Template talk:Music of Canada/Archive 1

Template conversions
When I recently converted this template, I added to this version the image from the previous version. I did this mainly for decorative purposes, but also to avoid anyone complaining about anything going missing in the conversion. As well, this image makes a handy space filler until someone can find an image that's more representative of Canadian music. If anyone wants to change it, please feel free. LordVetinari (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be more representative? Anne Murray doing a shot of maple syrup? Celine Dion eating tourtiere? → ROUX   ₪  06:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage irregularities
The sections on this page should be chronological with newer sections on the bottom. As editors arrive here to comment on the RFC they will be confused. If none of you can take time away from fighting to fix the page I will. – Lionel (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a novel idea. Why don't you look at the page history, and take note of when the section above was created and by whom. Then take note of when the RfC tag was added and by whom. Any glimmers of understanding yet? → ROUX   ₪  04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be the order of sections: – Lionel (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Template conversions
 * 2) Restarting the discussion & summing up
 * 3) Royal anthem
 * 4) Talkpage irregularities
 * OK. Roux started what appears to be a "straw poll" prior to run concurrently with the RFC. The intro to the "straw poll" is biased. This is highly irregular. – Lionel (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ab initio (trying to see exactly what we want here)
All of this boils down to a few possibilities:


 * 1) The template should be restricted to Canadian music, i.e. music of distinctly Canadian origin
 * 2) The template should include not only the above, but also music specifically associated with Canada, including folk music etc. associated with Canada, even where the music is "traditional" or not specifically written' in Canada
 * 3) All of the above included, as well as mucic routinely played in Canada in any official or semi-official capacity, thus including the "royal anthem."

In each case for the subcategories used within the template, should they be similarly restricted?

Are there any other possibly or favoured views of what this template actually ought to include? Collect (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal anthem
Should the song "God Save the Queen" be included as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada? 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:UrbanNerd has three times deleted the Royal Anthem from this template with the reasoning that Canada has no official royal anthem. That's the same basis for which he argued at Talk:Canada that the Royal Anthem should be deleted from the infobox at that article, but the position was roundly defeated as reliable sources were provided confirming that "God Save the Queen" is indeed the Royal Anthem of Canada as established by the government of Canada. If UN has some other reason for removing the song from this template, I'd suggest he either present it here for discussion or leave the template alone. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Miesianiacal has a long history of adding POV nonsense like this. It was this user who added GSTQ to this template, I reverted his edit. He feels because his edit was able to last for 6 months somehow it is now solid fact. The only reason it was able to last 6 months is because this template is seldom edited and no one probably noticed it's addition. This user regularly engages in edit wars and refuses to follow BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. GSTQ is not an anthem of Canada. In fact it was purposely taken out of legislation in parliament. I am in risk of 3RR if I revert his attempt at edit warring again, but I will wait the allotted time and revert it once again. I suggest this user use this talk page and not continue to edit war. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Canada indeed has a royal anthem, I heard it at my High school graduation & at every Remembrance day ceremony I attended. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And that makes it an official anthem ? Perhaps GoodDay's public school determines what's an anthem or not. Interesting. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The length of an edit's existence doesn't establish any facts; but it does mean that the edit has gained consensus through silence and the WP:BRD cycle instructs us to leave the status quo while any dispute is worked out. What establishes facts are reliable sources, and plenty were provided at Talk:Canada to establish that Canada has a royal anthem.
 * Threatening to continue to edit war doesn't reflect well on you; I suggest you retract that warning and not follow through on it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that whenever Miesianiacal gets in an edit war GoodDay always mysteriously comes to back up his argument. That may be something worth looking into. It is also odd that GoodDay always seems to state that he is a "republican" yet always shares the same POV monarchist ideologies and never that of a Republican. Hmmm. Also in no way does an edit remaining for 6 months on a seldom edited article equal consensus through silence. Please refrain from making up your own theories. Once again I will remind you not to engage in edit warring. Thank you. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting sock-puppetry? open an SPI. Otherwise, I'm just a strange fellow. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit rich for one who lectures others about edit warring to himself threaten to further edit war. Regardless, the guide isn't my invention: WP:SILENCE. It is the weakest form of consensus, but consensus none-the-less. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE does not apply. I reverted your edit. I was not silent. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were Bold in reverting my six month old edit, I Reverted your edit almost immediately, and now we Discuss. I'm afraid, though, it's not your place to say when WP:SILENCE does and does not apply; the guideline speaks for itself. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE doesn't apply anymore as there's 3 of us here discussion the topic-in-question. So far, it's 2 to 1 who favour inclusion, as I'm the WP:THIRD in this. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about when UrbanNerd made his first revert. Not now. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any edit remaining on any article for a extended length of time which 6 months surely is, gains consensus through silence. Your revert would have been the bold move, because if others had not agreed with the previous edit they would have removed it long ago. So the others were correct in reverting you back to version before the bold edit. I would also counsel you to stop getting hostile with other editors and issuing edicts about edit warring while you are doing so yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's DJSasso. again. Haha UrbanNerd (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Grow up. Comments like "I am in risk of 3RR if I revert his attempt at edit warring again, but I will wait the allotted time and revert it once again." show that you do not understand 3RR. You can, and will, be blocked if you continue to edit war. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Get a clue ignoramus. An article that is barely ever edited happened to have an edit last 6 months before it was noticed and reverted. You clearly don't understand WP:SILENCE, or are you to decide how long an "alloted amount time" is. Quit following edit too or will you will be reported. And you will be blocked from editing. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things, its a highly visable template, so how often it is edited is irrelevant. Secondly I wasn't following anyones edits, I was part of the discussion of this topic on the Canada talk page. However, looking at your history now it appears you were following mine. Secondly. Read up on WP:NPA. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, happens to be on my watch list. Please read and understand Civility. Thank you. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is becoming a bore. Cool off. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again you add absolutely nothing to the conversation. Take a hike. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The royal anthem stays. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The royal anthem entry should stay, for the reasons stated above by other users. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. As such, the leader of our country is the Queen. We therefore have a royal anthem. However, "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931. So I trust that its removal will not cause any further concern or debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually not at all as both sides keep showing the same references for there arguments. "God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" although it is considered as the royal anthem,". Will this ever end can we get more people  to this tlak page. Talk:Canada/Archive 20Moxy (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any good reason why the words 'no official status in Canada,' or similar, cannot be appended? → ROUX   ₪  09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a template. Not enough room for a long phrase like that. There are many other songs that have no official status in Canada that are sung at public gatherings, none of which are mentioned.
 * As for Moxy's comment, I only see one reference here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one should add to the archive but I didn't see any references there. So do we have one reference anywhere to indicate that "God Save the King/Queen" has any official status in Canada? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The government has cearly given it official status. The references for that fact have already been provided. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The government has done no such thing. In fact, the government has unequivocally stated that GSTQ has no official status. Unless you have a reference stating otherwise, in which case please provide it. → ROUX   ₪  18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry M. I mist agree with ROUX and request said reference as it's not provided here. Perhaps you were thinking that it was listed elsewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can either of you show us where the government stated the anthem has no official status? I see only where it has said the song has no legal status. It is clearly recognised by the government, armed forces, governors, etc. as the Royal Anthem and there are government and military issued protocols on when and how to play the song, which indicates the song has an official status.
