|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 23
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
== Special treatment for O Canada? ==
I have not spent much time with music pages on Wikipedia so this is an honest question. I am from the US and think our national anthem is special, so I not trying to be uncivil. But, why is the national anthem the only song on the template? It would seem to me that the compromise offered above for a patriotic music link actually fits the rest of the template, given that there are no other individual songs on the template, only groups. So honestly, why give the national anthem special treatment? [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 08:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:If the 'national anthem' is deleted from the Template, I won't loose any sleep over it. I mentioned earlier, the Template shouldn't have individual songs listed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:: The consensus has been that since it is included on other similar templates it should remain here. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Perhaps the national anthems should be deleted from all Music Templates. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Where is that consensus? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm speculating here, but I think the national anthem field was added to the navbox template because there's no doubt a country's national anthem falls within the scope of music in that country. However, I haven't yet seen a convincing explanation of how linking to an article on Canadian patriotic songs, that itself would cover (probably first) the national anthem, in any way defines the national anthem as un-Canadian or less Canadian, if indeed there is such a metric to use. The purpose of this navbox is not to define what songs are Canadian or which is most Canadian, anyway; it is to help readers navigate between articles withint the topic of music in Canada, which would still be achieved (more economically, in fact) by using the one link to an article about multiple Canadian patriotic songs. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::The royal anthem tends to be viewed as a British song, another likely reason for resistance to its inclusion. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Which is why we use reliable sources. I don't get the relevance of your comment to mine, however. I was speaking specifically about the national anthem, since that's what Dkriegls asked about and it's the removal of that song upon which those opposed to the "patriotic songs article" proposal are basing their opposition. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::Has anyone stopped to consider how [[WP:LAME]] this dispute it? Please, flip a coin and move on. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::These disputes tend to happen concerning the British monarchy in Canada. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I've said more than once that a vote is likely the only way to resolve this matter. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Then let's have one and get this bloody debate over with. [[User:Nations United|Nations United]] ([[User talk:Nations United|talk]]) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Seconded -- [[User:MichiganCharms|MichiganCharms]] ([[User talk:MichiganCharms|talk]]) 02:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Voting is not a way to settle disputes in WP and, in any case, there have been several inconclusive polls already. The options were, I believe, correctly stated by GoodDay in the section above: 1) remove both anthems or 2) remove the royal anthem. We do not have consensus to remove both anthems—several editors have pointed out that O Canada is an exemplar of Canadian music. What I am not seeing is a rationale that justifies adding the Royal Anthem to the template. Have I missed something? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
: No. You haven't missed it. It's never been offered except "she's the monarch of Canada and so we should list it". --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 07:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::I'm missing a rational for keeping the National anthem, besides that's just the way it is done. Creating a link for patriotic music fits with the templates format of links to song/music groupings and serves neither a pro nor anti-monarch agenda (IMO). The arguments for non-deletion due to how important it is to Canada fail to address why a Patriot Music link doesn't achieve this same end. The royal anthem can be added to the linked page, with caveats explaining its limited use and legal standing in Canada. It's a simple solution, and ends the dispute without loss of content for the reader, which is the most important aspect. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 09:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::: It seems that many other national music templates include the national anthem and that seems to be the best reason to keep it. Your suggestion seems good, but I would make it nationalistic and patriotic songs. Canada hasn't traditionally been strong on patriotism. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:'''@ Sunray''': There's never been a consensus to remove the royal anthem, either (hence, this debate ''still'' continues). You must have indeed missed the rationales given for including it; they're in amongst all the verbiage, some specifically [[#Official Endorsements for the RFC here|here]], [[#Reasons for inclusion|here]] (in direct response to your request for a summary of reasons), [[#Legality vs. tradition|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada#Opening Statements|here]], and peppered throughout all the discussion above and elsewhere. If one reviews them, I'm sure it can be seen how few, if any, are as simple as "she's the monarch of Canada and so we should list it".
