Talk:List of anthems by nation

Back on track
For a period of time this list simply re-directed to List of anthems by country. Unfortunately, that list is a sub-article to List of countries, which uses the 'sovereign state' definition of 'countries' - and so a great many national anthems (like the UK ones) were left off the list. This slack was compiled in List of anthems, where there are about 100 excess 'anthems' - all of which are perfectly classifiable as national anthems. Now we have this National Anthems list back, we need to migrate them all back over here! Hopefully this will be then be a comprehensive national anthem list, which will be the sub-article of a much improved and freer National anthem article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Migrating anthems from List of anthems

 * Please help! This list can also become the List of nations. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Most suitable Northern Ireland flag
A discussion has started here on whether the Assembly flag is the best one to use: Northern Ireland flag template discussion.

List of nations
This list can also become the List of nations. Please help to migrate from List of anthems, so we can make a completet list. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthems of UK constituent countries
This is a popular revert with Wikipedia, it's been talked about before on the List of anthems by country talk page (see the linked-to section and other sections on the archive talk page). I really think a good decider would be a link to the National anthem of England and National anthem of Scotland pages somewhere on the page, it does a good job of explaining the anthematological situation of those countries much more than a mere footnote here could. (What to actually put on the page as *the* anthem for those countries is another matter, but the respective article pages should be linked here to help prevent reverts.) --Canuckguy (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be several lists of anthems which is pretty confusing and very messy (much like the list of countries pages were before recent changes were made and a list removed). List of anthems, List of national anthems , List of anthems by country. In my opinion list of anthems is currently a complete mess (dont know why that will still be needed after all countries have been moved off the list) List of anthems by country is a featured list and presented well, but that is given less priority than this list. Surely it would be better on these pages to follow the solution reached on the countries lists. Have a disam page where people are able to select between which list of anthems they are looking for. Be it the national anthem of sovereign states (which list of anthems by country should really be called) or this page which includes other national anthems, and also list historic national anthems etc.


 * On the specific issue of Britain, (which is usually the cause of the main problems on these and other similiar pages) i think the best solution would be for the creation of an article on British anthems or Anthems of the United Kingdom much like there is the article on British flags. That new page could detail the situation of the UK, explaining the position of anthems like God Save the Queen, and Flower of Scotland etc as well as being able to link to the detailed anthem pages of England, Scotland etc such as the National anthem of England page. Then instead of "See also: United Kingdom" a direct link to the British anthems page could be next to England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland anthems in this list which would make the whole thing more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anthem / National anthem lists
I have made a suggestion about a possible change to this page, and several others linked with anthems. Please take a look at what i said at talk:list of anthems by country thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to this page
Unless anyone has any objections i intend to make some major changes to this page in an attempt to sort out the layout of the different articles on anthems as laid out in the link on my above post.

I intend to turn this page into a disam page, which will provide a link to the list of anthems by country, list of historical national anthems and a new page i intend to create for non Sovereign states and disputed sovereign states. ALl the anthems on this page can be moved to the new page and that would just leave the states which are already included on the list of anthems by country page which is a featured list.

The current setup is confusing and unhelpful. On this page people can not tell the difference between a sovereign state and a non sovereign state and the vast majority is simply a repeat of whats on the other page anyway. That list should be the main list as its a featured list, where as at the moment this is the one with the dominant position and the one found by google searches. I have been looking back at activity on this page and the person who led the way in creating this page appears to of now retired from wikipedia. If there are no objections soon i will make the changes i think will improve these articles, if there is strong opposition later such changes can always be undone. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that there is any confusion, nor any need to make changes to this page. There is no history of controversy here. The lead sentence/paragraph of the article National anthem states: "A national anthem is a generally patriotic musical composition that evokes and eulogizes the history, traditions and struggles of its people, recognized either by a nation's government as the official national song, or by convention through use by the people." And this article is a list of those songs. It does exactly what is says on the tin. It couldn't be less confusing. The fact that you are unable to "tell the difference between a sovereign state and a non sovereign state" is as relevant as not being able to tell the nation's geographical location and less relevant than how many people belong to that nation, which isn't on there either. Anyone who wants to learn more about a nation can click on the link. There is nothing wrong with this article and no need for any changes to it. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree the vast majority of this list is simply a copy from the list of anthems by country which is a featured list (unlike this one). This was redirected and created from what i can see mostly by one person who has now retired from wikipedia so will not be continuing to ad to the article. The list of countries articles had exactly the same problem and the changes that took place there resolved the problems. There does not need to be two almost identical lists. Less than 30 entries on this list are not on the main national anthem page and that data could be better presented and easier to access on its own single page rather than lost in the 192 sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't too much mind how it is done, but there needs to be a list of national anthems which is not confined to sovereign countries. Two or more lists would be confusing and is not necessary.  This is a list of ANTHEMS not COUNTRIES.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there needs to be a list of national anthems of non sovereign states, unreconized sovereign states and territories. My problem is at the moment we have this huge list of anthems most of which (apart from 30) appear on the List of anthems by country which is a featured list and dozens more anthems currently on list of anthems need to be transfered across to this page but matt who was the main editor making these changes has retired so wont be finishing the job.


 * Thats why i wanted to see this page became like list of flags and like lists of countries then allow people to choose between the countries of the UN anthems, or non sovereign state anthems, historical anthems etc. I dont want any of the anthems to be lost, just want them more organized than in a single list if that makes sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no confusion here. There is no need to make changes to this page. There is no history of controversy here. And no editor has agreed to your proposal. Please stop agitating on other pages and accept that there is no consensus for any change to this article. Daicaregos (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody agreed but then up until today (10 days after i made a suggestion) you were the only person to of responded. The fact there was only 1 response on this article when i said i was going to make radical changes if nobody objected goes to show this article doesnt appear to have active editors working on it when there are dozens of anthems still needing to be transfered across to this page. Looking back on the history of this page it doesnt show there was alot of editors in support and workin on the changes, the main user Matt who has now retired which is also an important point to remember.


