Template talk:Music of Canada/Archive 3

Possibilities
At right are four possible variations for a section of this navbox. I think 1, 2, and 3 are acceptable, though I perfer 3 most. 4, I think, is needlessly repetetive. Comments? Any other suggestions? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2,3,4 are unacceptable due to inclusion of the entirely unofficial and not sanctioned by any law inclusion of GSTQ. 1 is acceptable if and only if you are not permitted, ever, to touch that article in any fashion whatsoever. → ROUX   ₪  18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the 'royal anthem' patriotic to all Canadians or just Canadian monarchists? We might be opening up another can of worms. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why my condition for supporting removal of the national anthem and GSTQ is Miesianiacal's permanent non-involvement. He'll just wikilawyer shit at the new article instead of here. I want this nonsense ended. → ROUX   ₪  18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence "Nationalistic" and not just patriotic songs. "GStQ" is offensive to many non-monarchists and many Quebec nationalists. But that's another can of worms and a political distraction. I still like the way the infobox looks presently and have no problems listing "O Canada" and then a link to the new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to inform then to omit - Your speaking as if Canada is not part of the monarchy (one day I hope  - but not yet).  Who cares who may or may not be  offended - only thing that matters is informing   our readers not what our editors wish our readers to learn about. Lets inform our readers as our own government of Canada does with a note explaining the position of the song. - Canadian Heritage - "God Save The Queen" has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The writer of the music for O Canada was a US citizen and Union Army General when he wrote it. Wikilawyering what is and isn't nationalist based on some arbitrary "pure Canada" test would be best to avoid. As Moxy points out we need to find the best way to inform the reader, and that includes educating them about the status of different anthems. As for Miesianiacal's proposals, I vote for the first one which leaves it to the link page to inform the reader. On that linked page, O Canada should be given proper treatment as the legally recognized national anthem, but others should be included and their differing official statuses be described. Some of course, like The Maple Leaf Forever, are simply nationalistic because they are popular. There should be some effort to see if any First Nation songs would fit the page. Dkriegls (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the first one. I just want to give everyone here a perspective of how ridiculously long this debate has become. According to Word, this page has approximately 27 400 words. All of this because of an anthem... really? Nations United (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The debate has been long and I'm amazed at the stamina of participants. However, this thread seems potentially productive and I encourage editors to continue in a constructive vein until there is a resolution. Sunray (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've little interest in what's put into any 'new' related Template. I've no problems with removing both anthems from this Template, as it may end the inclusion/exclusion dispute over the royal anthem. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the template to reflect option 1 above. Someone else can begin the article Nationalistic and patriotic music of Canada if they'd like. But, I can do that, too, if its so desired. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A note on process: There have been several uncivil and personal remarks on this page. In talk page discussion I find it best to stick to talk page guidelines, and, in particular, to "[k]eep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." I have recently asked four participants to remove uncivil remarks. Two have done so and I hope that the others will do so as well. That will be their choice, though, I'm only here (from AN/I) to try to help to move the debate along. I'm not asking for any discussion about this. If there are continued instances of incivility, I'm outta here. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Sunray. The rock throwing (my descriptive) must stop, here. These personal attacks aren't gonna help in bringing about a solution to this discussion. If there's any concerns about any editors motivation in these discussion? please take it to ANI or somewhere else appropiate. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of keeping the discussions focused, however my comments were not uncivil as they were based in verifiable facts. I'm ready to move on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of "comment on content, not the contributor" is not clear to you? If you get that, we can move on. Sunray (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I really dont see how this can go forward unless we define the inclusion criteria - is it only legal over traditional?. We have two sides showing the same refs - but not all agree on the refs themselves - How can we move forward? Many many many government refs say its Officially used  - yet we all know there was no act of parliament etc to make it legal. To be honest I dont even believe its up to us to say in or out - its our job to inform like other encyclopedias. The idea of using a format like at England I thought was a good idea as it  allows our readers to be informed about its position thus being neutral in its presentation.   Moxy (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Officially used in what capacity?