:It can't be disputed that "O Canada" is an important piece of music in Canada. However, it remains to be seen how or why this navbox is supposed to determine what is the ''most'' Canadian song and demonstrate that by showing it as the sole song in the box. Navboxes are simply [[WP:NAVBOX|supposed to]] "[contain] links to a group of related articles." As Dkriegls notes, linking to a patriotic songs article does exactly that without diminishing the importance of "O Canada" within Canada's musical repitoire and avoids any bias (from anyone's point of view) in this box. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 12:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:GSTQ is a British song, that's likely an underlying reason for some editors wanting it excluded from this Template. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::It's not just a British song anymore. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 14:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::: It's never been an uncontested addition either. You bullied an editor to insert it. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::No, I did not. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::: Yes you did. We can ask the editor if you would like but the edit history shows what happened.
::::: "O Canada" has a place both in law and in common culture. I have given examples of that before (spontaneous singing in the streets during the 2010 Winter Olympics, crowds singing it during international sporting events during game play, etc.). "God Save the Queen" does not enjoy that legal or and no longer enjoys that popular support. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::The histories of the template and this talk page shows I did not.
::::::The relevance of greater popularity and legal status to this debate remains in question; no eludication has yet been given for why anthems, specifically (if anthems are to be included), must meet those narrow parameters that just so happen to be characteristics of one of the official anthems in Canada (thereby favouring it) and not the other (thereby excluding it). Without explanation otherwise, it appears to be deliberate favoritism and exclusion rooted in personal preference, which is contrary to [[WP:NPOV]]. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Yet, insisting that the 'royal anthem' be included ''with'' the national anthem, can also appear as being rooted in personal preference - which is contrary to NPoV. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Quite the opposite. If anthems are to be included, including both official anthems is partial to neither. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::That would be an accurate and/or useful statement if Canada had more than one official anthem. Since the only official anthem is ''O Canada'', a fact with which you are quite familiar by this point, your statement is nonsensical. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::That something is official only when it has "legal status" is your personal definition of "official" and, as such, has no bearing on this discussion. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::But ''your'' personal definition is different, I suppose? '''''Fuck that nonsense'''''. There is not a single Act of Parliament, regulation, warrant, letter patent, or order-in-council governing the use of GSTQ in an official capacity, notably unlike ''O Canada'' (and the coat of arms and the flag and ''every other national symbol we have''). Heritage itself states that there is no legal status and is '''''considered as''''' Canada's royal anthem--which is, one hopes someone old enough to remember the Clinton years will notice, not the same as '''''is'''''. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#465945;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#465945;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::GSTQ doesn't get the same recognition as the nationa anthem, because GSTQ is a British song. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Perhaps, both songs should be excluded based on their bigotry towards atheists. Both song are pro-religion. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{ec}} I use the standard - that is, the dictionary - definition of "official", not my own. It does not say that something is official only when it is created by or given a designation by act of parliament or order-in-council. If what you say is the definition of "official" were true, the UK would have no official national anthem or flag. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::Non sequitur. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Except not. You brought up other stuff that is irrelevant to ''this'' discussion. Using a dictionary definition to support your position when the government has never said it is official is the very definition of [[WP:SYN]]. You know this, of course. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