 * Furthermore, what is the point of determining whether or not it has legal or official status? The template merely states that "God Save the Queen" is the Royal Anthem of Canada and that fact has been established. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What a piece of wikilaywering. It has no official status. Do you have a link to indicate its legal status? There are many other songs that have no official status in Canada. It is just a royal symbol as it has no official status in Canada. None. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please answer either of the questions? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your questions either have been answered or don't need to be. Status is your word and you can't provide a single source to support its status. You can't provide a single reference to indicate that it has official status in Canada, simply that it's a "royal anthem". That doesn't give it any more status than "Happy Birthday" in our country, the latter of which is sung more frequently. It has no more official status than "The Hockey Song" which is more recognizable. It has no more status in Canada than "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" which has similarly gone out of fashion at celebrations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For those who seem to have missed the sources provided in the earlier discussion at Talk:Canada:
 * Department of Canadian Heritage: "'God Save The Queen'... is considered as the royal anthem."
 * Department of Canadian Heritage: "...[T]he playing of Canada’s Royal Anthem 'God Save The Queen'...(p.54) Since the proclamation of 'O Canada' as the National Anthem in 1980, 'God Save The Queen' has been performed as the Royal Anthem of Canada in the presence of members of the Royal Family, as part of the Salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors and on other occasions.(p.I)"
 * The Canadian Encyclopedia: "'O Canada' and 'God Save the Queen'/'Dieu sauve la Reine' were approved by Parliament in 1967 as Canada's national and royal anthems."
 * Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia: "[T]he Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'..."
 * Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan: "[T]he Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'..."
 * Department of National Defence: "Royal Anthem: The music of 'God Save The Queen' is considered the royal anthem of Canada... [T]he royal anthem, 'God Save The Queen'..."
 * The Grand Orange Lodge of Canada: "'God Save the Queen' also serves as the royal anthem for most Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and Canada."
 * Government of British Columbia: "Royal Anthem God Save The Queen"

And a few more:


 * Encyclopaedia Britannica: "God Save the Queen remains the royal anthem of Canada."
 * Governor General of Canada: "The Viceregal Salute is composed of the first six bars of the Royal Anthem, 'God Save The Queen'..."
 * Department of Citizenship and Immigration: "The Royal Anthem of Canada, 'God Save the Queen (or King)',...
 * Maclean's: "God Save the Queen, our ofﬁcial royal anthem..."
 * Ernest MacMillan: The importance of being Canadian: "In Canada's centennial year 1967, 'O Canada' with its French text, was approved as the Canadian national anthem and a year later an amended English version of a somewhat free translation by Robert Stanley Weir was also adopted. 'God Save the Queen' was made the official royal anthem."(p.281)

The song is obviously Canada's royal anthem. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obviously Canada's royal anthem. That's not an issue. The fact that it has no official status in Canada does. Also, why would we look at another article for references? Not one of these indicates that it has any official status. Seems that our monarchists are out of luck here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't start with personal commentary and focus on the sources and the template.
 * I'll ask again: Though the song is obviously officially the royal anthem (does the parliament's approval of it as the royal anthem mean nothing?), of what real importance is that to this template? The template does not say "Official Royal Anthem" after "God Save the Queen"; it merely says "Royal Anthem". It makes no claim that isn't supported by a slew of sources. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Every entry listed has an official standing. It's either a recognized genre, organization, or other category. The national anthem is listed because it has an official status. The royal anthem is not listed because it has no official status.
 * We could just as easily list songs related to our national sports as they're unofficial. We could list theme songs of nationally syndicated programs there. There's no demonstrated need to add it and so it makes no sense to add it. If it had official status, supporting its addition would obvious. The fact that we are a constitutional monarchy (that doesn't recognize the song as official) and we happen to have a royal anthem for said monarch are not an issue in this template. It's lack of official status in the country is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The MMVAs do not have official status. Official status is therefore not a benchmark for inclusion. However, even if you want to pursue that line of argument for anthems, it's ridiculous to claim that a song recognised by parliament, the government, the armed forces, and the govenror general and lieutenant governors as the royal anthem is not officially the royal anthem. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the word 'official' used once, by Maclean's. I don't see it used by any other source. The preponderance of evidence is that the song is not official in any sense of the word. → ROUX   ₪  19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The MMVAs (Much Music Video Awards) do not have official status? Since when? Their status is inhered from the channel than hosts them.
 * I should correct my position: GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem. However the royal anthem has no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem." Yes, it does. This means you must have reversed you earlier standard for exclusion of the song: "The royal anthem is not listed because it has no official status." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it does not. One reference from 55 years ago, balanced against multiple references which are silent on the subject. This is just more monarchist POV-pushing. → ROUX   ₪  20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, recognition by parliament, the government, the armed forces, and the governors (general and lieutenant) is not equal official? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not without violating WP:SYN and WP:OR, no. Show me where the govt says it is official. → ROUX   ₪  20:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You believe it's synthesis to claim a designation by government is an official designation? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting to see where the government has designated GSTQ as official. → ROUX   ₪  21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's likely to be revealed through your yet-to-come answer to my question. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You will not get an answer to any of your questions because it has a no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking Roux. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm answering. You're expectations are unreasonable and not at all polite. Your question does not have an answer and our question to you does: GStQ has a no legal status in Canada, and oddly you can't change that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for Roux's answer. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You won't get an answer so don't bother. You should not expect an answer any more than we should expect an answer from you on its legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should let Roux speak for himself. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I answered your question. No, the song is not official without you violating WP:SYN and WP:OR. I am still waiting for you to show me where the government says the song is official. → ROUX   ₪  05:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Roux, you answered a question, yes. But not yet this one: Do you believe it's synthesis to claim a designation by government is an official designation? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When there is not a single government source--a position I am forced to adopt given your typical refusal to actually provide a reference--stating it is official, yes. Do you have such a source, yes or no? If so, provide it, and stop your usual avoidance bullshit. If not, admit that no such source exists. This constant dance you always do when you don't have sources to back up your POV is fucking annoying and wastes everyone's time. → ROUX   ₪  17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He actually did provide sources but the only one of note is the one that says that it has "no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 That is official and it's from the the government. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Walter Görlitz for explaining that there are sources (just have to look) - Would be nice if we could keep this conversation civil and replies that are informed intelligent answers. Now that we all see there are source shall we move on.Moxy (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not a single source from the government stating that the anthem is official. Unless you have one, stop pretending as though there is. → ROUX   ₪  17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm very politely asking a simple question; not a ridiculous request. Your frustration appears to be stemming from my not letting you avoid answering it; "Provide a source that says the government says it's official" is not the answer to "Do you believe it's synthesis to claim a designation by government is an official designation?" Or, put another way, "Is a designation by government an official designation?" Things would progress much easier if you'd simply state which of the two options - yes or no - you feel is the correct one. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already answered that question, twice, so here's a third; perhaps you will read it this time: in the absence of a government source stating the anthem is official, yes it is synthesis to claim it is official. There. Now where is your source from the government stating the anthem is official? → ROUX   ₪  17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't answered it; you're answering this question: "Do you believe it's synthesis to claim 'God Save the Queen' is officially the Royal Anthem of Canada if there's no source in which the goverment used the words 'official' or 'officially the' before the words 'royal anthem'?" That's very obviously not the question I asked. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since that is the question at hand, that is the question I answered. Do you have a source from the government stating that the anthem is official? It's a yes/no question. → ROUX   ₪  17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will answer yours just as soon as you answer mine. I just clearly outlined how you've been answering a question other than the one I asked. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL

You are so fucking childish it makes me want to put you over my knee and give you a proper spanking. "Neener neener neener, I'm not answering your question until you answer mine." Claiming X when the only organization with the power to make X true has not stated X is a violation of either WP:OR or WP:SYN, depending on the specific circumstances. In this case, it is WP:SYN, because you are claiming X via inference without a source. Now answer the fucking question: do you have a fucking source from the fucking government that states un-e-fucking-quivocally that GSTQ is officially the royal anthem of canada? YES OR NO. For fuck's sake, I've answered your goddamn fucking question multiple fucking times, your pretended inability to comprehend written fucking English notwithfuckingstanding. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. SOURCE. YOU HAVE ONE. YES OR FUCKING NO? → ROUX   ₪  19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with the wording of the ref does not mean a government ref has not been provided - I cant believe I am now linking this to - "The anthem is performed officially in Canada in the presence of members of the Royal Family, and as part of the Salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. So as stated it is "officially" used by the government. You may think this has a different overall meaning - but that just  an opinion  not a lack of a source.  I know asking for civility is fruitless, but nevertheless again we are asking you to be civil please. Moxy (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me answer it for you: recognition by parliament, the government, the armed forces, and the governors (general and lieutenant) does not make it at all official. It has "no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 That is official and it's from the the government. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's the royal anthem does not give it any legal status in Canada. I have not changed my position, just clarifying it. If you read my first post to this discussion you would see that I recognized it as the royal anthem then. However, it has no legal status in Canada regardless of the number of groups nor the nature of the groups who sing it. If M would like to take this up with the government, that's his choice. Until it has a legal status in Canada, we should exclude it along with other songs that are sung at large gatherings and are recognized by those bodies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For you, it first had to have official status ("Every entry listed has an official standing... The national anthem is listed because it has an official status. The royal anthem is not listed because it has no official status."). You've hence agreed it is officially the royal anthem, but have subsequently switched the inclusion criteria to: it must have legal status. That's called shifting the goalpost and it's awfully disingenuous. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Please don't start with personal commentary and focus on the sources and the template." I --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Until it has a legal status in Canada, we should exclude it along with other songs that are sung at large gatherings and are recognized by those bodies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I said the tactic of shifting goalposts in debate is disingenuous (read the linked article). Back to the main point: You said official status was required for an anthem's inclusion ("The national anthem is listed because it has an official status."). Since you've accepted "God Save the Queen" has an official status ("GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem"), it meets your criteria for inclusion. Except, you've suddenly changed the criteria. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No goalpost shifting. Until it has a legal status in Canada, we should exclude it along with other songs that are sung at large gatherings and are recognized by those bodies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You said only a moment ago it only had to have official status. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh foolish me. I'd strike it if it mattered. What really matters is that it has no legal status in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your flip-flop is noted.
 * Why must a song have legal status to be included? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my position. I merely noted that it is the royal anthem and that it has no official status. I explained why it should have legal status to be included. Why should the monarch's hymn be included since it has no official status in Canada? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "I should correct my position: GSTQ does have official status as the royal anthem." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you equate clarification for your benefit with changing. I'll try to be more precise in the future. I was correcting your understanding, not changing my position.
 * I notice that you didn't answer my question even though I've answered both of yours. Allow me to re-post it in case you missed it the first time: Why should the monarch's hymn be included since it has no official status in Canada? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification, changing, whatever you want to call it, you said "God Save the Queen" has official status as the royal anthem. Now you're back to saying it doesn't, as well as claiming songs need legal status to be included. I've just reviewed all your comments and can't find where you explained why a song needs legal status for inclusion in the template. Can you point directly to where you said such a thing?
 * If by "monarch's hymn" you mean the royal anthem, it should be included because it's the official royal anthem of Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter, I've had the displeasure of dealing with Miesianiacal and his following of monarchists. He seems to go from article to article "british-ing" them up, when confronted he will go on and on with progressively more obscure excuses to justify his edits. He'll even go as far as to bend your words to make you sound not credible, or focus on something as trivial as a spelling mistake. I've tried to explain to him that GSTQ has no official status in Canada but his answer is always ends the same, "I want it on". UrbanNerd (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been reading between the same lines that you have UrbanNerd. You should have seen the battle a few editors and I had trying to get him to stop changing the size of references because of a line spacing problem that he had in his browser. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "God Save the Queen" does have official status as the royal anthem, but that doesn't give it any legal status in Canada. So what's the deal? I stated that "We could just as easily list songs related to our national sports as they're unofficial". So without legal status in Canada, we would be endlessly adding songs that people sing in public locations.
 * I apologize for using poetic license to refer to "God Save the Queen" as the "monarch's hymn". That is actually "Jerusalem" not "God Save the Queen", or is "Jerusalem" the national hymn of England. Please substitute "royal anthem" for all cases of monarch's hymn: Why should the royal anthem be included since it has no official status in Canada? It is the exact opposite of the question you're forcing me to answer.
 * It's not the official royal anthem of Canada because it has no official status in Canada. It's just the royal anthem. Nothing more. No more important than "Happy Birthday", "Snowbird", "This Land is Your Land" (the Canadian version) or a thousand other songs in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has official status as the Royal Anthem of Canada by the fact the government (and its institutions) has stated it is and used it as the Royal Anthem of Canada. I'm not certain if you are, but I hope you are not confusing "legal" as a synonym for "official". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Walter. Are we to add every song with no legal status to the template ? I'm sure "happy birthday" is the official birthday song in Canada. Should we add it ? Is "take me out to the ball game" the official baseball song in Canada ? UrbanNerd (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * M says, "It has official status as the Royal Anthem of Canada" and the government of Canada says "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931. Legal status does not equates with official status. Legal status supersedes official status. If you take UrbanNerd's excellent response into account, should we add the official seventh inning stretch (I should clarify that, sorry. That's a baseball term and that's an American sport) song used by the Blue Jays as well? The song has an official status but no legal one. "Happy Birthday". "White is the Colour" All songs with official status of some sort (using your logic at least) in Canada, but none have legal status. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, legal status is being raised as a red herring. We're discussing its official status, not legal status. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, "official status" is being raised as a red herring. We're discussing it's legal status because of the issue above. Nice bait-and-switch though. It's official status is not an issue for me at least. Its legal status (none) is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, the red herring is yours, since you first raised the subject of its official status, asked whether or not the song has official status, said it had to have official status to be included in the template, and then said it does have official status, then it doesn't, and then it does again. Now you're saying it doesn't matter anyway, since official status was just a red herring and legal status is the benchmark songs in this navbox have to meet. Your bar for inclusion is arbitrary and constantly shifting. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope people are still not talking about Official? I Dont think official is the problem here at all (easily sourced just have to look)  legal vs official is something different and what we should be taking about. It clearly has "official status" when it move from our national anthem to our royal anthem  as stated by Person in 1966. God Save The Queen was in the public domain so no need to copyright it by way of legislation. See here
 * More refs below Moxy (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)




 * You're the only one still fixated on official. It has "no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 Official is moot. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually i was replying to the post before my post by  Roux - I see it was misplaced  - should have been below his post sorry. PS thanks for that link I dont think any of us have seen it yet Moxy (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah sarcasm. I'm sorry to continually re-post it, but it's the only salient link as it indicates the legal status of the song in Canada. Perhaps when you've read it, understood that "no legal status in Canada" means that under Canadian law, it has no more status than a radio jingle. The fact that it has some form of "recognition" (whatever that means in legal terms) or that it is officially the queen's anthem doesn't mean that any ordinary Canadian should honour it more than any other song. It also doesn't mean it should be listed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * radio jingle? Thats a very simple view - no other song was our national anthem before nor is any other song our royal anthem. Cant deny is part of Canadian heritage unlike any other song. Got to remember it was our/the anthem till legislation in 1980 to change things. All that said I dont care either way if its in or out of the template - I am simply trying to get the facts right. So thus far we all agree its official but has no legal status. So the argument is that only the legal song should be listed right?  Thats actually seems logical to me I guess. Its amazing how Persons "Canadianism" have work so well over the past 5 decades. Moxy (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple view, indeed. According to that line of thinking, "God Save the Queen" has no more status in the United Kingdom than a radio jingle. Basically, it fails to take into account the place of convention in the Westminster system; rules that exist and must be followed but aren't set down in acts of parliament or order-in-council. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Convention is a weak argument. It has no legal status in Canada so now you fall back on convention? I don't have a problem acknowledging it as the royal anthem, but not in this template as without any legal status in the country, it's just a song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Convention is a weak argument? Convention is what makes "God Save the Queen" the national anthem of the UK and the Union Jack its national flag, Walter.
