Misplaced Pages

Talk:Canada: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:31, 16 April 2012 editMiesianiacal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users47,041 edits GSTQ in the Infobox: r x2← Previous edit Revision as of 20:38, 16 April 2012 edit undoRoux (talk | contribs)23,636 edits GSTQ in the Infobox: your disingenuousness is both dishonest and fucking annoyingNext edit →
Line 241: Line 241:
:::::::Yes yes, blah blah blah, you've posted those before. There is still no law (not even an order-in-council) stating that GSTQ has any official status. It has no legal status in the country. Stop your nonsense. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</small> :::::::Yes yes, blah blah blah, you've posted those before. There is still no law (not even an order-in-council) stating that GSTQ has any official status. It has no legal status in the country. Stop your nonsense. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::::::You didn't ask for a law or order-in-council stating GSTQ has official status (even the Australian O-in-C you pointed to as an example doesn't say that). You said in response to my words "we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada": "no, we do not." The above proves that we do. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC) ::::::::You didn't ask for a law or order-in-council stating GSTQ has official status (even the Australian O-in-C you pointed to as an example doesn't say that). You said in response to my words "we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada": "no, we do not." The above proves that we do. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::They are incorrect. See also: no laws whatsoever governing the use or status of GSTQ. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</small>


About the only way I can see 'both' anthems being in the infobox, would be if we had <small>official</small> & <small>unofficial</small>, placed underneath them. ] (]) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC) About the only way I can see 'both' anthems being in the infobox, would be if we had <small>official</small> & <small>unofficial</small>, placed underneath them. ] (]) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 246: Line 247:
::It's the best compromise, that I can offer. ] (]) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC) ::It's the best compromise, that I can offer. ] (]) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::Of what relevance is "legal basis"? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC) ::Of what relevance is "legal basis"? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::This pretence at stupidity grows tiresome. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 20:38, 16 April 2012

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Template:Add

Featured articleCanada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCanada Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNorth America Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Template:WP1.0

Template:VATemplate:Outline of knowledge coverageTemplate:Canada selected article

Notice: Before you edit the article PLEASE READ the following.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Notice-nc-geo

ConsensusThe Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. History of Canada, Culture of Canada, Canadian football etc. See Index of Canada-related articles for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Misplaced Pages:Article size.
Toolbox
Archive

Archives


2003–2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22
2013
23
2015–present
24
25
26
27

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Foreign relations and military

We need to clean this section up ,,,Y are we listing everything we have..this numbers change daily as we loos and gain things ...We should remove all the grade 2 additions to this section that is simply a list of crap that links to other country weapons. I will be removed this section bellow ..I see no need to mention this on our overview page of Canada, If people are interested to see what we have they can go to main article..but thres no need to link to foreign designed and built things. Moxy (talk)

Despite the financial cut between 1987–2004, the Canadian Forces are well equipped. The Land Force Command currently operate approximatively 10 500 utility vehicles including G-wagon and 7000-MV and also operate approximatively 2 700 armoured fighting vehicles including the LAV-III and the Leopard 2. The land force also operate approximatively 150 field artillery including the M777 howitzer and the LG1 Mark II. The Canadian navy currently operates 33 combat vessels. These include the Halifax class frigate and the Victoria class submarine. The Canadian air force operates 333 aircraft.

References

  1. "Defence Minister Welcomes Auditor General's Reportpublisher=DND". April 25, 1998. Retrieved 2012-04-16.
  2. "Canada's equipment in Afghanistan Reportpublisher=CBC". Retrieved July 9, 2009.
  3. "Fleet at a Glance Reportpublisher=DND". Retrieved 2010-05-10.
  4. "Who We Are – General Information Reportpublisher=DND". Retrieved 2010-01-14.

Canada has a new land border

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead, replace

"Canada is ], and its ] with the United States is the longest land border in the world."

by

"Canada is ], and shares a land border with the ] and ]. Its ] with Denmark, on ], is the shortest land border in the world while its ] with the United States is the longest."