 * the fact that there had only been one response and you never replied back to my response is the reason why i asked Pfainuk for an opinion on this matter, rather than attempting to start making the changes myself to see what would happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to learn that no response can simply mean that people do not agree with you, can see there is no consensus for change and have better things to do than engage with your arguments. -- Snowded   TALK  20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well its ashame if people simply ignore suggestions, but again how do i know if thats the case? I do not know if everyone is just ignoring me or if there are no editors regularly working on these articles or if people agreed with my position so didnt object. Silence is not helpful. Which is why despite hearing nothing over 10 days i didnt actually attempt to make any of the changes because i didnt know what people thought. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn to read the signs. Making the suggestion again and again in different forms is not going to encourage response.  You didn't have agreement to make the changes based on the discussion above.  That said you do seem on a campaign to emphasise the the identity of the UK over its various countries.  Getting some more balance on that might get you more support, at the moment it looks a bit like a political agenda.  -- Snowded   TALK  20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it twice on this page, once in a general response to someone about the countries of the UK and then i made my own section to state my suggestions and get a response (as well as on the other page), that is hardly making a suggestion over and over again in different forms. International lists, and international organsiations / countries and obviously the United Kingdom are subjects of interest to me which is why i focus on them. In my opinion the situation with these national anthem articles are identical to that of the list of countries articles which agreement was reached on and certainly was not a debate started by myself or mainly by me. I simply want the national anthem pages to be in line with the flag pages and country pages. I do not seek to remove the welsh anthem or other UK anthems from all wikipedia lists, i just want organized lists and the featured list to be more accessible, which at the moment its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in case users don't know this, I have been asked to comment on this article. There was some objection to this, which I acknowledge. I don't intend to argue my views beyond this message.

We do not, in my opinion, need several lists of national anthems (or of national flags) with subtly different inclusion criteria. This list, List of anthems by country, and (to a certain extent) List of anthems are prongs of a content fork. I don't think that maintaining multiple lists that effectively say the same things is good for Wikipedia.

It is slightly concerning that out of the two lists, this one gets the cachet title (list of national anthems) whereas the featured list is at a title that people are rather less likely to look for. If a merger is to take place (and I think it should), the article name should be some variation on list of national anthems (say, list of national and regional anthems).

I do not have a strong objection to the notion that areas that do not meet the criteria set out at list of sovereign states could be included in a "list of national anthems". Listing the anthems of nations or states that are not de facto independent would form a logical extension of such a list, and it seems reasonable to include them. I think it would be preferable, OTOH, for such entities not to be listed equally to the sovereign states. Better that they be handled in a new list (or new lists) below the main list, or listed subordinately to the sovereign states concerned, or whatever.

On other issues, note that silence implies consent to change, and WP:BOLD encourages editors to be bold in making changes (on the basis that they can always be reverted and discussed per WP:BRD). Of course, change requires consensus but if there's no objection for a few days it's fair to assume consensus. BW, I suggest you read those guidelines and policies, since you may find them useful. Pfainuk talk 20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and links Pfainuk, sorry for bringing you into this i was just unsure what to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and split the one list into three, by sovereign state, non-sovereign territory, and people. I'm not sure if it's worth while to somehow show what sovereign state each non-sovereign territory belongs to. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good changes and i agree now that there are separate lists the need for a clear mention of the sovereign state involved is not so important although may still be useful at some stage. What about the "Disputed" sovereign states? Like Kosovo / Abkhazia etc, Do they belong in their own list or in sovereign states? or where they are now? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter i see, Abkhazia just needs to be moved up to the sovereign states list, its like Kosovo. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I put it in the non-sovereign territory section because the article Abkhazia starts with the sentence "Abkhazia is a disputed region on the eastern coast of the Black Sea." That led me to believe that it's not a sovereign region. Maybe a separate area is needed for disputed territories. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A seperate table for disputed sovereign states would be a good idea yes, Abkhazia is equal to kosovo. Its just the west is backs kosovo whilst is against Abkhazia. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just made that list; not sure where Kosovo should go, though. Others would know better than me, I'm sure. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan would belong with Abkhazia. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ahhh, much better. Quebecois (in place of Quebec) & in it's proper place. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have proposed a merger between this page and the list of anthems by country. A discussion on this matter can be found at Talk:List of anthems by country Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "see also: United Kingdom"
Since 6 months ago when the redirect was ended and this list of national anthems was created there has been a note "See also: United Kingdom" Next to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland at the same time as listing the four countries after the UKs entry. This had always been the way until a few days ago someone removed the "See also: United Kingdom" from England, Scotland, Wales. But left it at Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. I undid this change, then Daicaregos reverted my edit saying i had to explain why the information was needed on the talk page. I have only just seen this reversion so i will reply now.


 * First of all it has been that way for 6 months, there for justification is needed to make the change.
 * God save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom which means it is the national anthem in Wales and Scotland just as it is in England and Northern Ireland. For that reason the see also comment is required.
 * Saying See also: United Kingdom is less confusing for those who do not understand the United Kingdom (Countries of the United Kingdom) setup.
 * The edit only made a partial change as mentioned above, leaving the see also mention on Northern Ireland and UK.

