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that TheOldJacobite is doing nothing more than what he accuses others of... E.g. Not adhering to Wiki policy, constantly breaching anti-reversion rules and generally trolling to try and start editing wars with new editors. His latest revert - after admin decision - is clearly spiteful vandalism. 1) he left the article in an unreferenced state for months, and made no attempt to clear them up or remove them. 2) he took exception to an entry that was referenced properly, including a reference to the BBC - the BBC being a reference source for other items on this page, yet hypocrisy reared its head and TheOldJacobite failed to acknowledge, only finally accepting when having the nonsense of his illogical inconsistent application of policy pointed out. 2a) he also claimed that the newspaper source included wants notable enough despite having a readership level that warranted its own actual entry in Wikipedia - a newspaper that has been published for over 100 years. 3) he continually reverts the repair of the included entry, which meets ALL Wiki policies. These are reverted accordingly by me as they breach no rules but simply have some personal issue with TheOldJacobite. Maybe TheOldJacobite thinks he owns the page. Who knows what motive lies behind the behaviour? 4) He then summons up 'help' from a sock-buddy who also removes it and then threatens me with blocking because he can't gets his own way. That editor has no and rights so simply reverts to threats and bravado against a new user. it should be noted that Sjo has been previously warned on his page about treating new editors with contempt and warning him to stop simply removing new edits, so a behaviour pattern that is common to both of them. 5) TheOldJacobite then has me referred to admin for alleged vandalism - no action is taken. TheOldJacobite also tries to make me out as some sort of vandal purely because I have an IP rather than a full username...this is just childish diversion tactics, 6) TheOldJacobite requests the page is locked - no action is taken as admins clearly don't agree. If anything it should be locked against him reverting a totally acceptable entry. 7) Electric Wombat (admin) reviews the entry and determines it's good for inclusion and asks all to stop the edit war. I agree but would like to see an equal admonishment made to TheOldJacobite and Sjo for their arbitrary editing, non equitable application of policy and the gang-up bullying mentality against a new user. But, I won't hold my breath as I've seen all of TheOldJacobite's and Sjo's disciplinary record and it's clear that nothing really gets done about trolls like these so-called [editors] who simply delight on playing judge and jury and clearly think they own Wikipedia. 8) Despite Electric Wombat's decision of inclusion, TheOldJacobite again reverts the entry. this is clearly against strict Wiki rules about reverting after an admin decision has been made. I wonder if ThOldJacobite will be blocked temporarily for sticking two fingers up at the admin team? 9) I have now applied the admin decision and reverted it back to what it was before TheOldJacobite vandalised it yet again. 10) I am wondering if Wikipedia is broken beyond repair when it allows personal and prejudicial views of editors like TheOldJacobite and Sjo to interfere with the mission statement of Wikipedia to create a globally-contributed knowledge base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.147.177 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring. You have still failed to demonstrate compliance with the criteria of WP:SONGCOVER. Please also stop accusing other users of vandalism; Electric Wombat in his reply above reminded you very clearly that such accusations were unfounded. You mentioned a reference to the BBC, but the page you referred to makes no mention of Fairytale of New York nor of this cover version. I am also somewhat confused by your reference to an "admin decision", as I see no sign of any administrator being involved in this discussion; in your point 7 above you refer to "Electric Wombat (admin)", but I think that you will find that Electric Wombat is, as he said himself "a relatively new wikian", and not an admin. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, look, another sock-buddy of TheOldJacobtrite crawls out the woodwork to support his opinionated and personal-editing prejudice. And still they hypocritically defy admin.