 * This entire discussion is off-topic for this section, which is supposed to be discussing the options listed to the right. I'll add a fifth option. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See this is the problem - people simply are not reading the refs in the same manner. Its been shown many many times its officially used by not just the Government of Canada but the provinces and the military - it just has no legal status in the country. I dont think anyone can argue with theses facts (as all have seen the refs by this point  I presume). That said I do like the 5th idea.Moxy (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My new choice would have to be the 5th one. Nations United (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

From Manual of Style/Infoboxes "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." One is the only option that optimizes space with no redundancy. All other options add materiel that is easily collapsible under the Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada link. Justification to add this redundancy should be made before doing so. Dkriegls (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The 5th idea is the most suitable and has my 100% approval. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The first or fifth versions are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dkriegls. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As Dkriegls points out, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" and so to simplify completely we would have the infobox to the right.
 * It contains everything and is simple. The artile would then be required to incorporate links to all of the important elements currently represented in the template. However this misses the phrase before it: "summarize key facts in the article in which it appears" and "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" and a key fact is the national anthem.
 * Alternatly to make it a little more simple than it is now, we would create similar articles for Music awards of Canada, Music charts of Canada, Music festivals of Canada, Music media of Canada and Regional music of Canada.
 * Simple does not mean removing as much information as is possible and placing into a separate article, it means don't complicate things and allow "readers to identify key facts at a glance" rather than having to click through to another article for the primary information.


 * This next topic is outside the scope of this discussion.
 * I would argue that any article that appears as a link in this template should also contain this template. It's a standard practice. We should endeavour to make that addition to those articles as soon as possible. If we do decide to add "GStQ", will the editors of that article allow us to add this template to that article immediately beside the Canada section? It should probably appear in Canadian royal symbols as well since it discusses "GStQ" there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Walter Görlitz's above position to extend the links beyond Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada to include the National Anthem, doesn't also hold true for the inclusion of the Royal Anthem of a Constitutional Monarchy, that by act of parliament, recognizes the British monarch and all their ceremony. Isn't a "key fact" of a constitutional monarchy its royal anthem? Dkriegls (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It's early in the morning for me and you've lost me. Which point and which act of parliament? If I understand you correctly. Are you arguing for the sixth template or are you arguing that because Canada is a constitutional monarchy that we should include "GStQ" in the template? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes, Mies ain't gonna like that statement - "...recognizes the British monarch...". GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, not trying to start the "act of parliament" debate over again. I am just making my case for the first option. The only reason I see so far for adding links to both Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada and the National Anthem (the Fifth option) was Walter Görlitz's suggestion that it's a "key fact" readers would want to know. And I was only suggesting that the same logic holds true for the Royal Anthem of a Constitutional Monarchy. Dkriegls (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a key fact though. The latter is not sung publicly save for a few ceremonial occasions. The former is what is performed at sporting events and international gatherings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "key fact" is not much of a measure. It is just as subjectively true to say that a key fact of a constitutional monarchy would be the ceremony of the queen. I don't have an opinion one way or another which is why I am looking for an objection measure for inclusion. Short of that, I don't see why option one wouldn't be the simplest solution because it would be left to the reader to figure out at the Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada page. If the reader was looking for the national anthem, they would have no doubt that it could be found there.  Dkriegls (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the royal anthem wasn't played before NHL games or MLB games. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could ignore the rest of what I said and focus on one phrase: "key fact". The rest is short and succinct. Feel free to read it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even in the 70s. Don't remember if it was in the 60s. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How is "played before NHL games or MLB games" an objective measure of inclusion? Dkriegls (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding "The latter is not sung publicly save for a few ceremonial occasions". So in other words, it is sung publicly. I'm not trying to pick a monarchist vs republican side here, and I don't think the link should either. That is why option one leaves it to the reader and doesn't lose any navigation options. Dkriegls (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, she's a figurehead monarch who holds no real power and no other head of state's anthem is listed in the infobox even when they hold the true power. Almost no one sings it in Canada, and when it is sung, it's a ceremonial display as opposed to a heart-felt outpouring of emotion and sentiment. It's not monarchist vs republican, it's figurehead vs POV. Option one is terrible since it provides no useful information until the link is clicked. And we know how unlikely that is going to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He asked for a objective measure of inclusion. You provided a subjective argument; how is "heartfelt outpouring of emotion" even measurable, let alone an objective measure of inclusion? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So he did. The royal anthem is performed one percent of the times in Canada when compared with the national anthem.