{{od|:::::::::::::::}} Then your position is undermined by your own argument since there's no government source saying "O Canada" is official. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:The pedantry is entirely yours. [http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-2/FullText.html O Canada is the national anthem of Canada]. There is no such law governing GSTQ. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::{{ec}} The word "official" isn't anywhere in there except relating specifically to the status of consolidations. So, we're back to the "only that which is created or given a designation by law is official" argument again, again. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::: Its lyrics were made official in 1980 and it was then made the only national anthem by Canada's parliament. Sorry that "official" isn't in there. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Sure. Just as the government says "God Save the Queen" is "played officially". However, neither meets roux's strict requirement that a government source explicitly saying "[X] is official" is needed to make something official, lest one engage in [[WP:SYN|synthesis]]. Of course, no such requirement need be met, for either anthem to be considered official. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::: Sorry. You're either wilfully wrong, ignorant, or a boldfaced liar. You know that "O Canada" is legally Canada's anthem via an act of parliament, that makes it ''de jure'', as opposed to "GStQ" which is only the ''de facto'' royal anthem. No act of parliament has made "GStQ" such. Our own article on the national anthem indicates exactly what I'm saying and has two perfectly good references. There are more but I don't have time to split hairs with you M. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::You're not sorry at all, of course. But, I reiterate (for, what, the fifteenth time?) the point neither you nor roux can seem to refute: in no way is the definition of "official" solely "the status of only that which has been created or given designation by law". Denying it doesn't make it less true. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 14:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::This dispute has gone on for so long, that no matter the result (inclusion/exclusion), it's gonna look like the result of personal preference. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::}} I was asked, in light of [[WP:CIVIL]], to strike the statement above: "You're either wilfully wrong, ignorant, or a boldfaced liar." However, I'm here instead to clarify that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Music_of_Canada&diff=475809226&oldid=475808806 M earlier stated that "O Canada" is the official national anthem] when he copied and pasted: "Since the proclamation of 'O Canada' as the National Anthem in 1980". He knows that it's the official national anthem and that it achieved that status in 1980. While he would like us to think that "official" needs to be in the phrase, we all know that when the Queen proclaims something that makes it official, unless he's questioning the queen in which case, God save the queen. While my response may not have been treating this particular editor "with consideration and respect", the actions of that editor certainly don't do so of several editors with whom he disagrees. While I should not stoop to such tactics, I don't feel particularly remorseful for pointing out this editor's shortcomings in this matter and would feel more than welcome to have M strike all of the [[WP:DICK|uncivil]] actions performed during this debate. In which case I would strike the above comment while leaving this one intact. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 07:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:I never said when "O Canada" became the official national anthem. I asked roux for a government source that uses the specific word "official" specifically in phrasing about "O Canada" because that's ''precisely'' what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Music_of_Canada&diff=489025815&oldid=489024928 roux first demanded] I provide for "God Save the Queen", lest I otherwise be declared guilty of performing [[WP:SYN|synthesis]]; in other words, I put back to him the same request he made to me purely to point out a flaw in his argument. Much of your frustration, Walter, seems to stem from you responding to either comments you invented for me, rather than what I actually said, or those of mine you've taken out of context. You also continue to simply ignore the fact that the definition of "official" is not solely "the status of only that which has been created or given designation by law".
:Calling me a dick - even passively within a piped link - is uncivil, BTW. So is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=489277363&oldid=489276027 calling me a liar]. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:: Read the essay and you'll see why it suits you M. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::That's still being uncvil, Walter. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: It's not uncivil, but it is a dick move itself. At the heart of this recent discussion is Roux's insistence that you find some government document with the word "official" in. This itself is pedantic. Repeatedly requesting it when we fully understand (read: [[WP:CONSENSUS]]) that it's the ''de facto'' royal anthem is in itself a dick move. Your response to it is no better, and your response in kind does not change the fact that "O Canada" is the ''de jure'' anthem and is itself a dick move. However, none of this, including the disingenuity of the two aforementioned editors, doesn't advanced the topic of the inclusion of GStQ in the template. That should be our purpose not bickering over the use of a single word. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Your analysis of what is and is not a "dick move" seems to be based upon a belief that this discussion is about who accepts and who denies what is de facto and what is de jure. It is not. It is ''still'' about whether or not GSTQ is an official anthem in Canada, which inherently makes the single word "official" a central subject.