I am restoring it back to the way it has been for 6 months for the above reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi BritishWatcher, I'm afraid I disagree with you here: 'God save the Queen' is the national anthem of the United Kingdom, but is not used as the national anthem of Scotland individually. If you can provide source evidence of 'God save the Queen' being used as the national anthem of Scotland, then it should be added in addition to the two anthems already noted. Either way, the 'see also' comment is inappropriate. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and the national anthem of the United Kingdom is God save the Queen. There are many examples of God save the Queen being played for the Scottish people as they compete under the flag of the United Kingdom in most sports. I also do not see how its possible to leave see also for the UK and Northern Ireland entry but not have it at Scotland, England and Wales. If there is no justification for see also section shouldnt "see also" be removed from them all including the United Kingdom?
 * You said yourself you wanted Scotland listed with (part of the United Kingdom) on international lists. Well here is a list where Scotland etc is listed but it has ALWAYS had the see also United Kingdom. Again from what i can see there are many reasons why See also is needed and i have yet to see justification for the original change. It should be changed back to the way it has been for over 6 months. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi BritishWatcher, I think you will find that when you say 'God save the Queen being played for the Scottish people as they compete under the flag of the United Kingdom in most sports' - this is not being used as the national anthem of Scotland but as the national anthem of the United Kingdom. It used to be the case that England used 'God save the Queen' as their anthem prior to rugby internationals, but even this has now ended. Therefore, unless you or others can think of any examples of God save the Queen being used as the national anthem of Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, then it is inappropriate to add 'see also'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They do sing GSTQ at English Rugby Internationals, so I think it can be said to be "theirs". It is never sung for Wales or Scotland unless the context is, as you say, the UK  -- Snowded   TALK  16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of the general problems with this list. You have "Quebec" saying its national anthem is "Gen du pays" the article it links to has no sources and starts with "Has been called the unoffical national anthem" There doesnt appear to be much information on it. Where as at the moment it fails to say that O Canada is the offical national anthem of all of Canada which INCLUDES Quebec.. Hell the song was originally in French and had to be translated to English and now both versions are the offical canadian anthem.
 * Quebec really needss a see also comment saying to see CANADA. There are probably more of these problems in the list which is why a notes column would be helpful. I am sorry but God save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom which includes Scotland. If American states had their own "national"(which would be acceptable under the definition given on this article) anthem it would not change the fact that their national anthem is also the United States anthem, the Stars and stripes. There was no justification giving for making a change to something that had been the same way for 6 months. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point here: everyone agrees that the UK national anthem is God save the Queen, but when SCOTLAND, rather the UK is being represented by a national anthem, God save the Queen is never used. If you have sources that show otherwise, then it would be appropriate to add God save the Queen as one of Scotland's anthems. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ec) You (BW) need to keep to the subject. There is no question that the national anthem of the United Kingdom is GSTQ.  However it is not the national anthem of Wales or Scotland and it therefore does not need a reference.  It would be false to say that the national anthem of Texas is the Star Spangled Banner so that is a specious argument.  For England I think you can list GSTQ.  The "see" comment adds nothing and there is no reason to oppose its removal.
 * God save the Queen is the national anthem of the whole United Kingdom, which means it is the national anthem of people in Scotland. Its even debatable about what is the actual national anthem of Scotland. I am not suggesting the "national anthem of Texas" is the star spangled banner but it is the national anthem of people in texas because they are american citizens and people. Just like God save the Queen is the national anthem of British people (which includes Scottish people). A Texan is an American there for the American anthem applies. A Scot is British there for the UK anthem applies. I am not asking for "God save the Queen" to be included as anthem of Scotland, however i think its reasonable (and helpful for those from outside the United Kingdom) for the see also note. Which for some reason no one had a major problem with for the past 6 month whilst its been there? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry BritishWatcher, but your assumptions are WP:SYN. Yes, God save the Queen is the national anthem of the whole United Kingdom, which may well mean it is the national anthem of people in Scotland. However, that does not make it the Scottish National Anthem. Daicaregos (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quebec????
I don't know who included Quebec here; but it should be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about an argument just for once Goody rather than an ex cathedra statement -- Snowded   TALK  17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not independant, it's not a nation, it's a province. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed it from the article, as it's not a nation. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and provided a source to prove that Quebec is a nation. For the benefit of antone interested, the source I used is this - Canada backs Quebecer nationhood BBC News, 28 November 2006.
 * Nope the Quebecois were called a nation (the Quebecers, not Quebec itself). PS: Do as ya'll wish, I just lost my appetite. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that Quebec isnt a nation, its that no mention of Canada is given next to it. Despite the source used to justify Quebec as a nation as one that clearly states Quebec is part of Canada. There for Quebec should state see also: Canada atleast. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) :::::: Why say "see also" when the pipelink takes you to page where the position is clear. -- Snowded   TALK  17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quebec should be excluded from this & any other of these national lists articles. A pandora's box has been opened (IMO). GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another statement Goody. The Québécois nation motion is however something you have to deal with.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, Quebecois nation motion (i.e Quebecers); not Quebec nation motion. Quebec itself, is still a province & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you just don't like it. -- Snowded   TALK  17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In ways, I can't begin to count. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay is right that it should atleast say Quebecois rather than Quebec. Quebec is a place, The canadian motion declared (Quebecois) a nation. There is a difference, also it doesnt change the fact it should atleast say See also: Canada. As the very motion declared them a nation in united Canada. You cant only use half of the source, it should be explained.  BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The source was quoted to show that the people of Quebec are a nation and as such are entitled for their national anthem to be listed alongside other national anthems. The fact that Quebec is part of Canada is not relevant to this basic point. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- Snowded  TALK  18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quebec, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland included? This Wiki-year is starting off on a sour note, for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet the article has been improved. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a contentious issue. Quebec is not a country, it is a province. To have a national anthem, one needs to be independent country. The parallel would be State Songs in the U.S. or songs of Bundeslander in Germany, which are not included here. Only seperatists in Quebec generally refer to Quebec as a nation to advance their cause, and the source quotes is not an unbiased one. In Canada, it is the Quebecois that are reffered to as a nation, just like many aboriginal First nations. --soulscanner (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is the point. No one has said, or needs to say, that Quebec is a country. I disagree with your statement that "To have a national anthem, one needs to be independent country.". To have a national anthem, one needs to be nation and have an anthem that relates to that nation. I understand that Quebec, or the Quebecois, is/are a nation. Therefore, their national anthem belongs on this article. It enhances the information provided by Wikipedia, which is the goal that we all strive for, is it not? Sovereignty and/or independence are completely irrelevant. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If enhancing the information is what we all are aiming for, where is the harm in breaking the list up into several sections so this dispute is no longer an issue. We could move everything to the one article which is the featured list and just have several tables. One for Sovereign states, then one for nations and regions etc. None of the data would be lost, we would have one article covering all these issues, and Wales / Scotland would be in their own row very clearly. What is the problem with that? either breaking this list up into sections and keeping it on this page or simply transfering all the things missing on the featured article list and renaming it to "list of national anthems" so it covers everything BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you support the creation of an article containing every nations' anthem on an article named 'List of national anthems'? Daicaregos (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Im saying i would like to see List of anthems of UN member states Renamed to List of national anthems. Then as suggested on the countries discussion page have several tables of anthems. One for sovereign states (or UN member states), one for unrecognized states and one for other national and regional anthems. My only concern about that idea was how long the article would end up and if it would have any impact on the featured list status. As ive said i have no problem with Wales etc being listed, it should just be in clearly defined tables and without the duplication that currently exists with over 190 on this list being on the other one. If such a change went ahead we would just have ONE list of national anthems, which is a featured list, containing everything we all want. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Much better. The entry has been moved to its proper place & renamed Quebecois. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps moving England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland to that section & renaming them: English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish would work. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to open up another can of worms or anything, but at my nationalanthems.info page, I used to have the Quebecois anthem "Gens du Pays" on there, until I noticed that I couldn't find a credible source for it being the anthem of all Quebecois (sovereigntists and federalist alike) as the anthem of the Quebecois nation - it is quoted as the "national anthem" by sovereignists and has been adopted as the provincial anthem by the provincial government, but neither of those make it the anthem of the Quebecois nation. (And, as was pointed out in a previous thread by BritishWatcher, the Gens du Pays article itself says that it "has been called the unofficial national anthem", not that it is the unofficial national anthem, or even that it is the official national anthem.  IMHO, not clear enough for the list.  --Canuckguy (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's a straightforward way to handle Quebec/Quebecers/Québécois: see what sources say about "Gens du Pays" and do what they say. I suspect most sources that say anything will say it's the unofficial national anthem of Quebec, not of Quebecers or "Québécois". Joeldl (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joel. Anthems usually refer to a territory, as evidenced here. On the other hand, the regional categorizations here are so ad hoc and subjective, that placing Quebec and Acadia in one of these would not significantly improve the article. --soulscanner (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An alternative approach
Hi all. Can I suggest an alternative to what is suddenly happening to this article? The article previously had the advantage of being in alphabetical order which is ideal for someone trying to find information on a specific nations anthem. Splitting into sections goes against this simple approach. Could I suggest an alternative would be to have a table in alphabetical order but which had a column after 'name' that gave basic information about the 'nation' such as 'member of UN', 'de facto independent' etc. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a possibility, but I personally find it odd having all different types of nation lumped into one list, with Afghanistan (a country) following on Acadians (a people). --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i do like the idea of a column for the detail like its a region of which sovereign state so people have all the info, but i do like the different sections which is a useful breakup of a long list and does make sense. Which ever version does have general support the aim should be to then try and move the tables over to List of anthems of UN member states. Keeping the intro used on that article, and adding a bit of the info used on this page, then renaming that List of Nation anthems. That way we have just one list of national anthems containing everything, which is a featured list. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Idea 2: I like the idea of two lists "Countries" (meaning sovereign countries), and "Other regions" for everything else. It's simple, objective, straightforward, and avoids multiple POV issues.--soulscanner (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well changes were made to this article overnight.  I did think about reversal given that agreement had not been reached.  However with one change (regions to countries or regions) I think its OK.  You really can't define countries as sovereign countries you know.  I suggest keeping it as it is, and merging the UN countries one into it.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The possibility of further divisions was already raised above; indeed, I'm wondering about noting the difference between colonial territories and constituent countries, for example. Acadians and Quebecois, however, should not be changed to Acadia and Quebec; one doesn't exist and the other doesn't have an anthem. --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your changes were good and "peoples" a good sub-head. I would avoid "constituent" its caused problems elsewhere while non-sovereign seems to work  -- Snowded   TALK  09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... then you caught me in the midst of sub-dividing the non-sovereign section; perhaps I'll hold off for now. As I was seeing it, four subs could be created: provinces/states (Newfoundland & Labrador, Alberta, etc.), constitutent countries (I don't know what other term to use)(Scotland, Aruba, etc.), autonomous regions (Catalonia, Greenland, etc.), and colonial territories (Bermuda, Cayman Islands, etc.). Does that not seem to make sense? --Miesianiacal (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea. I would just use "non-sovereign" rather than constituent.  It makes the constitutional position very clear.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a recommendation, and I don't have a particular attachment to this page. Frankly, these classifications are too inherently POV to last, as they are not based on any referenced criteria; others with their own classifications will come along and add their own pet classificiations. Probably what you'll see now is all but sovereign states be deleted from the page because anything else will be too unstable. I was recommending objective criteria to keep other regions on the page.  I encourage you to consider "Other regions or peoples" as an alternative.  Thank you, and bye-bye. --soulscanner (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been through the NPOV process with mediation on the use of country so I don't see a problem with that one. -- Snowded   TALK  10:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving Tibet
Tibet is a special case. While it is an administrative unit of China, the anthem listed is not its current anthem, but is the anthem of the Tibetan government in exile. As such it feels better in the list of disputed states rather than in the list of anthems of administrative divisions and dependent territories. (Taivo (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