 * The royal anthem is used to represent the head of state and not the nation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick question: What in the world is the point of the sixth option? It provides no information... Nations United (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a reductio ad absurdum by following M's first suggestion and Dkriegls' quote that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". (see the response to the left of it). Excluding the national anthem because it's in this supposedly new article is no different than just excluding everything presently in the template and inserting it into the Music of Canada article and making the template point to it. We have to provide some information not just the link to all possible material on the subject. Hence, the fifth option is the better choice. Some material is provided and the reader is free to explore additional music on the topic, including the honorific song for the figure-head monarch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Excluding the national anthem because it's in this supposedly new article is no different than just excluding everything presently in the template" is an argument from reductio ad absurdum (a logical fallacy meaning it isn't concluded from the facts). Keeping a navigation template at the category level instead of making an allowance for a singular item is not an argument from reductio ad absurdum. Without an objective reason for that singular allowance, we open the door for inclusion of any number of songs and end up with option four - ad absurdum - making the template not very useful for navigation. Option one and five are not that far apart and both are simple and easy for readers to navigate. I am not wholly against either. I am just trying to find an objective reason to chose one over the other and all I come up with is keeping inclusion criterion simple at the category level. This objective criterion for inclusion prevents any further attempts at inclusion of GSTQ, sets a defensible precedent, and still provides the reader with a useful navigation tool that is both simple and informative. Dkriegls (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The first half of what you write is what I said. The second half, while on the appearance is valid, isn't in the end. There is no objective reason to include the song for a figurehead head of state in the template. She does not sit with parliament or senate that make the laws. She doesn't even give assent to them. And more the point, she doesn't even select the GG for whom the anthem is most frequently played in Canada, that's done by someone in the PMO and she simply gives her approval to the selection. She doesn't even show up to install the GG. I would like firm statistics as to how often and in what settings GStQ is played from those who want its inclusion. We already know that "O Canada" is performed before sporting events, at the opening of parliament, at the start of the school day in many school districts across Canada. At noon in Vancouver's Canada place, the first four notes are performed so that more than 200,000 people can hear it (and my co-workers mock me, but I frequently stand when it's played). It was performed spontaneously in the streets during the 2010 Winter Olympics. If you want objective criteria (more than one) then statistics for its precise use should be presented. ""GStQ" is not performed in parliament except during the speech from the throne (once per year) while "O Canada" is sung on Wednesdays (and possibly more often to filibuster). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument from popularity is not a functional measure. If it were, we would need to include every song from Justin Beider. You're also failing let go of the GStQ beef. No one is arguing for it's inclusion. All editors who have chimed in prefer either option one or five. Neither of which includes GStQ. The only question separating the two options is why go lower than the category level for navigation purposes? And you're not addressing that question. Dkriegls (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument from popularity is not comparable to mine. Bieber's music is an anthem for anyone other than the youth of the country. I have no GStQ beef. I don't believe that the national anthem should be removed because it is the common anthem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were just above comparing "GSTQ" with "O Canada". None of the presented options include "GSTQ". One, however, includes "O Canada" (as the only individual song in the navbox). How is "it is the most-often played common anthem" an objective measure of inclusion; indeed, a justification for the special treatment given by option five to "O Canada"? It seems you want all songs to be subject to a requirement specifically tailored to favour the national anthem. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most-oftent played already mentioned, sporting events, public assemblies, international appearances of officials. Can you show that it's not played or performed more frequently than all other songs that would be in this article would be? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is: How does is the frequency of play an objective measure justifying special treatment in the navbox for "O Canada"? There's a link in the navbox to Canadian rock, but no link next to it to the most-played Canadian rock song. (As if the frequency of play for any song were even calculable.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The royal anthem isn't equal to the national anthem, just as Canada & 14 other Commonwealth realms are less prominant then the United Kingdom - concerning Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)