:::::I'm all for advancing (and ultimately wrapping up) discussion on the wider subject of inclusion or exclusion of all anthems or one anthem. But I fear that won't happen until certain demonstrable truths are accepted by certain editors; namely, the definition of "official" is neither solely "the status of only that which has been created or given designation by law" nor "only that which is specifically associated with the specific word 'official' in a government document". Trying to point out the fallacious nature of assertions to the contrary, in order to make this dispute move forward, is not a "dick move". --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::: You've missed the point. Requesting a specific word, in this case "official", is pedantic. Repeatedly doing so is being a dick. And in short, what is and is not legal is the issue where "legal" is a synonym to official. "O Canada" is the legal national anthem. "God Save the Queen" is the legal royal anthem. The former is codified (proclaimed and all that) while the latter is common law (never proclaimed as such but long-standing use has made it such). --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Is the royal anthem ''equal'' to the national anthem? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::: No more than lacrosse is equal to hockey in Canada. Both are official sports (and unfortunately, both recognized in law) but one has popular appeal and the other doesn't. However, fighting over a single word: "official' is just silly. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 17:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Music_of_Canada&diff=475809912&oldid=475809226 You've been fighting over the song's official status, equating official only with legal, since almost day one], Walter! And now you say both "O Canada" ''and'' "God Save the Queen" have legal status? I mean, I somewhat agree (I would just say GSTQ is the royal anthem by [[Convention (norm)#Government|convention]], not [[common law]], though the two concepts are similar). But, if that is your position now, then why do you still oppose the presence of GSTQ in the navbox (which I assume you do, given the option for the navbox you presented below)? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Don't take ''de facto'' or common law status as opposition to Heritage Canada's statement that it has "no legal status in Canada". My statement is that it is recognized as the ''de facto'' Royal Anthem but and Heritage Canada says there is no law compelling its use or protecting the song. That's why it doesn't belong in the infobox. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::(The National Anthem Act compels nothing and protects nothing. Regardless,) Why is the existence of an associated statute law the benchmark for inclusion of a song in this navbox? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
===Royal anthem headache===
I reckon the stalemate continues, with the 'royal anthem' being the root of the problem. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:I have noted, above, that I will accept removal of both if and only if Miesianiacal is not permitted to touch the putative 'patriotic songs' article in any capacity whatsoever. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::You'd need a topic-ban to accomplish that. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
== Possibilities ==
{{Infobox
|above = Music of Canada<br>
<small>Nationalistic & patriotic songs</small>
|label1 =
|data1 = [[Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada]]
}}
{{Infobox
|above = Music of Canada<br>
<small>Anthems & nationalistic songs</small>
|label1 = [[National anthem]]
|data1 = "[[O Canada]]"
|label2 = [[Honors music|Royal anthem]]
|data2 = "[[God Save the Queen]]"
|label3 = Other nationalistic songs
|data3 = "[[Maple Leaf Forever]]"<br>"[[Something to Sing About]]"<br>"[[Land of the Silver Birch]]"
}}
{{Infobox
|above = Music of Canada<br>
<small>Anthems & nationalistic songs</small>
|label1 = [[National anthem]]
|data1 = "[[O Canada]]"
|label2 = [[Honors music|Royal anthem]]
|data2 = "[[God Save the Queen]]"
|label3 = Other nationalistic songs
|data3 = [[Nationalistic and patriotic songs of Canada]]
}}
{{Infobox
|above = Music of Canada<br>
<small>Anthems & nationalistic songs</small>
|label1 = [[National anthem]]
|data1 = "[[O Canada]]"
|label2 = Other anthems & nationalistic songs
|data2 = '''[[Honors music|Royal anthem]]'''<br>"[[God Save the Queen]]"<br>'''Other patriotic songs'''<br>"[[Maple Leaf Forever]]"<br>"[[Something to Sing About]]"<br>"[[Land of the Silver Birch]]"
}}
At right are four possible variations for a section of this navbox. I think 1, 2, and 3 are acceptable, though I perfer 3 most. 4, I think, is needlessly repetetive. Comments? Any other suggestions? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:2,3,4 are unacceptable due to inclusion of the entirely unofficial and not sanctioned by any law inclusion of GSTQ. 1 is acceptable if and only if you are not permitted, ''ever'', to touch that article in any fashion whatsoever. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
:Is the 'royal anthem' patriotic to ''all'' Canadians or just Canadian monarchists? We might be opening up another can of worms. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::Which is why my condition for supporting removal of the national anthem ''and'' GSTQ is Miesianiacal's permanent non-involvement. He'll just wikilawyer shit at the new article instead of here. I want this nonsense ''ended''. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#801818;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#801818;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::: Hence "Nationalistic" and not just patriotic songs. "GStQ" is offensive to many non-monarchists and many Quebec nationalists. But that's another can of worms and a political distraction. I still like the way the infobox looks presently and have no problems listing "O Canada" and then a link to the new article. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Best to inform then to omit - Your speaking as if Canada is not part of the monarchy (one day I hope - but not yet). Who cares who may or may not be offended - only thing that matters is informing our readers not what our editors wish our readers to learn about. Lets inform our readers as our own government of Canada does with a note explaining the position of the song. - [[Canadian Heritage]] - [http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 "God Save The Queen" '''has no legal status in Canada''', although it is '''considered as the royal anthem''', to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors].[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::The writer of the music for O Canada was a US citizen and Union Army General when he wrote it. Wikilawyering what is and isn't nationalist based on some arbitrary "pure Canada" test would be best to avoid. As Moxy points out we need to find the best way to inform the reader, and that includes educating them about the status of different anthems. As for Miesianiacal's proposals, I vote for the first one which leaves it to the link page to inform the reader. On that linked page, O Canada should be given proper treatment as the legally recognized national anthem, but others should be included and their differing official statuses be described. Some of course, like The Maple Leaf Forever, are simply nationalistic because they are popular. There should be some effort to see if any First Nation songs would fit the page. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 02:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::I prefer the first one. I just want to give everyone here a perspective of how ridiculously long this debate has become. According to Word, this page has approximately '''27 400''' words. All of this because of an anthem... really? [[User:Nations United|Nations United]] ([[User talk:Nations United|talk]]) 03:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The debate ''has'' been long and I'm amazed at the stamina of participants. However, this thread seems potentially productive and I encourage editors to continue in a constructive vein until there is a resolution. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 16:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I've little interest in what's put into any 'new' related Template. I've no problems with removing ''both'' anthems from ''this'' Template, as it may end the inclusion/exclusion dispute over the royal anthem. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
<s>I have changed the template to reflect option 1 above. Someone else can begin the article [[Nationalistic and patriotic music of Canada]] if they'd like. But, I can do that, too, if its so desired. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)</s>
;A note on process: There have been several uncivil and personal remarks on this page. In talk page discussion I find it best to stick to [[WP:Talk|talk page guidelines]], and, in particular, to "[k]eep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." I have recently asked four participants to remove uncivil remarks. Two have done so and I hope that the others will do so as well. That will be their choice, though, I'm only here (from AN/I) to try to help to move the debate along. I'm not asking for any discussion about this. If there are continued instances of incivility, I'm outta here. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm in agreement with Sunray. The rock throwing (my descriptive) must stop, here. These personal attacks aren't gonna help in bringing about a solution to this discussion. If there's any concerns about any editors motivation in these discussion? ''please'' take it to ANI or somewhere else appropiate. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:: I'm all in favour of keeping the discussions focused, however my comments were not uncivil as they were based in verifiable facts. I'm ready to move on. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::What part of "comment on content, not the contributor" is not clear to you? If you get that, we can move on. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I really dont see how this can go forward unless we define the inclusion criteria - is it only legal over traditional?. We have two sides showing the same refs - but not all agree on the refs themselves - How can we move forward? Many many many government refs say its Officially used - yet we all know there was no act of parliament etc to make it legal. To be honest I dont even believe its up to us to say in or out - its our job to inform like other encyclopedias. The idea of using a format like at [[England]] I thought was a good idea as it allows our readers to be informed about its position thus being neutral in its presentation. [[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Infobox
|above = Music of Canada<br>
<small>Anthems & nationalistic songs</small>
|label1 = [[National anthem]]
|data1 = "[[O Canada]]"
|label2 = Other anthems & nationalistic songs
|data2 = [[Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada]]
}}
:::: Officially used in what capacity?
:::: This entire discussion is off-topic for this section, which is supposed to be discussing the options listed to the right. I'll add a fifth option. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::See this is the problem - people simply are not reading the refs in the same manner. Its been shown many many times its officially used by not just the Government of Canada but the provinces and the military - it just has no legal status in the country. I dont think anyone can argue with theses facts (as all have seen the refs by this point I presume). That said I do like the 5th idea.[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 20:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::My new choice would have to be the 5th one. [[User:Nations United|Nations United]] ([[User talk:Nations United|talk]]) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
From [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes]] "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." One is the only option that optimizes space with no redundancy. All other options add materiel that is easily collapsible under the [[Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada]] link. Justification to add this redundancy should be made before doing so. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:The 5th idea is the most suitable and has my 100% approval. [[User:UrbanNerd|UrbanNerd]] ([[User talk:UrbanNerd|talk]]) 02:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:The first or fifth versions are acceptable. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Dkriegls. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Infobox
|above = Music of Canada
|label1 = Music of Canada
|data1 = [[Music of Canada]]
}}
:: As Dkriegls points out, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" and so to simplify completely we would have the infobox to the right.