Source : Canadian negotiators reach deal to divide Arctic island with Denmark (there is something wrong with the link right now but it should be working eventually, in any case the article is going to be in Wednesday's paper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.78.19 (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This too : Canada preparing to go halfsies on hans 70.48.78.19 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Agreement is still a draft, let's wait till it is finalised. CMD (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Add Audio For Oh Canada

Why is there no audio file clickable for playing Oh Canada? If you look at the page for the Republic of Ireland for example, you can click to hear the anthem. That's cool. Canada should have the same thing. Someone should do this. I like to feel I've done my part by bringing up the problem, and hopefully someone equally patriotic but more technically skilled than I am can fix this omission. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.8.202 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Anthems added. — FoxCE (talkcontribs) 05:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed - as per old talk - that said we could talk about this again - but you will never get consensus to add and off tone American versions of theses songs. File:United_States_Navy_Band_-_O_Canada.oggMoxy (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would we require audio of the anthems here, anyway, when that's already available at the articles on the anthems themselves? Even if Republic of Ireland has audio for the Irish anthem, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
(BTW, it's "O Canada".) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Geography, Canada has more lakes than any other country, not true

"Canada has more lakes than any other country, containing much of the world's fresh water. " This is not true.

From Misplaced Pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_lakes_in_Finland

There are 187,888 lakes in Finland larger than 5 ares (500 square metres). Most are small, but there are 309 lakes or reservoirs larger than 10 km². They are listed here along with some smaller noteworthy lakes.

From Finnish goverment: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=12335&lan=en

There are 187 888 lakes in Finland. Lake is here defined as a body of standing water larger than 5 acres (500 m2). The number of lakes larger than 1 hectares (10 000 m2) is 56 000. Lake number density is largest north of Lake Inari, sometimes called the Finnish Pond District (Lampi-Suomi). In this area there can be 1 000 lakes within 100 square kilometres. In the Finnish Lake District, a typical value is 40 lakes within 100 square kilometres.

AND IN CANADA: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_lakes_of_Canada

This is a list of lakes in Canada. Canada has an extremely large number of lakes. The number of lakes larger than three square kilometres is estimated at close to 31,752

Cheers Sami

22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.195.142 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've changed the wording to "large lakes" and added a ref note that the article is only referring to lakes over 3 square km. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But that's not true either. I just wanted to point out that there is another mistake in Misplaced Pages about Finland (big lakes). I trust what Finnish authorities are saying about big lakes in Finland:

The number of lakes larger than 1 hectares (10 000 m2) is 56 000 in Finland compared to Canada where the number of big lakes larger than three square kilometres (3000 m2) is estimated at close to 31,752. So 10 000 m2 is bigger that 3000 m2 and the quantity 56 000 is much bigger than 31 752.

22:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.195.142 (talk)