"Countries" or "Regions"
From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language for "country": "1. a. A nation or state. b. The territory of a nation or state; land. c. The people of a nation or state; populace... 2. The land of a person's birth or citizenship..." And "nation": "1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.  2.  The government of a sovereign state." Thus the word "country" in American English at least is bound up in the notion of sovereignty. The use of "country" in this title by a single editor is a legal artifact of the wording used to bind Scotland, Wales, etc. to the United Kingdom. It is not a term in general use for administrative divisions, but a term of sovereignty for the majority of English speakers as evidenced by the dictionary definitions of "country" and "nation". There is no insult intended for Scotland et al. by referring to them as Regions. Actually, I think that "Administrative Division" might be an even more accurate term for this section since non-administrative divisions are covered later. (Taivo (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC))


 * The OED dictionary definition of country specifically mentions the four constituent countries of the UK. This was extensively discussed elsewhere and citation tables created to show the use.  The Wikipedia page for country also makes it very clear that country does not always have to be used in the context of a sovereign country.  I quote "a country (IPA: /ˈkən-trē/[1]) is a political division of a geographical entity. Frequently, but not always, a country is considered a Sovereign territory" On most other list pages (where this has been discussed) the concept of non-sovereign and sovereign countries has been accepted in the lede.   You may intend no insult by the way but I think you will find that most Scots would take it as an insult.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with using "country" in this particular place is that it is unhelpful. It is designed to reference only four members of the list and exclude other members.  The subtitle of a list should be as inclusive as possible without listing every single possibility in the list.  There is no insult intended to the four principal administrative divisions of the U.K.  The issue is not whether Scotland et al. are "countries" or not in a legal terminology sense, but what is the best subtitle for this section.  The version which you have put out excludes Andalusia, for example, while my version includes every single member of the list. (Taivo (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Then move Andalusia. The phrase "administrative region" is entirely inappropriate.  Within the UK it can also apply to a county like Yorkshire.  The title for a section should reflect what things are and in this case that means "country".   You may not be aware in the way that these lists are also used in arguments on other pages as to what is or is not a country, its a sensitive issue.   I can image that other editors may not be happy with non-sovereign countries being listed with regions so in a sense accepting the mixed title is a compromise.  Its similar to the agreement reached on other ledes for the lists to prevent conflict -- Snowded   TALK  12:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the compromise edit by Pfainuk so can the edit war now cease? -- Snowded   TALK  12:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, country regions and territories is the best way to describe that section. Especially as we mention in the intro that some countries are part of other countries like the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. I didn't exactly consider this an edit war because there were no immoderate editors involved and both parties were acting in good faith. (Taivo (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

List of national anthems and List of anthems of UN member states
It seems that most people are now happy with the format of this page, although we should wait and see how others feel over the next day or two. If this current format remains steady, then how would people feel about moving the contents of this list over to List of anthems of UN member states ("List of anthems by country" until a name change a day or two ago). That is the featured list, and once all the tables had been added to that article (keeping their good introduction) it could be renamed List of national anthems and this page would no longer be needed.

We would then just have one featured national anthems list, containing all the national anthems rather than two articles which do still have major duplication despite the good idea to break it up into sections. I dont see why we need a single list of anthems of UN member states, but we should keep the featured list status which is why transfering the data and renaming would be the best solution in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is the stable one, and I wold merge List of anthems of UN member states into this. Its also the best title.  However if a rename and move is better I am OK with it, based onthe current form of this page.  -- Snowded   TALK  13:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. (Taivo (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree this is the better list now although i think the intro and picture on the other article might be worth keeping. The reason i suggested the long method of transfering this data over then renaming it to this articles current name was so we keep that ones featured list status. I didnt think it was possible to do it another way. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. This seems to have evolved nicely as a result of discussion and good faith all round. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am with BritishWatcher to keep the FL status as much as possible, as long as it's done in the way we decide on, I'm OK with it (which is why I haven't been talking much in this debate, despite that this page is in my watchlist and I contribute to it frequently, and I'm considered an expert in the material discussed). However, I might recommend adding another list to this to keep them all, the List of historical national anthems should also be merged in this article, as it's a similar theme and the information is similar.  --Canuckguy (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As theres not too many on the historical national anthem list it might be useful to include it on the main article instead of its own separate page yes. That would just leave the royal anthem article on its own which we could mention in the introduction. Whilst id like a single list for all i am still worried about how long this list is going to get remembering theres dozens of anthems still on List of anthems which at some point need to be transfered across to this one. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The contents list will make it easy to navigate, multiple articles will not! -- Snowded  TALK  07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should royal anthems be added as well or left on their own article? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion, for what its worth, is that Royal Anthems is an article more than a list and is different in nature. -- Snowded   TALK  08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian national anthem and Land of Hope and Glory