:: It contains everything and is simple. The artile would then be required to incorporate links to all of the important elements currently represented in the template. However this misses the phrase before it: "summarize key facts in the article in which it appears" and "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" and a key fact is the national anthem.
:: Alternatly to make it a little more simple than it is now, we would create similar articles for [[Music awards of Canada]], [[Music charts of Canada]], [[Music festivals of Canada]], [[Music media of Canada]] and [[Regional music of Canada]].
:: Simple does not mean removing as much information as is possible and placing into a separate article, it means don't complicate things and allow "readers to identify key facts at a glance" rather than having to click through to another article for the primary information.
:: This next topic is outside the scope of this discussion.
:: I would argue that any article that appears as a link in this template should also contain this template. It's a standard practice. We should endeavour to make that addition to those articles as soon as possible. If we do decide to add "GStQ", will the editors of that article allow us to add this template to that article immediately beside the Canada section? It should probably appear in [[Canadian royal symbols#Verbal and musical symbols]] as well since it discusses "GStQ" there. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::: I don't see how Walter Görlitz's above position to extend the links beyond [[Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada]] to include the National Anthem, doesn't also hold true for the inclusion of the Royal Anthem of a Constitutional Monarchy, that by act of parliament, recognizes the British monarch and all their ceremony. Isn't a "key fact" of a constitutional monarchy its royal anthem? [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 08:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: Sorry. It's early in the morning for me and you've lost me. Which point and which act of parliament? If I understand you correctly. Are you arguing for the sixth template or are you arguing that because Canada is a constitutional monarchy that we should include "GStQ" in the template? --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Yikes, Mies ain't gonna like that statement - ''"...recognizes the British monarch..."''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, no, not trying to start the "act of parliament" debate over again. I am just making my case for the first option. The only reason I see so far for adding links to both [[Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada]] and the National Anthem (the Fifth option) was Walter Görlitz's suggestion that it's a "key fact" readers would want to know. And I was only suggesting that the same logic holds true for the Royal Anthem of a Constitutional Monarchy. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 20:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::: It's not a key fact though. The latter is not sung publicly save for a few ceremonial occasions. The former is what is performed at sporting events and international gatherings. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 20:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::"key fact" is not much of a measure. It is just as subjectively true to say that a key fact of a constitutional monarchy would be the ceremony of the queen. I don't have an opinion one way or another which is why I am looking for an objection measure for inclusion. Short of that, I don't see why option one wouldn't be the simplest solution because it would be left to the reader to figure out at the [[Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada]] page. If the reader was looking for the national anthem, they would have no doubt that it could be found there. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 21:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::AFAIK, the royal anthem wasn't played before NHL games or MLB games. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Or you could ignore the rest of what I said and focus on one phrase: "key fact". The rest is short and succinct. Feel free to read it. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Not even in the 70s. Don't remember if it was in the 60s. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 21:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::How is "played before NHL games or MLB games" an objective measure of inclusion? [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 22:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Also, regarding "The latter is not sung publicly save for a few ceremonial occasions". So in other words, it is sung publicly. I'm not trying to pick a monarchist vs republican side here, and I don't think the link should either. That is why option one leaves it to the reader and doesn't lose any navigation options. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
::{{outdent|:::::::::}} In short, she's a figurehead monarch who holds no real power and no other head of state's anthem is listed in the infobox even when they hold the true power. Almost no one sings it in Canada, and when it is sung, it's a ceremonial display as opposed to a heart-felt outpouring of emotion and sentiment. It's not monarchist vs republican, it's figurehead vs POV. Option one is terrible since it provides no useful information until the link is clicked. And we know how unlikely that is going to be. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 03:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
:::He asked for a objective measure of inclusion. You provided a subjective argument; how is "heartfelt outpouring of emotion" even measurable, let alone an objective measure of inclusion? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 13:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: So he did. The royal anthem is performed one percent of the times in Canada when compared with the national anthem.
:::: The royal anthem is used to represent the head of state and not the nation. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick question: What in the world is the point of the sixth option? It provides no information... [[User:Nations United|Nations United]] ([[User talk:Nations United|talk]]) 06:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
: It's a ''reductio ad absurdum'' by following M's first suggestion and Dkriegls' quote that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". (see the response to the left of it). Excluding the national anthem because it's in this supposedly new article is no different than just excluding everything presently in the template and inserting it into the Music of Canada article and making the template point to it. We have to provide ''some'' information not just the link to all possible material on the subject. Hence, the fifth option is the better choice. Some material is provided and the reader is free to explore additional music on the topic, including the honorific song for the figure-head monarch. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 06:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
::"Excluding the national anthem because it's in this supposedly new article is no different than just excluding everything presently in the template" is an argument from ''reductio ad absurdum'' (a [[logical fallacy]] meaning it isn't concluded from the facts). Keeping a navigation template at the category level instead of making an allowance for a singular item is not an argument from ''reductio ad absurdum''. Without an objective reason for that singular allowance, we open the door for inclusion of any number of songs and end up with option four - ''ad absurdum'' - making the template not very useful for navigation. Option one and five are not that far apart and both are simple and easy for readers to navigate. I am not wholly against either. I am just trying to find an objective reason to chose one over the other and all I come up with is keeping inclusion criterion simple at the category level. This objective criterion for inclusion prevents any further attempts at inclusion of GSTQ, sets a defensible precedent, and still provides the reader with a useful navigation tool that is both simple and informative. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::: The first half of what you write is what I said. The second half, while on the appearance is valid, isn't in the end. There is no objective reason to include the song for a figurehead head of state in the template. She does not sit with parliament or senate that make the laws. She doesn't even give assent to them. And more the point, she doesn't even select the GG for whom the anthem is most frequently played in Canada, that's done by someone in the PMO and she simply gives her approval to the selection. She doesn't even show up to install the GG. I would like firm statistics as to how often and in what settings GStQ is played from those who want its inclusion. We already know that "O Canada" is performed before sporting events, at the opening of parliament, at the start of the school day in many school districts across Canada. At noon in Vancouver's Canada place, the first four notes are performed so that more than 200,000 people can hear it (and my co-workers mock me, but I frequently stand when it's played). It was performed spontaneously in the streets during the 2010 Winter Olympics. If you want objective criteria (more than one) then statistics for its precise use should be presented. ""GStQ" is not performed in parliament except during the speech from the throne (once per year) while "O Canada" is sung on Wednesdays (and possibly more often to filibuster). --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Your argument from popularity is not a functional measure. If it were, we would need to include every song from Justin Beider. You're also failing let go of the GStQ beef. No one is arguing for it's inclusion. All editors who have chimed in prefer either option one or five. Neither of which includes GStQ. The only question separating the two options is why go lower than the category level for navigation purposes? And you're not addressing that question. [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 07:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::: Your argument from popularity is not comparable to mine. Bieber's music is an anthem for anyone other than the youth of the country. I have no GStQ beef. I don't believe that the national anthem should be removed because it is the common anthem. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::You were just above comparing "GSTQ" with "O Canada". None of the presented options include "GSTQ". One, however, includes "O Canada" (as the only individual song in the navbox). How is "it is the most-often played common anthem" an objective measure of inclusion; indeed, a justification for the special treatment given by option five to "O Canada"? It seems you want all songs to be subject to a requirement specifically tailored to favour the national anthem. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Most-oftent played already mentioned, sporting events, public assemblies, international appearances of officials. Can you show that it's not played or performed more frequently than all other songs that would be in this article would be? --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} The question is: How does is the frequency of play an objective measure justifying special treatment in the navbox for "O Canada"? There's a link in the navbox to [[Canadian rock]], but no link next to it to the most-played Canadian rock song. (As if the frequency of play for any song were even calculable.) --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 15:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The royal anthem isn't equal to the national anthem, just as Canada & 14 other Commonwealth realms are less prominant then the United Kingdom - concerning Elizabeth II. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
== Down to two options. ==
|