No, that is bad maths. 3 square kilometres is not "3000 m2" - a square km is a square where each side is equal to 1000 m, with a total area of 1 million m2. Google it - 1 sq km equals around 100 hectares. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, note that Finland's total area is only about 340,000 square kilometres - if it really had 56,000 lakes larger than 3 square kilometres, nearly half the country would be underwater. 56,000 lakes of hectare size is equal to about 560 square km. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that a number like "500 square meters" sounds big, but it isn't. That's only 25 meters or so in diameter. In Saskatchewan (where I currently live) that isn't considered a lake, that's a "slew" or a "pond". There are an enormous number of small ponds in Saskatchewan; there are thousands in the immediant vacinity of the city where I live, and far more further north. I'd be surprised if this province alone didn't approach the number of lakes in Finland... assuming that you're going to call a dirty little duck pond a "lake". Gopher65talk 03:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, let's think about this logically. According to Misplaced Pages's own Finland and Canada pages:
  • Finland is 338,424 km^2, and 10% water
  • Canada is 9,984,670 km^2 and 8.92% water.
That yields 890632.564 square kilometres of water in Canada. That is a slightly naive calculation (I have no idea if that includes ocean), but at the same time 890,000 is several times greater than 340,000. Canada has more water than Finland has total territory. Gopher65talk 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe anon is saying more lakes that are larger than a specific size. We may have parts of the Great Lakes and a few very large lakes but I would assume that the spin is lakes larger than some specific size. What we really need is a WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no universally accepted definition of the difference between a lake and a pond. Most definitions however place the dividing line somewhere between 2 and 8 hectares. Still within this range the two terms are often used interchangeably, and there are some water bodies designated as ponds that are much larger than 8 hectares.Mediatech492 (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
But if we have a few large lakes (Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Great Slave Lake) they may have more area than a number of lakes that are slightly larger than the minimum size. In short, it's a game of semantics and we should simply focus on the total volume of the lakes represented rather than the quantity, unless a ref compares apples to apples. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Ontario alone is claiming 250,000 so there's not much doubt, even if you let Finland count puddles - but yes, finding a RS number all in one spot for Canada will be difficult. Franamax (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The biblio at the bottom of this article has some RS possibilities - Lake Scientist - particularly FN # 1. The Interior (Talk) 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No idea how reliable this is, but this page claims Canada has at least 3 million lakes: linky. Gopher65talk 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada's more than 755,000 km2 of freshwater represents 16% of the freshwater area in the world. In fact, with two million lakes and rivers covering 7.6% of its landmass, Canada has the world's largest freshwater system

"State of Canada's Fishery". Fisheries and Oceans Canada. December 30, 2003.
Reader's Digest Association (Canada) (2004). The Canadian Atlas: Our Nation, Environment and People. Reader's Digest Association (Canada). p. 18. ISBN 978-1-55365-082-9.
Nicola Förg (1 May 1999). Canada: Pacific Coast, the Rockies, Prairie Provinces, and the Territories. Hunter Publishing, Inc. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-3-88618-368-5.
Moxy (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

God Save the Queen

As this has been discussed here in the past, a mediation has commenced at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Template:Music of Canada regarding whether "God Save the Queen" should or should not be included in the Music of Canada template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