 * I don't think anyone's quite clear on why legal status (by which I've always assumed you mean designated by statute) is the criteria for inclusion. It appears to be entirely arbitrary. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Convention is entirely arbitrary M. By that logic, which I anticipated earlier when I mentioned this, we would add "Happy birthday" as by convention it is sung at almost every birthday celebration in Canada and everyone has a birthday. Legal status means it has no copyright protection in Canada and it has no status for its legal use. It's legally just a song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, doesn't make sense. Convention is a type of law. It is by that type of unwritten law that "God Save the Queen" is the national anthem of the UK; there is no statute or order-in-council designating it as such, but the British government states that the song is the national anthem and has used and uses it as the national anthem. Ergo, it is officially the national anthem. Canada parallels that: the Canadian government (cabinet, parliament, armed forces) states that "God Save the Queen" is the royal anthem and has used and uses it as the royal anthem. Ergo, it is officially the royal anthem.
 * If there are to be national songs - i.e. those designated by the federal government for use as symbolic of Canada or Canadian institutions - (though, Resolute raises an interesting question below of whether they belong here at all) then "God Save the Queen" clearly meets that criteria. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point
I won't lie, I gave up reading the section above after the second or third bad-faith accusation. However, all of this talk about the status of the royal anthem is pointless. England's queen is technically also Canada's queen. It therefore stands to reason that GSTQ would also be her royal anthem as monarch of Canada. However, this template is about Canadian music. So the questions that need to be asked are: Does this song represent the topic of Canadian music? Is GSTQ an article that someone looking for information on Canadian music would likely be looking for? In my view, the answer to both questions is no. GSTQ is not a Canadian piece, it is not reflective of music in Canada, and frankly, the only reason I can see for adding it is political. The purpose of such a template is to link the reader to related topics. GSTQ is not a related topic. Resolute 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC) lol, I just realized this is a bump of a two year old thread Resolute 01:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting way of looking at it. But, by "not a Canadian piece", do you mean "not composed in Canada or by a Canadian"? It has been deemed to be the royal anthem by the parliament and government of Canada and, for Canada, has its own unique Canadian tweaks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be the royal anthem, but "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 So it's not a Canadian piece. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Legal status" does not equal "Canadian". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions - Does it have  legal status as the royal anthem anywhere? Do the other commonwealth countries that use this as there  "royal anthem" make it official or do they all have the same no legal status? Its clear the reference used to say its not official does say "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." Is this the same everywhere? Moxy (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's the Royal Anthem of Australia by proclamation of the governor general. It does not have "legal status" in the UK except by convention, just as in Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect guys, if you want to keep bickering over legal status, do it in the section above. Doing it here only detracts from the question of whether the song is relevant to the template's scope. Resolute 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Miesianiacal, I am saying the song has no relevance to the topic of this template. Templates exist to link readers to relevant, related articles. GSTQ isn either. If you want to promote GSTQ as the royal anthem of Canada, go to a page where that is relevant, such as Monarchy in Canada.  On a template that focuses on Canadian music festivals, publications, awards and styles, the inclusion of this song is at best misguided, and at worst, an attempt at pushing a monarchist POV.  Truth be told, I'd also remove O Canada.  While the anthem is undeniably Canadian, we don't list any other single songs, and O Canada likewise does not mesh well with the remaining links. Resolute 01:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both your recent statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I realy have to disagree with O Canada being removed. Its the most famous Canadian song and its well mentioned in the article. Its not the template we should be looking at for what should be listed - what the parent article talks about  is what the3 template should  represent.Moxy (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolute, as I read what you wrote, the question came into my mind: Well, what of the national anthem? But, then my eyes came to where you addressed that. And... fair enough. While I'd consider official Canadian anthems as Canadian music, I can also see how they're somewhat out of place amongst the other content of the navbox. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF!? This isn't a political article M! Why did you take this discussion to a political RFC and not a music RFC? It seems Resolute was correct when he wrote, "frankly, the only reason I can see for adding it is political". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic area is Politics, government, and law; this debate relates to government; official, legal, etc. Media, the arts, and architecture is one of the three topic areas the RfC calls to. "Music RfC" is not an option; see Requests for comment. --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But there was an option that was not part of politics and yet you chose politics even though this does not touch on politics and you were accused of turning this into a political battle yesterday. I'm sorry, you can be so pedantic sometimes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I chose two other topic areas besides "Politics, government, and law": "Media, the arts, and architecture" and "Society, sports, and culture". And I picked "Politics, government, and law" because it covers government. I can't separate "politics" out of the topic area name. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Thanks for explaining so it got through. This still isn't a political article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No trouble. I try, but I'm often not confident in my ability to be clear. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the royal anthem is not listed at Template:Music of Jamaica. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I want Canada to be cool like Jamaica. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Official Endorsements for the RFC here
The question is: Should the song "God Save the Queen" be included as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada? Please voice your Support or Oppose here:
 * Support: GSTQ is the royal anthem. Whether it is "official" or "legal" is beside the point. These are arbitrary requirements. "Royal anthem" is sourced. So it should be included. – Lionel (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per Jonathan Swift - I can not believe all the verbiage spent here belaboring pretty simple matters - no more than Big-Endians v. Little-Endians. GSTQ is played at official Canadian functions. The Governor-General is a specific office. That the final argument is that GSTQ is not even "official" in the UK is a cavil of the first water - just add it, and stop the bickering. (iterated from "unofficial poll" below.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frankly, I am more and more convinced this is just pro-monarchist POV pushing. But beside that, on a template about Canadian music styles, publications, festivals and awards, this single song is not a useful addition to the template.  Resolute 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: So long as the national anthem of Canada is listed, it only seems logical and consistent that the royal anthem of Canada (which we know from various sources is designated by the government as "God Save the Queen"; its "legal status" is irrelevant) be included, as well. Both may not necessarily belong here, however, as Resolute earlier pointed out. --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The song "has no legal status in Canada" http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287080671090/1297281960931 In other words, it's just a song and the government does afford it any legal protection or special status. Its designation by the government is irrelevant as the government has clearly stated that it has no legal status in the country. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Duh. I see no reason to restate what I have said before, though I am compelled to echo Resolute's position. → ROUX   ₪  08:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Canada has one legal anthem, O'Canada. All other anthem, songs, salutes, hymns, etc. do not belong in this template or the infobox in the Canada article. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the template covered any other unofficial songs of cultural import, there would be a strong case for including it. But as the only specific song mentioned is the legal national anthem (and one might even question the relative importance of that to the nation's music as a whole), it doesn't really fit.--Trystan (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The song is officially the Royal Anthem, though; not by law, but by government designation and convention. It was also included in the template for about a year and a half; it is only not there now because it was revert warred out a little more than a week ago. The appropriateness of the national anthem here is a separate question, but one worth examining. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: I got a notification of this RFC on my talk page, and did a little of my own research. Based on the articles The royal visit: So much more than a photo op (Maclean's, July 2011), For republicans, Jubilee a kind of arrested development for Canadian nationhood (Ottawa Citizen, February 2012), No, Canada (Montreal Gazette, June 1980}, and Queen Elizabeth II Presides Over Nation's Birthday Activities (The Ledger, July 2010), it certainly appears that Canada has an official royal anthem, and that it is "GSTQ." Official is official enough for me. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The question is not whether it has an official royal anthem, it's whether it should be included in the list as such. I believe that only one person here believes that there isn't an official royal anthem. So I'm sorry, you need to address the issue not a different one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but that's what I meant by "official is official enough for me." If official anthems are included, "GSTQ" should be included as the official royal anthem. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For the reasons that Resolute mentioned. --JonGDixon (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Looking at the references, there are reliable sources that it is the Royal anthem, and I don't see any proposed that say otherwise. That really should settle it. Arguing about the exact officialness of the status is quibbling. Arguing that it shouldn't be included in the list makes no sense to me: it is music strongly associated with Canada (as well as a few other countries, but that does not mean it is not associated with Canada also).  DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That it is strongly associated with Canada is news to me. I honestly cannot remember the last time I've heard it played.  And I'm not sure it is played anywhere at all unless the Queen herself comes for a vacation.  And lets be intellectually honest here.  I don't think there is a place on earth where someone will hear GSTQ and think "Canada". Resolute 20:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is played at events where the Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor General (the Queen's official representative) is present in an official capacity, such as the presentation of medals, order of Canada honours, or during the throne speech. It's also played when any royal is present (it was played at this past summer's Calgary Stampede with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were presented). It's also played at many official military events. It was also played during the week of the Queen's birthday. It's no longer required at public gatherings such as school assemblies or sporting events, the opening of councils or other legislative bodies, and at the end of broadcast days on TV or radio. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, its association is tied to the monarchy. I don't think anyone was questioning that.  I'm not seeing any connection to Canada. Resolute 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, I remain unconvinced that either GSTQ or O Canada belong in this template. Resolute 22:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Might not be a bad idea to remove both. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been a month since the RfC was opened. However, no consensus seems to have emerged, nor is there even a clear majority in favour of any one particular option. What is the way forward on this, then? Should we gather opinions on deleting both the royal and national anthems? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a majority opinion 6-5 opposed to inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence I added the word "clear" prior to "majority" in my previous comment. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being pedantic but any majority is a clear majority. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. Adding that particular adjective doesn't make it more or less of a majority. However, if you had said "no overwhelming majority" you would have a case to correct me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no sign I even attempted to correct you.
 * Do you have an opinion on what to do with this matter henceforth? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. No consensus for change so remain with the status quo. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The status quo is what existed prior to the commencement of this dispute over changing the status quo. And the status quo was inclusion of the royal anthem. (Remember, this all began after UrbanNerd removed the anthem from the navbox.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if understand this correctly. In 2004, a few edits after the template was created, the national anthem was added and I didn't see anyone remove it or request that it be removed, although recent arguments for its removal make sense. More than six years after "O Canada" was added someone added "God save the Queen". Since that point, it has been removed regularly. One of the editors who restored it made the final removal with the comment of "consensus for inclusion of false data either". So it is far from consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * History of changes
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * So, one can gather from the above, plus the record on this talk page, that the royal anthem was there for six months before UrbanNerd deleted it. By five to one, the six month old consensus by silence was then reaffirmed. Six months later, UrbanNerd removes it again and is quickly reverted and it stayed as such for an additional seven months. That's nineteen months the royal anthem stayed in the navbox, giving it a pretty strong consensus by silence on top of the more robust consensus it received in December 2010. Thus, what DJSasso said back at that time applies equally (if not moreso) to UrbanNerd's last deletion of the royal anthem approximately a month ago: "Any edit remaining on any article for a extended length of time which 6 months surely is, gains consensus through silence. Your revert would have been the bold move, because if others had not agreed with the previous edit they would have removed it long ago. So the others were correct in reverting you back to version before the bold edit."
 * Regardless, I ask again: Is it worth exploring further the idea of removing the national anthem, as well? As I said earlier, I see the logic in Resolute's argument against the inclusion of any anthems. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Not everyone lives on Wikipedia and stalks articles like you and I do. There is no consensus by silence in those situations.
 * Ask what you want, but I answered your question. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus by silence isn't constrained by any "situations", as far as I can tell from reading WP:CONS. Plus, I'll draw your attention once again the the consensus for inclusion of the royal anthem that was reached here in December 2010. The (19 month old) status quo is quite obviously inclusion of the royal anthem. So, by your answer to my question, that is what you're saying you want.
 * I suspect, though, you actually mean you want the opposite: the royal anthem to stay out. That's fine. But, you've indicated on more than one occasion here that you see merit in the idea of removing the national anthem as well. Which is also fine (by me, anyway). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The status quo then is your consensus of silence for six whole years. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, consensus changed after I made my bold edit 20 months ago. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You changed the consensus of silence and rapidly suppressed opposition with misinformation. Your change to the consensus of silence has not outlasted the former. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true the last consensus didn't live as long as the one prior, but that is entirely irrelevant. I made a bold edit and, prior to the latest revert of it a month ago, it remained in place for 19 months, both by silence and, when it was challenged, direct support from other editors (making your bad faith accusations unfounded); the consensus that existed prior to June 2010 changed. UrbanNerd's edit a month ago, therefore, was the bold edit that challenged the 19 month old status quo, just as mine 20 months ago challenged the prior 6 year old status quo. The difference is, mine gained consensus over time and from other editors, whereas his has not yet achieved the same. Ergo, inclusion of the royal anthem still stands as the current status quo. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're playing with both the dates and the facts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I am at all. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was revoked. What was the comment that UrbanNerd used when removing it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the consensus being challenged. UrbanNerd's comment doesn't override Wikipedia policy. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. UrbanNerd and Moxy are not the same editor. So what you're saying is an editor who wished to boldly add material to an article may do so, but an editor who wishes to remove it must remove it immediately or it gains consensus? What a load of rubbish. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To back that claim. There is is no policy that silence is consensus. There is an essay that states that "Silence is the weakest form of consensus" and another that flat-out states that Silence means nothing. So don't state it's policy when it's not. It has been opposed since it was added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:CONS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." Add or remove, the principle applies.
 * I never once said WP:SILENCE is policy. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you have an edit conflict 20 minutes after the last edit?