 * The title of the Italian national anthem is commonly known as Fratelli d' Italia or Brothers of Italy. Nobody would recognise the Wikipedia name The Song of the Italians even if it is the official name of the anthem!--jeanne (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing, isn't The Land of Hope and Glory the actual English national anthem?--jeanne (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * England has no single anthem, we are too lazy and greedy. At football matches which is by far the biggest bit of culture in England, God save the Queen is used. But in rugby they use land of hope and glory. There is also Jerusalem which is another fav sometimes used. Personally i like I vow to thee my country but i would not want us to start using a different one. God save the Queen is the best and easy for English people to sing (they can just shout it out). National anthem of England explains all the different ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally first heard of "Inno di Mameli" and that is what I still call it today. However, I checked the Italian Constitution and there is no mention about the official title of the anthem. But, as we always keep saying on here, redirects are cheap. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry BW but they sing God Save the Queen at Rugby nationals not Land of Hope and Glory. The crowd will sing "Swing Low" for reasons I have never understood given the culpability of the British in the slave trade.  For many years Scotland were made to sing God Save the Queen and in Wales v Scotland games both sets of spectators would combine to howl it down.  Jerusalem I think has official recognition from the Mothers Union and Land of Hope and Glory used (in my University Days) to be sung badly by drunken members of the Monday Club.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * lol sorry you are right snowded, i just read the info on national anthem of England and it says they changed it to God save the Queen in 2005 but i dont know why. Just goes to show ive not watched rugby for a few years :). I dont know about the song swing low sweet chariot, only heard it a couple of times,  not my sorta song. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its always been God Save the Queen!  I know I have been at one match a year most years since my teenage years and its not a patch on Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, only the French come close. The fact that they call it the English national anthem kinda confirms most celtic views of imperium -- Snowded   TALK  10:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, although you are correct in stating that Britain did participate very heavily in the slave trade, they got into it well over a hundred years after the Portuguese-who were the first Europeans to become involved followed by the Spaniards. The Dutch and French were also heavily involved. It's not fair to cite the English and leave out the others who were just as culpable.--jeanne (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Britain also has a mixed history when it comes to the slave trade, we did many bad things but we should never forget the huge role Britain played in ending the world slave trade. Using our ships and our men to enforce the slave trade ban on other europeans and forcing African tribes to end slavery too. Anyway on the issue of italys anthem i think we should keep it the same for the time being, their anthems article is on that name and theres been attempts to rename several time which appears to of failed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A certain amount of myth making there on ending the slave trade. Ok we (not I admit British Culpability here)  did pass an act of parliament, but then proceeded to pay compensation to the slave owners and nothing to change the conditions which became worse.  We played games with the issue during the American Civil War.  Oh and other Imperial powers did the same sort of things, but the English were outstanding in their ability to make the process oh so efficient.  I've been doing work with the LIverpool Slavery Museum since it opened and I strongly recommend a visit.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact remains Britain outlawed the transatlantic slave trade, and slavery itself throughout the empire long before some other major european powers. We also enforced that ban on others and played a key role in the development of todays world where slavery is outlawed everywhere. It sounds crazy that we did pay the slave owners, but it still gave people their freedom, Its a bit like buying slaves to free them. Also im sure conditions were very bad, but ofcourse conditions for British people in those times were hardly a walk in the park either. People in Europe have great lives today, but 100 years ago that certainly was not the case. The fact Britain has played a huge role in shaping todays modern world where we do mostly live in peace and in good conditions should make you proud to be British =) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously read those 1950's school history books on the glory of Empire. Saying that someone is free, but leaving them to be paid a pittance wage doing exactly the same job is hardly freedom.  Creating the first real concentration camps in South Africa, dividing Africa across natural boundaries creating the basis of current conflict, drug running to China in the interests of Empire, the massacres that followed the Indian Mutiny.  Go and have a look round Port Arthur in Tasmania and see the conditions, including the near genocide of the native inhabitants of Australia.  Look at the suppression of the Chartists, the Cromwellian massacres in Ireland.   Yes we can be proud of much science, and of pioneering social reform in the late 18th and 19th Centuries, but of little before.  -- Snowded   TALK  11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is always too easy for people to judge the past with modern eyes and modern morals. How will future generations judge our own "high morals"?  (Taivo (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Agree with that, my point is in opposition to unwarranted praise and pride. -- Snowded   TALK  11:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Every empire has it's banner stained with the blood, gore, and tears of the vanquished, whether that Empire was British, Mongol, Spanish, Ottoman, Holy Roman, or Japanese. All of the cited Empires have much to be proud of in other fields, might I add. Serfdom, slavery, genocide, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Irish Famine, deportation, torture, forced exile, child labour, workhouses, etc.; history has many black marks on it's pages, but not all of them deserve to be be placed on British pages. Look at the vote for women, Britain granted it decades before the Italians and other nations. British and-by dint of being an Anglo-Saxon country-American women enjoy far more freedom than most women in other parts of the world. I should know as I live in a very male-dominated region of Italy where being a housewife is a source of pride and joy. As a feminist, I have studed the treatment of women throughout history and females had more rights in 14th century England than many have today in other countries around the globe.--jeanne (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regions With Disputed Sovereignty Definition
We're going to have to decide what exactly disputed sovereignty means. If Taiwan is disputed (by China), then is not China disputed (by Taiwan)? If Abkhazia is disputed, then surely Georgia is as well? I'm not arguing the placement, but the name. What about the phrase that is used on List of sovereign states: Sovereign states lacking general international recognition? - Zhinz (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. (Taivo (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
 * This could mean a state that is recognized as sovereign by some, but not by most countries (themselves generally recognized as sovereign). Also, though UN membership is certainly an indication of recognition by most countries, the converse is not clear - Switzerland was not a UN member until recently. Using UN membership as an informal synonym for recognition is sloppy. Joeldl (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The easiest route is just a simple do a majority of the states of the world recognize it without referencing UN membership. Taiwan is not recognized by a majority of the states of the world, but Georgia is. (Taivo (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes. (Actually, those countries that recognize Taiwan usually recognize its government as the government of all of China, and those that recognize the PRC consider it to have sovereignty over all of China, including Taiwan.)
 * Then there are questions like whether Tibet is non-sovereign or of disputed sovereignty. It is not recognized by any other state as far as I can tell, so by the criterion I'm proposing, it would be non-sovereign.