GSTQ in the Infobox

Though I supported having "God Save The Queen" in the infobox, in our last discussion, I now believe it should be excluded. I note that "Hail to the Chief" isn't placed in the infobox of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree. GSTQ has no legal status whatsoever in Canada--there is not a single federal act or regulation mentioning or governing it--and thus unlike O Canada (a song which is defined by statute) has no official status in the country. I have therefore removed it. → ROUX  18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"our country reeks of trees... The Interior (Talk) 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Roux. I don't even know why it was added in the first place. Absolutely support removing God Save The Queen from Canada's infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nations United (talkcontribs)
Um, actually... → ROUX  21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The song's "legal status" is a red herring. The song was recognised by parliament and is recognised by the government as the royal anthem and it is used officially as such. There's a field in the infobox for royal anthems, and, though we should keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see the infoboxes of some other countries that have both national and royal anthems: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Norway, Sweden, and Tuvalu. The United States has no royal anthem and is therefore not a relevant precedent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a Head of State song, just like Hail to the Chief in the USA. Furthermore, it's a song which is more associated with the British monarchy. Concerning Canada, it belongs at the Monarchy of Canada article, due to its not being about the country, 'but' merely the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Then why is there a 'royal anthem' field in the country infobox and it's filled at (at least) the eleven country articles I linked to? I can't say for certain, since I didn't make the inbut I'd imagine it's because some countries, like Canada, have royal anthems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The inclusion of GSTQ in the infobox, smacks of an agenda by the MLC (Monarchist League of Canada) & that's not exceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:CONSPIRACY. (I'm sure the Monarchist League of Canada has better things to do than make sure there's a 'royal anthem' field in the Misplaced Pages country infobox template and the Danish royal anthem is inclued in the infobox at Denmark, anyway.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is it in the other Commonwealth realms (with the exception of the UK & New Zealand)? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
God Save the Queen is official in any event in which the Queen or Governor General is present. It is optional at other times. You may not like it that the Queen has official status in Canada but the fact is that she does. This is not a monarchist conspiracy.Mediatech492 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a Head of State song, which belongs at the Canadian monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this was discussed almost two years ago: Talk:Canada/Archive 19#royal anthem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't really care either way, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. The info box has a slot for that song obviously. What else could go in that slot, if not "God Save the Queen"? If its not the official song, at least its an unofficial song for the Canadian Monarchy. Anyone disagree with that? I know the Queen/Monarchy is more closely associated with the British than with Canada, but the monarchy is still a part of Canada, and if the song is part of the Monarchy, shouldn't the song be linked in the info box, if there is a slot for it?--JOJ 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's official. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm already convinced that it doesn't belong in the country infobox. Now, it's up to others to unravel the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Mediatech492, you're not representing the entire case. "God Save the Queen" is not official at any event in which the Queen or Governor General is present, it is the royal anthem and is played along side "O Canada" in such cases, however there is no legal requirement to play it. It ceased to be an official national anthem in 1980 and is played out of respect for our monarch.
Miesianiacal. While it was discussed a while ago, no clear consensus was reached as can be seen by the lack of consensus at the bottom of any discussion. It appears consensus is being formed so while this is being discussed, I suggest you cooperate and not add it to the infobox since it seems that the consensus is currently against inclusion. Could you please indicate nation articles that have the anthem of the head of state included where it is not the de facto national anthem? I see United States doesn't list "Hail to the Chief", nor does Australia while New Zealand lists it but has a note "'God Save the Queen' is officially a national anthem but is generally used only on regal and vice-regal occasions", which doesn't apply here. United Kingdom lists "God Save the Queen" as its official national anthem, while two of the individual nations, England and Scotland list it as the de facto national anthem while going out of their way to indicate that there is no legal national anthem and Wales has their own. So I think you need to make a case for why the head of state needs her anthem listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Removing long-standing material while a discussion about it is ongoing is your invented rule. We therefore need not abide by it.
If you're looking for precedent, other examples of countries with national and royal anthems listing both in their respecive Misplaced Pages articles have already been provided. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
How long-standing? I saw that you added it today. Was it there earlier?
I'm not looking for precedent, I'm looking for the consistency you demanded with the GG articles. But they've been provided where? Not in this discussion. Please provide a current list.
Also while you're quoting the article from Heritage Canada let me add 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." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Seven of the countries in the world plus Canada list it? I think we should side with Australia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for self-reverting; that was the right thing to do. The anthem is at least eight years long-standing before roux deleted it today; the last discussion about it two years ago resolved to keep it. Consensus can change; but it has not yet done so.
It would seem that having the royal anthem here, in the specific field provided for it in the infobox template, keeps this article consistent with the majority of articles for countries that have both national and royal anthems. There are eleven above, not seven, and to which we can add Thailand. Australia is one of the odd ones out.