 * You implied that it was policy.
 * Since the edit was both "disputed and reverted by another editor" it doesn't have the consensus you wish to grant it. Just because you bullied it into existence doesn't mean it wasn't "disputed or reverted by another editor" as my diffs above show.
 * Also, you didn't follow the BRD cycle. You were bold. It was reverted, and then you reverted. No discussion until months later. So don't appeal to a policy that you don't follow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was disputed by another editor and, at that point, the consensus was in question. However, other editors thereafter disputed the edit made in dispute and support for inclusion of the royal anthem was reaffirmed.
 * I've done my best to explain the edit cycle and consensus to you. If I'm not making myself clear and you want to know more, go ask other experienced editors or admins about the subject; I'm quite certain they'll back up what I'm telling you here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I"ve done my best to explain the correct edit cycle and consensus to you, M. If you can't understand it and you want to know more, go read the policies. I'm quite certain that you'll eventually become a productive editor on Wikipedia who doesn't twist facts and lies to impose his own will on articles and on other editors. At least, that's my hope. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why you're reacting like that; I genuinely meant it when I said I may not be making myself clear and you might do better to ask others who could maybe explain the editing cycle and consensus to you better than I. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: This article is about the music of Canada - and not about the music of the Canadian nation-state. GSTQ, per sources already cited, indeed is not the anthem of the nation-state of Canada. But, per other cited sources, it is music played in Canada, i.e. at functions and occasions honoring the Queen, who's the constitutional ruler of Canada. (This last statement is a statement of fact that bears no objection. Attempts to claim otherwise are personal points of view). If this was the article on Canada, GSTQ would be mentioned in the text but not in the infobox, since it has no official status in the nation-state. However, since this article is about the music of Canada, GSTQ clearly should be mentioned in both the text and the infobox, per the notability criterion. -The Gnome (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a slippery slope Gnome. If it's about the music of Canada, then by your new criteria "music played in Canada" we could have a very long list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The criterion is always notability. We include the most prominently played and heard music of Canada, in the present and the past: the most notable music of Canada. I'm sure that, if we were to remove GSTQ entirely from the article, the remaining text would be (or should be) constructed precisely with this criterion in mind. -The Gnome (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability would include a great deal of "music played in Canada", and played more often than GSTQ. See above for the example of "Happy Birthday"). It would be clear that many carols, hymns, and songs are played more often than GSTQ. And before you throw the nationalistic flag in (the song must be written by a Canadian) remember that the song you're fighting for is not written by a Canadian. So since you've created a new threshold: "music played in Canada" that is notable (in Wikipedia terms: has an article) the infobox would become unmanageble with songs from every nation on the planet listed. So what exactly are you talking about? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a yearbook and so should have an historical perspective. For much of Canada's history, God Save the King/Queen was the national anthem and so merits an entry in this template.  Warden (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the discussion & summing up
''This does not appear to be part of the RFC. This may be a straw poll. If you are here to comment on the RFC please go to the section above ''

Since Miesianiacal is unable to provide a single source from the government claiming that GSTQ is official in any way, and it is agreed that the song has no more legal status in Canada than Happy Birthday (a song in far wider daily use than GSTQ, and an assertion supported by an actual source from the only organization on the planet able to comment definitively on legal and/or official status), GSTQ simply should not be included in this template. → ROUX   ₪  20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Well, duh. → ROUX   ₪  20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Forget the idiocy over the status of the song.  It is not an appropriate addition to this template. Resolute 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Canada has one official anthem, O Canada. All other anthem, songs, salutes, hymns, etc. do not belong in this template or the infobox in the Canada article. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to move this up (this section is dead) - PS I assume you mean legal over official - may want to reword it.Moxy (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What an absolute disaster this talk page has become. Wow. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support removing it. Per the Canadian Heritage's Website, ""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." This is a different situation from, say, New Zealand, where it is actually an official national anthem. Could this be any clearer? Why not add "The Maple Leaf Forever" as "original anthem" or "anthem preferred by many"? Ye gads. It's either an official anthem or it isn't. OttawaAC (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Per Jonathan Swift - I can not believe all the verbiage spent here belaboring pretty simple matters - no more than Big-Endians v. Little-Endians.  GSTQ is played at official Canadian functions.  The Governor-General is a specific office.  That the final argument is that GSTQ is not even "official" in the UK is a cavil of the first water - just add it, and stop the bickering.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) * Comment - It's only played at some official Canadian functions since 1980. It is not commonly performed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) * Just an interesting note (bearing no weight to the conversation): I did find it fascinating  to see that its played on the "Carillon " so often along with may other traditional  songs Our House of commons program for this month. Moxy (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) * So the Carillon (a hand-bell tower) plays "God Save the Queen" for five days around the anniversary of the Queen's ascension to the throne. What does that say? It's the equivalent of "Happy Birthday". Should we also list "The Maple Leaf Forever" since it was played twice in February? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) *Note again! (bearing no weight to the conversation) "Just an interesting note" - best to understand the context - did not mention inclusion - In-fact I have  already stated that I dont care either way Moxy (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) * This seems to be a disruptive fork of the proper RfC above and so should be deleted. Warden (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) * Rolled-up, but not deleted. The RfC failed to gain any interest anyhow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Dont care either way. That said the claim that no reference by the government has been provided is false as seen above and should be correct in this restart section. No need to mislead our editors - but i guess all will see the refs for themselves and judge them on there merits. Official vs legal are 2 different things here.Moxy (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Next step
Given the series of events here and the overall failure to resolve this dispute, are those invovled in it willing to either end this by a final RfC on four options for this template or by a trip to formal mediation? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is an RfC really the next step? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be, if we agree to it being such in the context of this dispute, specifically. Whichever of the four options put forward gets the most support is the one we agree to let stand in the template. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Categorical opposition to such an rfC as being fundamentall unwikipedian. → ROUX   ₪  19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then do you opt for formal mediation? If not, can you suggest another venue at or method by which this can be resolved? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * RfCs aren't unwikipedia. They're just a request for a comment, which if it goes in M's favour will be used as a weapon against those who are opposed to its inclusion. If it goes against M's favour, will be dismissed by M. and then he will find some other Wikilawyering way to impose his will. That's why I don't really care what the next step is as long as we understand that the next step will be binding (and that the monarchists actually make the only salient point in their argument, which they have to date not made). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A method by which this can be resolved? Just leave it the way it is now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * RfCs aren't unwikipedian. Votes are. Beyond that I am in agreement with pretty much every word you wrote. → ROUX   ₪  20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More than half the editors (by only one, though) who've given an opinion at this page expressed a preference to leave it the way it had been for 19 months prior to the instigation of this dispute. The current verison of the template has been imposed contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Those facts cannot simply be dismissed. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have they? I didn't see that. Well in that case, you'll have to canvas more monarchists to make your side even more overwhelming. It won't change the underlying fact: average Canadians don't have any relationship to the song despite it being associated with our monarch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They have. They offered their opinions voluntarily; none were canvassed. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Blah, blah, blah. There is no consensus for inclusion at this time. Period. → ROUX   ₪  20:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last consensus reached was for inclusion. That consensus has been challenged, but no new consensus has yet been found to replace it.