 * By the way, who doesn't recognize Georgia? Joeldl (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tibet is definitely in the wrong section as it does not even have de facto sovereignty which Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia do have. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the title of the section "Regions without generally recognized sovereignty" is exactly the right place because Tibet doesn't have "generally recognized sovereignty". It can't go in the section on subordinate regions because the anthem is not recognized by China as an anthem of Tibet.  It is the anthem of displaced Tibet.  The only other place that it might fit is under "Peoples" along with Acadia.  But on that subject, why is the Quebec anthem not under Regional anthems with Scotland, etc.?  Isn't its anthem recognized by Canada?  There will always be some gray areas in assigning things into slots here (that's the downside to slots).  (Taivo (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Hi there. Tibet does not have sovereignty yet it has been placed in the same section as parts of the world that do (though not generally recognised). I think Tibet should be in the non-sovereign countries section - the fact that China does not recognise the anthem is irrelevant if there is evidence that the song is recognised by those in Tibet as their national anthem. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I have read about the Tibetan anthem (which is what is here in Wikipedia), its use in Tibet is not even certain and it might have been adopted by the exile community after China's takeover. So it may not even be recognized within the territory of Tibet.  It's more likely to be associated with the Peoples anthems (and move Quebec to the non-sovereign regions section). (Taivo (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC))
 * (ec) The Tibetan Government in Exile should not be treated as an unrecognised state because it has no de facto control over any territory. We shouldn't put it as a non-sovereign country/region/territory because it is not just not the official anthem of the Tibet Autonomous Region, it is actually banned there.  I would put it under "peoples" because I think it's the only appropriate place for it. Pfainuk talk 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the Tibetan people regard it as their national anthem? If not, I don't think it can be regarded as the peoples' anthem either. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No direct evidence that I know of. It is the official anthem of the Tibetan Government in Exile, and on that basis I would suggest that those Tibetans outside Tibet probably regard it as their people's anthem.  But it is probably impossible to judge the views of those Tibetans within Tibet. Pfainuk talk 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps Tibet should appear under 'peoples' behind a heading 'Tibetan exiles'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Firstly, a source is going to have to be provided if there is going to be some claim of a Quebec anthem; so far, there is only evidence of Newfoundland and Labrador being the sole Canadian province with its own anthem; the BBC link provided makes absolutely zero mention of any anthem for the province of Quebec. Secondly, Tibet is a geographical area, not a people; so, if it is to go in the "Peoples" section, it sould read "Tibetans". However, the above discussion seems to reval that there is no verification for whether or not the people of Tibet use the anthem listed in this article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, only national anthems of independant countries should be in this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that there is little evidence that there is a Quebec anthem, as I think I mentioned earlier, I used to have "Gens du Pays" on my site on national anthems until I took it off due to not finding any hard evidence of that fact (and mail from Quebecois visitors saying that this is even unfamiliar to them). Searching the website of the Quebec government has turned up squat as well.  Finally, even the article for another patriotic Quebecois song, Mon Pays says "[the song] has become a kind of anthem in Quebec" (not much difference from the "unofficial national anthem" that the Gens du Pays article says).--Canuckguy (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tibet Placement
Tibet should not be in the "Regions of disputed sovereignty" (or whatever it is called) because the Tibetan anthem has never been the anthem of that region. It was adopted after the Chinese takeover by the Tibetan community in exile and is not played in the region of Tibet (unlike the anthem of Abkhazia, for example, which is played in Abkhazia). So it is not really the anthem of a region, but of a people aspiring to return to their homeland. (Taivo (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Where is it played? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [ec] And do we have sources? The article Gyallu itself states that it's unknown when the song was first used as an anthem. Further, if a government in exile adopts an anthem, does that mean it becomes the anthem of a people? Tibet seems to be a very unusual case, and I'm beginning to wonder if it deserves a section all its own. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd rather have all non indepedant anthems deleted from this article. But, that's an old argument of mine. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume that it is regularly played among the community in exile in India and other places. It's not played in Tibet, though.  (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Indeed, the Chinese government wouldn't allow it being played in Tibet. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Occam's Razor admonishes us not to needlessly multiply entities, so making a separate section just for Tibet seems like an extreme measure. There is a clear pecking order here in this article:  1) States with undebated territorial sovereignty (USA, UK, etc.); 2) States with debated territorial sovereignty (Abkhazia; Taiwan); 3) Nonsovereign regions with well-defined territories, but some measure of autonomy (Scotland, Aland Islands, etc.); 4) Nonsovereign governments-in-exile with territorial aspirations (Tibet); 5) Peoples without sovereignty or territory (Acadia).  (Taivo (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * But, how many fall into category 4? Only one - Tibet - as far as I can see. Fishiehelper's earlier proposal of "Tibetans in exile" might warrant some further investigation, no?
 * My point exactly--there is only one member of (4) so it shouldn't have its own table. I don't have a problem with labelling it "Tibetans in exile" and leaving it in the Peoples section.  (Taivo (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Would Kurdistan also not count as a 4?--Canuckguy (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (4) is only those regions where there is no national sovereignty of any kind, only a government in exile. Kurdistan exists on the ground in Iraq as a semi-autonomous region with limited sovereignty.  It belongs in the same section with Scotland as (3).  (Taivo (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Non-Sovereign Regions, Countries and Territories
Is there a clear definition of this section? The discussion above was ambiguous. I'm not comfortable with this section. It would seem that we could put in the anthem of every subdivision in existence. The 50 U.S. State anthems, the Russian Federal Subject anthems, all the Spanish autonomous region anthems, the four UK country anthems,....Imagine how huge that section would be. I think this section needs to be more clearly defined, or dropped, perhaps replaced with links to the templates for the subdivision anthems.Inkan1969 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing REDIRECT to List of anthems of UN member states - where is the support for it?
I can't find significant support for this, either here or on Talk:List of anthems of UN member states. I think it may have been someone being bold, so I've reverted it. If there is a problem here, please say so below so it's in one place.Matt Lewis (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see it has been put into sovereign/non-sovereign sections, and I don't have time to work on it this minute, alas. Perhaps somebody could help get it back? Wales etc is currently wrongly in 'sovereign', so people couldn't be bothered to complete it, and probably knew it would have run into problems too. Putting it in sections isn't the point, and isn't going to work with the other article around too - doing it instantly made this a 'political' article, which is what needs to be avoided as much as posible. It needs to be made into a long list again to have any purpose at all. These anthems (many of them are the best in the world) deserve a place on Wikipedia, and with the redirect here they have nowhere. List of anthems was always something seperate - the word anthem can exist on its own. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support de-politicising this article, by deleting the separate sections (Sovereign states; Non-sovereign countries, regions and territories; Regions without generally recognized sovereignty; and Peoples) and re-incorporating them into one list. I would be happy to undertake the work myself, but would want consensus before I started. Daicaregos (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would oppose such an idea. I think that it would make individual entries far more difficult to find for many people.  People looking for national anthems of sovereign states are likely to come to this page first, simply because it's at what is by far the more prominent title.  To many people, a "national anthem" implies the anthem of a sovereign state, and to this segment of our audience it'd be far more difficult to find the anthem they're looking for.  At the same time, those who are actually looking for the anthem of a non-sovereign entity would likely find it difficult trawling through the other diverse entries to find the anthem they're looking for.


 * I also think it would rather imply that the non-sovereign areas in the list either are or should be sovereign. Such an implication would obviously fail WP:NPOV.  Overall I see significant problems but little practical benefit to the idea. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding inclusion of micronations
I notice that the Republic of Jamtland is included here, and that it is basically, according to that article, a jokey marketing gimmick. Do we want to include such entities, particularly including so-called micronations, in this article or not? John Carter (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, IMO. There seems little-to-no benefit in keeping them - they're just likely to clutter the list up.  So better to leave them out.  FWIW it seems to have been added without discussion by an IP here.  I will delete this entry. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * e/c.It should be linked to Jamtland really (the main 'nation' article) - I've changed it. I don't quite see it as a micronation. According to the Republic of Jamtland article, In the long run, the Liberation Movement's goal is to restore Jamtland's ancient freedom and independence. However, as an independence movement, the Liberation Movement was described by the second president, the comedian Moltas Eriksson, as "51 per cent sincerity and 49 per cent fun". Perhaps the nationalistic element has little or no pupular support, but then there's no reason why a nation should seriously demand full political independence to have an anthem. A number of nations are happy being part of a greater entity. Also, (as I considered this) I'd hold back on appending something like 'what are regarded as micronations are not included', as the term is too ambiguous imo, and the existing insertion criteria is solid I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the Wikipedia articles, the flag and anthem given for Jämtland are not the flag and anthem of Jämtland, they are the flag and anthem of the micronation the Republic of Jämtland. Even if we take them seriously, it is more equivalent to a flag and anthem of the Scottish Nationalist Party or Parti Québécois, as opposed to Scotland or Quebec.  A region doesn't have to want independence in order to have an anthem, but this does not imply that this is the anthem of the region of Jämtland.  I shall remove it on that basis.