Mark Arsten was the Admin who made the decision when TheOldJacobite tried to refer me for vandalism... Electric Wombat made his own views known. Yes, the BBC appear to have archived off their radio interview and feature broadcast since the original edit. It looks like they do this after 14 days. However, the newspaper articles are still online, as is the download pages that prove that this was a properly released single with a full marketing and promotional plan behind it...(I suppose that you'll next be saying that Amazon and Apple are not credible reference points to confirm the song!!!). The charity's official website also contains a suitable reference that conforms to Wiki policy. Their website is registered with the UK Government's Charity Commission as their official registered website, or are you intending to argue that the Charities Commission of the United Kingdom also fails to meet credibility policy? (it would not surprise me if you did, even though that organization also has it's own Wiki entry and is referenced thousands of times in other articles - editors like you and TheOldjacobite like to pick and choose which reference points based on personal opinion, and not the fact of the matter. That is shown in your logs. Having looked at WP:SONGCOVER for the twentieth time, this entry clearly meets all the criteria, so please stop quoting policy enforcement when the policy is met, otherwise you risk making yourself look more and more stupid every time you delete it or incorrectly quote a policy to which the entry conforms. TheOldJacobite and his other sock-puppets, or buddy puppets, have referred the entry to admin, for both an (unfounded) allegation of vandalism, and whether the entry met policy criteria. He also asked for the page to be locked, and me blocked, on the basis of the entry - see the referrals for vandalism and page locking request pages...etc. The entry was reviewed and found to be suitable and referenced correctly, even if the BBC programme has since been archived - that is, however, the whole point of the archival retrieval date noted within the reference tag. The Admin do not feel that the page warrants locking, nor me to be blocked, as I am simply conforming to Wikipedia policies; policies that are so liberally quoted at me by those who then hypocritically contradict the very policy they like to crow about. Is it any wonder that thousands of people are wholly unsatisfied with the general atmosphere within Wikipedia when a few (almost trolling) editors like to arbitrarily remove information simply based on personal views rather than verifiable links. TheOldJacobite, Sjo and now you, have simply shown that if you are proven wrong, had the policies correctly pointed out to you (later backed up by admin) you STILL will not accept the edit, preferring instead to continue playing childish games in repetitive removal of something to which you have some sort of weird personal issue with. Your own deletion of this edit, following admin's clear acceptance of the entry is - like TheOldJacobite's and Sjo's behavior - now clearly in breach of Wiki policy and now suitable for requesting a temporary edit block to be placed on your account for, basically, ignoring admin's earlier decision on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.147.177 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As an example of the non-level playing field that amateur editors like to enforce on Wikipedia, why don't you skip off to any other Song page that has cover versions and remove every single non-referenced cover version. As just one example out of thousands on Wikipedia, Always on My Mind has numerous listed covers with almost none having references AT ALL, and those that do are simply links to the cover artist's website!!! Talk about hypocritical standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.147.177 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE For the record, I am not an admin, nor have I claimed to be one. My comments that it should have been included here were my own opinion, and hardly a declaration or determination. That said, personally, I think WP:SONGCOVER is a little too stringent in their requirements, but if that is the consensus for inclusion that they came up with, then that's what it is. Edit warring here is not the way to change that - a discussion on that talk page is. Electric Wombat (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism and prejudicial reverts by TheOldJacobite and others[edit]

Well, it seems my concerns were justifiably founded then. It seem that this isn't the first time that TheOldJacobite has been involved with personal attacks, harassment and arbitrary reversion of articles. That probably explains his attempts to have my edits removed, the page blocked and me blocked - requests that were ignored by Admin. I was quite shocked to read the log on him as it's clear that he hasn't learned a thing about courtesy to new editors, (quote) "violation of reversion rules", or "repeatedly adding inadequately sourced rumor". I guess some people never learn which is a real pity, as the article is otherwise pretty sound. TheOldJacobite just seems to want to own it, and not let anyone add anything of note to enrich it. I think he should be reminded of Jimmy W's mission that Wikipedia should be open to all, and not just those who think they own Wiki, which they clearly don't. No wonder Wiki is imcreasingly viewed as broken beyond repair when users of his ilk are allowed to bully and harass users over edits that are FULLY IN LINE WITH WIKI POLICY!

Block Log: User:TheOldJacobite. 01:44, 23 October 2013 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) blocked TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Wool 100%) 19:35, 30 March 2013 Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) blocked TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks and violation of the three revert rule: Completely inappropriate edit summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=547855858&oldid=547855799) 00:38, 18 September 2008 FisherQueen (talk | contribs) blocked TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: Repeatedly adding inadequately sourced rumor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.147.177 (talk)

Song title[edit]

One bit of the article says the title was chosen after the song had been recorded, another says MacGowan settled on the title back in 1985. Does anyone know which is correct? MFlet1 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MFlet1: which bit of the article says the title was chosen after the song was recorded? I am responsible for writing most of this version of the article, so I will check my sources and try and sort it out if there is a conflict. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last sentence of the "Composition" section. Thanks - MFlet1 (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, you are absolutely right - that and the 'Legacy' section were the only two I didn't alter, which is why it slipped past me! I'll go through the whole article when I have time and check it properly... for starters I can see one factual error that I've made. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fairytale of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fairytale of New York. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Question? A help request is open: <The bot causes a problem trying to archive this site – it gets caught in a loop and the page doesn't load. It would be best to exclude this site from the list of sites the bot is trying to archive.>. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chriswyattuk (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Mitch Benn reference removed[edit]

Reference to Mitch Benn was removed in 989728936 with no explanation, and too many lines have changed in this one commit [[3]]

I think there is a point to the removal, though... it's a personal opinion expressed on a personal podcast, so it's not an independent source. It hasn't been reported anywhere else, and there's no proof that Benn's explanation is true. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart history[edit]

The list of chart positions from every annual appearance of the song is now getting rather long. Is it worth having one section listing the chart peaks from its original release, then another one showing the peaks for the entire download/streaming era (i.e. since 2005)? Something similar has already been done with "All I Want For Christmas is You". Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. The section isn't too unmanageable at this point, but it's only gonna keep getting bigger each year. Since Christmas fell on a Monday this year, chances are it will still chart next Friday, so I'll leave it until the beginning of January to make these changes, unless someone else wants to. Only modification I'd make to the above is to still retain the individual chart positions for each physical reissue (1980s, 90s, 2005 and 2012), and combine everything else. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairytale_of_New_York&oldid=1207739178"