 * Do you or do you not agree with moving to formal mediation? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care if no new consensus has been found, the bottom line is that there is no consensus for inclusion. End of story. You're welcome to start whatever procedure you like. We all know exactly how it will turn out with your involvement. → ROUX   ₪  20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last silent consensus was imposed through edit warring and strong-arming and was not a true consensus as it was disputed from its inclusion. I'm sorry you don't see that.
 * The real question is if you'll agree to the formal mediator's decision or if you'll argue that point as well. I have no problems bypassing an RfC and going directly to mediation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from the matter of silence (which you've misrepresented in this context), the last discussion on the royal anthem prior to this one (in December 2010, see above) concluded that the song was an acceptable inclusion. Note: though it has since February 2012 been disputed, that earlier consensus has not yet been overturned because no new consensus has yet been found, and we are advised that "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change."
 * Regardless, even though mediators are not advocates for one side or another, I will respect whatever a mediator says (if we choose that route), especially in regard to WP policy, guideline, and conventions. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was there a discussion above about this or was it your canvasing that achieved the consensus? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to that opinion. What percentage of those discussing above are the same ones who back you up every time there's an intrusion into the monarchist views on the article? Feel free to respond with a number or percentage at your leisure. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all irrelevant, and Mies knows it. There is no longer consensus for inclusion, therefore it is not included. That's how Wikipedia works, and it is a club he has used in the past to beat other people with. Small wonder that once it works against him he no longer subscribes to that theory. Par for the course with him, naturally, and depressingly predictable. It's very simple. The inclusion is now disputed, there is no consensus for inclusion, therefore the disputed material is not included. He's trying his usual tactic of wearing everyone down until they give up, at which point he claims there's consensus. → ROUX   ₪  19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please point to the WP policy, guideline, or recommendation that states when long-standing content (other than copyvio or sladerous material) comes into dispute that content should be removed for the duration of the discussion aimed at finding a new consensus? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right after you show me where there is consensus for inclusion. → ROUX   ₪  19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR seems like a good place to start. But seriously, you yourself know, M, consensus is not about when something is added, it's when it's added without contention. It was always a contentious addition. The fact that the monarchists forced it up on this article and silenced the lone voice of opposition doesn't mean it wasn't opposed from the outset. Please try a different form of misdirection. This one didn't work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the addition of this item has been disputed for two years. Yet somehow there was 'consensus' for inclusion? Bullshit. → ROUX   ₪  20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made a request for anyone with knowledge of Wikipedia consensus to help us. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Added some additional information like the revert was two edits later, which you neglected to indicate, and I also added a link to indicate that you and Moxy were in collusion to maintain GStQ on this article. Other than that, it's a good addition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * collusion? pls be correct in your assessments as your assertion is clearly false. I have not edited the page in regards to  GStQ since July 18, 2011 (when I mentioned a new talk was in order but as per the norm got no reply). I brought up the concerns of the long standing problem at Miesianiacal talk on February 5, 2012.  You started the talk again on this page that same day February 5, 2012 edit and I replied on  February 8, 2012 that we needed more involed to solve this problem.  My edits (reverts) from 2010 are as a result of the previous talks outcome that UrbanNerd was involved in here and above that promoted inclusion. I did not revert on   February 5, 2012 because it's clear we must solve this onces and for all   and again is why I posted a message to Miesianiacal stating such. I have made it clear many times now I dont care either way for inclusion or not and is why I am not involed in the current 3 month long edit war that has been going on. There seems to be alot of bad faith and assumptions  being made on peoples motives.Moxy (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're going on about. I showed that you alerted M about the edit here. You were trying to find a way to shut the editor up and rather than discuss the issue here you did so on another editor's talk page. What exactly would you call that? It's not open communication. To me that collusion, even if only a single act of it. You have proved five other similar edits over time. You two communicate about monarchist and Canadian topics. Some are simple checking of facts, but others are seeking support in activities.
 * However, back to your concern, there was no bad faith in making that statement. It's a statement of fact and you're free to offer counter-claims if you don't think you're working as a cabal or colluding. I think you are. If you think that's out-of-line, I can't change my opinion. Don't act in corners and your activities won't appear suspicious, communicate on the articles you're discussing so all can see. Use talkback templates to alert, not directions to act.
 * The only reason I found that was that I felt M was displaying page ownership on a different article at the time and I was checking his talk page to see if anyone else had complained about his behaviour recently. I have seen complaints in other talk pages about his behaviour. For the record, I see complaints about my behaviour about once a month, but I also make ten times the edits that M does in a month as well.
 * I will look at that archive at a later time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It,s called getting help more input- And again your mistaken I dont edit Royal pages - at some point the right conclusion about editors would be best  - I see you believe there is a conspiracy going on here - I hope after you look at the edit history you will see otherwise and perhaps next time make proper observations. I edit the most out of all of us and dont have complaints about behavior because I seek help - I dont make bold assumptions not based in fact. [User:Moxy|Moxy]] (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. If you want more input you should do it at the location where the input is needed, not on the talk page of another editor. That is why your behaviour is suspicious. This behaviour is not suspicious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that avenue is not the correct one. Time for mediation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A MedCom case has been started. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:Music of Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's incomplete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate so your concern can maybe be addressed? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can and I did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what point you think I missed when it came to the primary issue(s), but, thank you for adding/elaborating, nonetheless. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the point you always miss: that we can't confer status on the song. It is the royal anthem. No one is debating that. No one is debating that we have a monarch either. However, those two facts don't mean the song has any legal status in Canada. It's a song that is used in special occasions and nothing more. It's no wonder this has gone on for months. It had some legal status, the way it did before 1980. Afterwards it is only "performed as the Royal Anthem of Canada" (emphasis mine). It's the queen's theme song just like "hail to the chief" is the American President's theme song. The only difference is that one is our head of state and the other isn't. Is that song listed at Music of the United States, nope. Unlike the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations, where GStQ is listed, it's not listed as a Royal Anthem, it's their national anthem. It's not ours and hasn't been for more than thirty years. It's a song for special occasions no different than so many others Canadians know and enjoy. It is a patriotic song, but there are many others that fall into that class. So I hope now that you understand the blessed point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, the "royal anthemists" have never once indicated why the royal anthem has any place in the infobox. You simple (and figuratively) jump up and down stating over and over again "it's the royal anthem, it's the royal anthem". You have yet to tell us why the royal anthem should have any importance for our nation and more to the point, for this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I only included the question "Is it the royal anthem of Canada?" because, as far as I have been able to tell, UrbanNerd still believes it isn't. It can be easily determined if I'm wrong in thinking that and, if I am, the question becomes moot, no harm done.
 * Your other points above are your answers to the other questions I posed at the MedCom page: "Is it officially the royal anthem of Canada? Is 'official status', 'legal status', or neither the benchmark requirement for inclusion of an anthem in the navbox?" Questions I kept deliberately neutral and simple because "Primary issues" asks for a summary, not details of each party's side of the argument, which could be either added under "Additional issues" (I assumed) or raised in the subsequent discussion.
 * Regardless, I don't want to get bogged down even further with yet another debate about a part of the debate. I think you and I, at least, are content to wait until a potential mediator steps in to either take on the case or reject it (which I fear will happen if roux and UrbanNerd don't sign on). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you still have not and cannot answer the question I posed: why should the royal anthem have any place in the infobox and why should it have any impact on the citizens of Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Walter, I answered that a long time ago: it is an official anthem in Canada; if one official anthem is included in this template, then so should be the other. That's as much as I'm going to repeat now. I will wait to see what happens with the MedCom application and, if it's accepted, discuss further there. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah finally. No. It's not an official anthem of Canada. It it did, it would have that conferred as a legal status. Since it has no legal status and is only the royal anthem we can put this to rest. That was so easy. I can close the MedCom case now since you should now understand that Canada only has one, official, legal anthem: "O Canada" and it's already listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except I and others disagree with you. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then surely you must have a source from the government decreeing GSTQ as an official anthem in Canada. Provide it on your next edit or admit you don't have one. → ROUX   ₪  19:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The anthem is performed officially in Canada..."
 * Do you have a federal government source stating "O Canada" is an official anthem in Canada? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The National Anthem Act. Surely if GSTQ is official there must be an Act of Parliament stating so. Well, no... if there were, you would have provided it. There isn't. End of discussion. → ROUX   ₪  20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, when presented with a response that satisfies your extremely narrow and pedantic request, you respond by shifting the goalposts. When presented with a request as narrow and pedantic as your own, you provide a response that doesn't meet the request at all (the word "official" doesn't even appear in your link except in specific regard to the consolidations, not even a part of the act proper). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: The words and music of the song “O Canada”, as set out in the schedule, are designated as the national anthem of Canada." There is no Act which even mentions a 'royal' anthem. → ROUX   ₪  20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad your actual request was "Do you have a federal government source stating "O Canada" is an official anthem in Canada." I guess you didn't like the answer. If so, take your concern up with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the government department that, despite there being no Act of Parliament making GSTQ the royal anthem, still states GSTQ is performed officially in Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is not the same thing as official, particularly when the same department goes on to say the anthem has no legal status in Canada, and is merely "considered as" the royal anthem. → ROUX   ₪  20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That an Act of Parliament is specifically required to make something official is your personal definition of "official". Not mine, not the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's, and not, apparently, that of the DCH, either. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are Acts defining the anthem, the flag, arms, and various other national symbols. There is no such Act defining a royal anthem. This is simple fact, you cannot dispute it. The others have official status based on their legal status. GSTQ has no legal status, therefore has no official status--in fact DCH says itself, something you keep ignoring (shocking), that GSTQ is "considered as" the royal anthem. Not 'is,' not 'is officially,' but "considered as." → ROUX   ₪  20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "GSTQ has no legal status, therefore has no official status." Your (unfounded) opinion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas yours is founded upon... what, exactly? Selective misquoting. God you are fucking annoying. → ROUX   ₪  20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective misquoting? The context is right there above and the quoted words pretty well summarise your argument, don't they? Without an Act of Parliament, something can't be considered to be official. No? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada government website
 * Royal Anthem, The Royal Anthem of Canada, “God Save the Queen (or King),” can be played or sung on any occasion when Canadians wish to honour the Sovereign.

Looks pretty official from here. Government website
 * The Viceregal Salute is composed of the first six bars of the Royal Anthem, "God Save The Queen", followed by a short version (the first four and the last four bars) of the National Anthem, "O Canada". The same format is used for Lieutenant Governors of the Provinces.
 * When the Governor General makes an official visit abroad, "O Canada" is played as the musical salute.

Government site
 * You will be asked to authorize my Government to provide that "0 Canada" shall be the National Anthem of Canada and that "God Save the Queen" shall be recognized as the Royal Anthem in Canada. (April 5, 1965 speech of Governor-General to Parliament)

Looks to me like sufficient sourcing at that point. Collect (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Under what bill did GSTQ become the official royal anthem? → ROUX   ₪  20:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You see, Collect, every time you present a source showing "God Save the Queen" is Canada's royal anthem, you'll be asked to meet new, ever narrowing, and ever shifting demands. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Merely the same standard applied to the national anthem. To wit: an act of parliament declaring it such. You can go here, to the Justice website, which contains a database of the RSC. Search for 'royal anthem.' There is not a single regulation or act of government concerning its use. End. → ROUX   ₪  20:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I get some work done and you two are hammer and tongs again. M., you have no case. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't solve the problem GStQ may be a Royal anthem but it has no legal status in Canada. That means unless you have a legal document that indicates that it must be performed at any specific occasion, it's just a song. It may be performed is like saying "Happy Birthday" may be performed. It may also not be performed. There is no law compelling its performance in any circumstance. I will not even be beheaded if I don't perform it in a private audience with the queen or her officials. It's a song.
 * I fully expect an edit conflict. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We're just repeating ourselves again. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We may be repeating ourselves, but we've heard your lack of a point and you're not hearing our points.
 * In short,
 * when the Government of Canada legislates the performance of "GStQ" we should add it, (its status officially changed in 1980 and no longer has any special place under Canadian law) and
 * when the Americans add "Hail to the Chief" to their music template I'll gladly consider changing my position and push for "GStQ" to this template: songs for the heads of state are only included when it is the national anthem.
 * Sorry, you may be hearing the points, you're just keep telling us that we're wrong, but you never offer any proof to support your opinion that we're wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear (read) your points. I agree with some (one?), but the rest I either recognise as unfounded, nonsensical, or irrelevant. There's no reason to repeat again the same counterpoints and counterarguments to yours at least until we know what's to happen with the MedCom case. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Walter's "Hail to the Chief" example, therefore GSTQ should be excluded from this Template. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at Canada's official web site, it appears that 'O Canada' is the National Anthem and 'God Save the Queen' is the Royal Anthem. If the official Canadian web site, lists both side by side, it makes sense for us to the same.  HTH. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are other officially "Other Patriotic Songs". So you're suggesting that we also include
 * *"Ode to Newfoundland"
 * *"Maple Leaf Forever
 * *"Island Hymn" (Patriotic hymn of Prince Edward Island)
 * and the several songs listed in the List of regional songs because they're all linked to from that article. That may require further debate.
 * However, when you dig into the link to "God Save the Queen" we read that "'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." Since most other countries do not list the theme songs for their heads of state, unless that song is also the national anthem, I'd say neither should we. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What I did was I went to the official Canada website and searched for National Anthem. I clicked on the second link as that seemed to be what I was looking for.  It seems to be the top level page of National Anthem.   Both were listed.  The others you mention aren't listed.  Therefore, just the two.  I performed a objective, scientific test and that's what I found.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The others he notes ("Ode to Newfoundland", "Maple Leaf Forever", "Island Hymn", etc.) are listed under "Other Patriotic Songs", which links here. I can't say I strenuously object to the presence of those songs in the template (though many are distinctly provincial, whereas this template is national in scope), but none that aren't specifically provincial are "performed officially in Canada", as the DCH tells us "God Save the Queen" is. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Your objective, scientific test was lacking a firm foundation of understanding. In short, why do we need to list the honorific song for our head of state when few if any other nations do. "Hail to the Cheif" is the officially recognized presidential anthem but it's not listed on the US list template so while I appreciate the thoroughness of your search and the government to list it, it's not necessary to list for any reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How many other countries that have music navboxes have specific songs for their head of state that aren't the national anthem? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my question to you. United States doesn't list a song for head of state in their nav box. I'm not going to enumerate those without it (none at last count) and compare it with those that don't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you asked me that. It doesn't seem like many at all. I'm not sure what the relevance is, either. We can consider precedent, but we don't have to be bound by it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did. Right above. I'm not doing your legwork again M. If you want it included I expect a list of every template where the anthem for the head of state is included (and not the national anthem) and a list where they are not included as a comparison. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)