Template talk:Music of Canada

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Music Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related This template is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Music of Canada Nationalistic & patriotic songs
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada

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

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

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

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

Option B is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Option B has my vote. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Option B - Moxy (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, if I'm not mistaken, there is only one editor that hasn't voiced his opinion, and that's Roux. I've contacted him on his talk page. Although, I don't know if Dkriegls and Sunray want to voice their opinion, as I think they are acting as mediators, right? If they want to, they're more than welcome. I think we're almost finished with this ridiculous debate (hopefully). Nations United (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A is completely unacceptable for all the reasons I have outlined before. Option B is acceptable, though I must reiterate that Miesianiacal must be permanently topicbanned from touching the new article, otherwise this whole argument is just going to flare up again and it's going to become a coatrack for more pro-monarchist POV pushing. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would suggest one of three options:

1. Chronological (when was the song first composed, oldest first)
2. Alphabetical
3. Importance (as measured by number of recordings or sheet music sold in Canada)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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