 * We should be excluding micronations, but the problem with a detailed definition is that most micronations are designed to appear on paper like unrecognised states. It's obvious that the Kingdom of Lovely is not the same as Somaliland, but that doesn't stop people arguing that it is, based on the on paper-ness.  And that goes particularly on an article such as this that does not require sovereign status for inclusion - where entities such as the Tibet Government in Exile or Cornwall are considered appropriate potential entries. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

England's national anthem
The commonly played anthem When England plays a sport is God Save the Queen. I can see no justification for putting any other anthem in this list while it is played before every international football and rugby game played by the county's teams. The Commonwealth Games occur once every four years and are hardly representative of the major national sports. -- PBS (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger tags have been readded
I see the proposed merger tags got readded again earlier, something does need to be done about these different pages.

List of national anthems List of anthems List of anthems of United Nations member states

The UN page has the best introduction and it has featured list status. List of national anthems has the better title and it also includes all nations rather than just sovereign states which some people feel strongly about. If we want to keep the Featured list status how about....


 * Move the tables (of non sovereign states etc) from List of national anthems to List of United Nations member states.
 * Move this page List of national anthems to somewhere else so that its history can be kept.
 * Delete the redirect which will be created at List of national anthems.
 * Rename List of anthems of United Nations member states to List of national anthems
 * Make List of anthems and this current page (where ever its been moved to) to redirect to List of national anthems.

If we can not be bothered to go through that process simply to keep the Featured list status then the introduction of List of anthems of United Nations member states should be copied to this page, then simply redirect that article and List of anthems to here. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the long move but I'm not sure whether the tables of the "non sovereign states etc" are featured list quality. The list might have to be submitted for review after the importation. The most pressing question now is: where should this page be moved so that its history can be kept? Quigley (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * List of anthems by nation? or something like that just so we can move it there and then turn it into a redirect to here. If having all these tables is likely to lose the Featured list status if we make the move then we should just do the quick option and not the long winded way above. But at this stage after the previous debates i can not see there being support for giving that list which excludes some nations to have the primary spot, and the setup at the moment is so pointless with that better introduction on the UN list getting a tiny number of views. Also the List of anthems page is so messy. A single non featured list would be better than the present 3 lists.  BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of anthems of UN member states here is not a carbon copy of the featured list's, so simply moving the introduction won't suffice. I still support the long process, with the List of anthems by nation. I don't think it's likely that the extra tables will immediately lose the article its featured status; it's just that straying beyond the "UN member state" criteria invites controversy about secessionist, claimed, and de facto states. But I think being a featured list affords it some protection, since it appears on an extra watchlist and promotes stability. Quigley (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely forgot about this page lol. I will make the changes shortly as there have been no objections in the past month to it. Whilst the new tables may risk the featured status if it causes instability the setup of these different articles at present is such a mess. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The page move was a bit previous, which I oppose. I favour retaining the page title 'List of national anthems' and making it a proper list of national anthems. Daicaregos (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is what im proposing. I copied the tables on this page (which includes Wales etc) over to the UN member states article. I was then going to move that page back to List of national anthems. i was in the process of requesting a speedy delete so the UN page could be moved here. So that we keep that featured article status as well as use its introduction which is better. As for a bit previous, i proposed this over a month ago and linked the 3 relevant articles. My proposal does not remove Wales. It simply sorts out the fact we have 3 articles when we only need one. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I support your intention to have a single list of all national anthems at this page title. Please go right ahead. Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok ive requested speedy deletion, although it looks like theres a bit of a backlog there so it may take a while. Once the UN page (now with all nations rather than just UN nations) is moved to List of national anthems ill turn List of anthems and List of anthems by nation into a redirect to there to complete this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)