Jump to content

Talk:Cutty-sark (witch)

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

hyphenated

[edit]

Why is the title hyphenated? It is inconsistent with the rest of the article. 203.214.112.124 12:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Cutty sark is an already well established page about the ship. I believe the article is hyphenated following the original quote from Tam. I'm removing the move template (since it can't be moved to an existing page), please feel free add another request if another title is suggested! --Lox (t,c) 20:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Burns' Cutty-sark, which should most correctly be hyphenated. If you look in the poem itself, Burns does not hyphenate "her cutty sark" (= her short nightdress) but does hyphenate when the phrase is a nick-name for the girl. And that's the point - this article is not about two Scots words but about a literary figure and her later cultural ramifications. The varying spelling (both hypenation and capitalisation) throughout the article is therefore not inconsistent but is making the proper distinctions. --Doric Loon 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pun

[edit]

Possibly I'm being thick, but can someone explain in what sense the phrase "Cutty Sark is a Freudian slip" is a triple or quadruple pun? It seems to me to be a simple pun on slip (= 1. lapse, 2. undergarment). To look for more is surely squeezing a joke beyond limits of its humorous productivity. Anyway, does this joke belong in the article? It doesn't elucidate the cultural constellation and seems to me to be nothing more than a quick laugh for its own sake. --Doric Loon 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed Another reference, "Cutty Sark is a Freudian slip," is a rare quadruple pun and is unclear in origin. from the article. If anyone wishes to revert, please feel free to do so, but please explain here! --Lox (t,c) 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go: --Tysto 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Revealing slip of the tongue as described by Freud, the literal meaning
  2. Slip garment arousing sexual feelings described by Freud
  3. Slip of a girl arousing sexual feelings described by Freud
  4. ??? (nautical slip? pun on "ship"?)
  5. Profit!

Merge?

[edit]

I suggest merging this article with Tam o' Shanter (Burns poem). Thoughts? Guinnog 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. But I noted my thoughts on the other page (Talk:Tam o' Shanter (Burns poem)), and to keep the discussion in one place, anyone else should put their opinions there rather than here. --Doric Loon 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree also, a Cutty sark is something which exists separately from Tam o' Shanter (Burns poem) and therefore deserves an article of it's own.

Other Uses

[edit]

There is a list of "other uses" here, but it seems to me that this belongs on the disambiguation page. Should this be merged? -Leevclarke 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty-sark

[edit]

The cutty-sark is not a character in the poem, it is an article of clothing worn by Nannie. Tam 'congratulates' the cutty-sark for enabling him to see far too much of Nannie, who had worn the said garment from an early age when she was smaller. Upon reading the poem if people think I have misinterpreted the lines please let me know. --Edmund Patrick 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted your change in the text before I noticed you had written here - normally I would answer discussion first. I think that is ingenious, and of course poetry can be interpreted may ways, but I am pretty sure that is not the normal reading. To me the name cutty-sark, in line 189 is his form of address to the girl for whom he knows no other name. (As opposed to line 171, where it is clearly a common noun.) The capitalisation and the hyphenation both support this. --Doric Loon 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First "recorded literary usage"

[edit]

The earliest recorded literary usage of cutty sark is by Dougal Graham in c. 1779 (the year of his death): "A cutty sark of guide harn sheet, My mitter he pe spin, mattam."

Clearly not, since Tam O'Shanter was written in 1790 and published in 1791. Removed. Flapdragon 11:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err... 1779 is before 1790. Or am I missing something? --Mais oui! 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete brainstorm on my part. Apologies all round. (Perhaps there should have been a reference to DSL though, as well as a translation; OED has nothing earlier than the Burns citation.) Flapdragon 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brainstorms are a perfectly normal part of daily life I am afraid ;)
I did consider bunging in yet another DSL ref, but it was already on one of the other 3. --Mais oui! 07:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Editors take exception to the proposal's assertion that fictional classes cannot be used for parenthetical disambiguation. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Cutty-sark (witch) → ? – Witches aren't real (at least not as portrayed by Burns). I think Cutty-sark alone is sufficient per WP:SMALLDETAILS, or if that's too ambiguous, then Cutty-sark (Robert Burns) might be preferable. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you derailed your own RM by proposing something else. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I purposely left it open-ended. I'd be fine with almost any title but the current one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 29 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There isn't a consensus that this isn't the primary topic, and some editors argue it may also be the ship, the area of Greenwich around the ship's dry-dock, or even the whiskey.

There is a suggestion for something like "Cutty-sark (fictional character)", but with several options along those lines suggested, I don't feel comfortable randomly picking one; I suggest a second RM be opened to determine a more clear consensus, to which this RM closure should not prejudice. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Cutty-sark (witch)Cutty-sark – Users opposed to the previous move proposal focused on the fact that the subject "is" a witch, ignoring MOS:REALWORLD, which says that Wikipedia presents topics from a real-world perspective, describing fictional characters as objects of the narrative rather than according to their in-universe qualities. Witches aren't real, so according to this guideline "witch" shouldn't be used as a disambiguator. For comparison, none of the other titles in Category:Fictional witches use the term "witch" except as part of a proper noun. The proposed title Cutty-sark is unambiguous per WP:DIFFCAPS. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Imagine a reader who is searching for something they know is conected with the name Cutty Sark. Entering "Cutty Sark" in the search box will throw up a number of options in addition to the well known Tea Clipper, including the whisky, a short story by Ivan Yefremov, the witch character from Tam o' Shanter, a pub in Greenwich, a private yacht, a 1920's flying boat and a station on the Docklands Light Railway. This rename, if followed by a swift click, would take them directly to a page showing a link to the disambiguation page which they would then have to click on to find the various options. Why subject them to the additional hoop jumping? WP:IAR trumps MOS:REALWORLD in this case --Cactus.man 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per this fictional character seems to be the basis of all its namesakes. Nom states that "witches aren't real", so they've missed out on some very nice people (and so close to Samhain too). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that witches are depicted in the poem as horrific and threatening, I doubt Burns had the modern re-appropriated meaning of "witch" in mind. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but modern televised fiction keeps the horrific and threatening exterior alive as well, so it has never gone away (and clearly is profitable for the media). It's a good way of hiding information in plain sight, kind of like the Church of the Subgenius material which uses the traditional techniques of chasing away almost all curious readers before they talk about the real stuff. But my 'support' was for making the exact wording and styling 'Cutty-sark' primary, as proposed in the nom, as it is the namesake of all the others. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Primary topic debate is still raging. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Another question is whether "(witch)" is an appropriate qualifier. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.