Again: The definition of "official" is not "designated by statute only". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As indicated Wales is in the same league as Australia and does not list it (already listed above). Countries within the United Kingdom and the UK itself don't list is as the Royal Anthem, but it is national anthem there. India is commonwealth, but Elizabeth is not queen of India and it is not listed (you specifically asked for commonwealth above). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wales, the UK, and India are irrelevant; none has both a royal and a national anthem. I didn't ask for anything. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wales isn't irrelevant. They are part of the UK and have their own national anthem and so unless the Queen has conceded her throne there, they have a royal anthem as well.
India isn't irrelevant either because you asked for commonwealth nations that don't list it. I did so suck it up princess. If you don't want the answers to your questions, don't ask them. Or to paraphrase Diefenbaker, don't ask questions that you don't know the answer to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wales does not have a national and a royal anthem. India does not have a national and a royal anthem. Show a diff where I asked for Commonwealth nations that don't list it.
What's the point of this exercise, anyway? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. GoodDay asked for Commonwealth. The point of the exercise is to show that not all nations where there is a monarch list the royal anthem in the infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Not all nations with a monarch have both a royal and national anthem. Not all articles on countries with both a royal and national anthem list both in the infobox; but we knew that already (Australia). I reiterate my earlier point: most articles on countries with both a royal and national anthem list both in the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wales is irrelevant to this discussion IMHO, as Wales is not a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what. You get Australia to join ranks and I'll drop my argument here. It seems odd that they should be the odd man out and quite frankly, I would soon show solidarity with them than the Bahamas. But that's just me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the Ozzies are also talking about this but are not following the sources. In Australia it was declared the Royal anthem at the same time the National anthem was recognized (1984) - QUOTE = "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, ... hereby declare: that the anthem 'God Save The Queen' shall henceforth be known as the Royal Anthem" - Australian Bureau of Statistics (1986). Year Book Australia 1986. Aust. Bureau of Statistics. p. 44. Retrieved 16 April 2012.. Moxy (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Notice there is no such declaration for Canada. No Act of Parliament, no Order-in-Council, nothing. → ROUX  18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The importance of that being? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't pretend to be stupid. Disingenuousness is one of the most obnoxious things you do. GSTQ is official in Australia because it has been declared to be. It is not in Canada because it has not been declared such. You know this, of course. → ROUX  18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC):
On what grounds have you determined it has been declared to be official in Australia? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
What part of "don't pretend to be stupid" was unclear? → ROUX  19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Roux was asked at his talk page if he could explain this edit summary, specifically the claim that "no consensus for inclusion, per the talk page. when (if) consensus for inclusion is reached, you may add it back." Since he impolitely declined to respond at his talk page, perhaps he could do us the favour of pointing to the Misplaced Pages policy on which he based the above assertion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I reserve the right to remove and ignore garbage on my talkpage. → ROUX  18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you or can you not meet the request? If you can't, it will have to be assumed you made the "rule" up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome to assume any incorrect thing you wish. → ROUX  19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In other words: You made it up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said, you are welcome to assume any incorrect thing you wish, as you have already done. → ROUX  19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) M. Roux has provided a reference stating "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia ...". Are you questioning the reference, did you not see it, or is there another issue?
I understand that they are in the middle of a debate to become a republic, but they have an officially declared royal anthem while we in Canada have an official national anthem and a royal anthem with no legal status as such. You do know where I am pulling that from don't you? So the only red herring (see your statement above about its lack of legal status being a red herring) is that we have a royal anthem but it's not enacted in civil law, only common law. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw the reference. I clearly asked roux to explain why he thinks the reference makes GSTQ officially the royal anthem. It doesn't, after all, use the word "official", though he demanded a source from the Canadian government that specifically used the word "official" specifically in conjunction with GSTQ. There's nothing either to say that something is official only when it has been given some status by act of parliament or order-in-council.
In fact, though, in this case, what is and isn't official and the definition of the word aren't important. The infobox has a parameter for a royal anthem and we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada" - no, we do not. This has been explained to you multiple times. → ROUX  19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
See:
--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes yes, blah blah blah, you've posted those before. There is still no law (not even an order-in-council) stating that GSTQ has any official status. It has no legal status in the country. Stop your nonsense. → ROUX  20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You didn't ask for a law or order-in-council stating GSTQ has official status (even the Australian O-in-C you pointed to as an example doesn't say that). You said in response to my words "we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada": "no, we do not." The above proves that we do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
They are incorrect. See also: no laws whatsoever governing the use or status of GSTQ. → ROUX  20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

About the only way I can see 'both' anthems being in the infobox, would be if we had official & unofficial, placed underneath them. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary and confusing. The anthem can be dealt with briefly in the article and at more length at Monarchy of Canada. It does not belong in the infobox as, unlike everything else in the infobox, it has absolutely zero legal basis whatsoever. → ROUX  20:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It's the best compromise, that I can offer. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Of what relevance is "legal basis"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This pretence at stupidity grows tiresome. → ROUX  20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1287067257112/1287067387688
Categories: