Template talk:Canadian music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Music (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Special treatment for O Canada?[edit]

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? 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. 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. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the national anthems should be deleted from all Music Templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is that consensus? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone stopped to consider how WP:LAME this dispute it? Please, flip a coin and move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
These disputes tend to happen concerning the British monarchy in Canada. 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Then let's have one and get this bloody debate over with. Nations United (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Seconded -- 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? 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". --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. 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. --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 here, here (in direct response to your request for a summary of reasons), here, 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 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not just a British song anymore. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's never been an uncontested addition either. You bullied an editor to insert it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. → ROUX  17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. → ROUX  17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
GSTQ doesn't get the same recognition as the nationa anthem, because GSTQ is a British song. 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. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. → ROUX  18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Non sequitur. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. → ROUX  18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Then your position is undermined by your own argument since there's no government source saying "O Canada" is official. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The pedantry is entirely yours. O Canada is the national anthem of Canada. There is no such law governing GSTQ. → ROUX  18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --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 synthesis. Of course, no such requirement need be met, for either anthem to be considered official. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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 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 uncivil actions performed during this debate. In which case I would strike the above comment while leaving this one intact. --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 roux first demanded I provide for "God Save the Queen", lest I otherwise be declared guilty of performing 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 calling me a liar. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Read the essay and you'll see why it suits you M. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's still being uncvil, Walter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --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". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the royal anthem equal to the national anthem? 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. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
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, 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)? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --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? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal anthem headache[edit]

I reckon the stalemate continues, with the 'royal anthem' being the root of the problem. 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. → ROUX  18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You'd need a topic-ban to accomplish that. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Music of Canada
Nationalistic & patriotic songs
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada
Music of Canada
Anthems & nationalistic songs
National anthem "O Canada"
Royal anthem "God Save the Queen"
Other nationalistic songs "Maple Leaf Forever"
"Something to Sing About"
"Land of the Silver Birch"
Music of Canada
Anthems & nationalistic songs
National anthem "O Canada"
Royal anthem "God Save the Queen"
Other nationalistic songs Nationalistic and patriotic songs of Canada
Music of Canada
Anthems & nationalistic songs
National anthem "O Canada"
Other anthems & nationalistic songs Royal anthem
"God Save the Queen"
Other patriotic songs
"Maple Leaf Forever"
"Something to Sing About"
"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? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. → ROUX  18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the 'royal anthem' patriotic to all Canadians or just Canadian monarchists? We might be opening up another can of worms. 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. → ROUX  18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
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. --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 - "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.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. 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? 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. 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. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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 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. 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. 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. --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. 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. Moxy (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Music of Canada
Anthems & nationalistic songs
National anthem "O Canada"
Other anthems & nationalistic songs 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. --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.Moxy (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
My new choice would have to be the 5th one. 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. Dkriegls (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The 5th idea is the most suitable and has my 100% approval. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The first or fifth versions are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dkriegls. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Music of Canada
Music of Canada 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. --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? 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? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, Mies ain't gonna like that statement - "...recognizes the British monarch...". 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. 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. --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. Dkriegls (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, the royal anthem wasn't played before NHL games or MLB games. 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. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Not even in the 70s. Don't remember if it was in the 60s. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
How is "played before NHL games or MLB games" an objective measure of inclusion? 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. Dkriegls (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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. --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? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. --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... 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. --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. 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). --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. 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. --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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 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.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 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. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Down to two options.[edit]

Music of Canada
Nationalistic & patriotic songs
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada
Music of Canada
Anthems & nationalistic songs
National anthem "O Canada"
Other anthems & nationalistic songs Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada

Let's refocus. Every editor that has chimed in has supported one of these two options (I think that's right, sorry if I missed a vote). I would be happy with either, but I think keeping the nav box at the category level (option A) prevents any further special pleading for inclusion of individual song links and stops future debates before they start by providing a clear inclusion criterion. Other editors who support options B argue that O Canada's unique status (which I don't debate) qualifies it for special pleading in this case. Lets refocus on the debate between these two options. Please note that neither option contains GStQ.Dkriegls (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I vote for option B. Nations United (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Option A seems the best one. Apart from what Dkriegls says about it, it is also consistent with the formula used across the navbox; no other "category" linked to from the box (classical, Aboriginal, rock, etc.) singles out one song from within it for special focus, as Option B does without apparent sound reason. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, you know the reason. Nations United (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope my change clarifies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:VOTE? B because "O Canada" has a special place in Canada and should be recognized without additional clicks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
B because the majority of music of country templates list the national anthem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
From what I see, most editors are fine with a vote. So, why not? Does anyone disagree? Nations United (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We're basically conducting a vote now... Nations United (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Option B is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Option B has my vote. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Option B - Moxy (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, if I'm not mistaken, there is only one editor that hasn't voiced his opinion, and that's Roux. I've contacted him on his talk page. Although, I don't know if Dkriegls and Sunray want to voice their opinion, as I think they are acting as mediators, right? If they want to, they're more than welcome. I think we're almost finished with this ridiculous debate (hopefully). Nations United (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Option A is completely unacceptable for all the reasons I have outlined before. Option B is acceptable, though I must reiterate that Miesianiacal must be permanently topicbanned from touching the new article, otherwise this whole argument is just going to flare up again and it's going to become a coatrack for more pro-monarchist POV pushing. → ROUX  18:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say things are settled at this Template, as Option B is the choice. As for topic-bans? you gotta go through proper channels for that. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest one of three options:
  1. Chronological (when was the song first composed, oldest first)
  2. Alphabetical
  3. Importance (as measured by number of recordings or sheet music sold in Canada)
Section headings can be whatever is necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If you're talking about the new article, I don't think this is the place to do it. At it's talk page would be more appropriate, I believe. Or, perhaps someone would like to start something up at their sandbox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Since the article does not yet exist, that cannot be done and would be subject to a speedy delete as a talk page of an article that does not exist (category G8). I would be happy to start the article in my user space or just create the page in-place as a stub. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Lists are my specialty. Over the next few days I was thinking of drafting something up and seeing what people think. I was thinking a few boxes. One for O Canada, explaining its significance and official standing, one for GStQ explaining its significance to the Monarch and limited role. One box listing chart topping hits that are considered patriotic. And then a final box for songs that are patriotic, but not chart toppers. If there are enough First Nation songs they might deserve their own box, but most likely they will end up in the minor song box. Just my current thoughts, but always open for debate.Dkriegls (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You could start with the entries in Category:Canadian patriotic songs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, that's a great list to start with. I will work on that as soon as I get a minute. Dkriegls (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada[edit]

Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada is here! Take a peek. Still a lot of work to do, but I think I lifted the right passages and structured things right. Dkriegls (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Does someone else want to take the honor of updating the Template? Dkriegls (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I've done so. (Thanks for starting the other article, by the way.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Canada Article[edit]

Seeing how the same conversation over on the Canada article was moved over here can we assume that GSTQ can be removed from that articles infobox as well ? Or do we need yet another long winded debate ? UrbanNerd (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the conclusion was different. It's a parameter in the template and so is acceptable in any nation article where the royal anthem is not also the national anthem. It was suggested (or at least I thought it was) that we add de jure and de facto to the two anthems in a fashion similar to the article on England. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Any inserts about de facto and de jure would be original research, though.
There's a parameter in the template for a country's royal anthem, should it have one, and it's a well sourced fact that GSTQ is Canada's royal anthem. All that was settled some time ago at Talk:Canada. The outcome of this dispute changes nothing about that other prior conclusion; the new article stll shows GSTQ as Canada's royal anthem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what WP:OR is if you say that inserting those terms would qualify M. "O Canada" is the legal anthem. Shall we dig-up the legislation for you? "God Save the Queen" is has no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
We were discussing de facto and de jure. I'm sorry, I had an incomplete understanding of the meanings of "de facto" and "de jure". They would be applicable in a legal sense, but, given that they have other meanings in other contexts, I think they should be avoided. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The Royal Anthem has been in the infobox for the article on Canada for many years. This is not the place to debate its removal. Sunray (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


As you may have noticed the template has been orphaned - with the reasoning that the template puts the article in an odd category. I think this is the most obscured reasoning I have ever heard for removing a long standing navigational tool. Very odd to think that the cat is more important then help our readers in navigating a topic. The only reason is this - so its there a way to fix the template to avoid this problem. No point in reverting as he will edit war till he gets his way unless there is a long tlak or we simply fix it. You know what to do to fix it?Moxy (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's not about editwarring, nor is it about "my way" — rather, Wikipedia has actual rules about categorization and templating, which {{Infobox music of}}, the base code which is used to structure "Music of Country" templates like {{Music of Canada}}, is not consistent with. The problem, specifically, is that {{Infobox music of}} automatically generates and places articles in a top-level category (Category:Canadian music, in this case), even if the article is already in an appropriate subcategory — making it impossible to properly diffuse the top-level category because there's no way to remove the unwanted extra category without removing the whole template. For that very reason, Wikipedia specifically deprecates using templates to automatically transclude pages into content categories the way {{Infobox music of}} is currently doing.
Simply put, {{Infobox music of}} needs to be modified to remove whichever line of code is pushing the articles into Category:Canadian music (or the similar top-level categories) in addition to the categories that are already on the pages themselves, or perhaps to add a switch by which such categorization can be voluntarily turned off where it's not needed while still leaving the function available in other cases. But this isn't about me being picky; it's about Wikipedia's actual rules around this kind of thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this template be named: Template talk:Music of Canada?[edit]

Shouldn't this template be named: Template:Canadian music? e.g. by Category:Music_by_nationality. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)