Talk:List of national anthems/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not national anthems, GSTK/Q

Several of the "national anthems" listed here are not national anthems. Scotland, Basque, American Samoa, and many others are not nations in any way. They may have songs with the same status in that area, but they're not really national anthems. Otherwise, I could also add the anthems for all Dutch provinces, and no doubt many US states also have anthems. I suggest we make a different page for them, possibly at the already existing patriotic songs.

Also, the claim about God Save the King/Queen being the oldest national anthem also is weird. Many songs that are now national anthems are (based on) songs that originate before the 18th century. It could be that GSTK/Q was the first song to be officially called a national anthem, but the text itself says it was never officially adopted! Can anybody clarify this situation? Jeronimo 06:47 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Scotland, Basque, American Samoa, and many others are not nations in any way.

Well, actually, yes they are:

nation, 1. A body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.

Both the Scots and the Basques, not to mention the Catalans and a few others on this list, are nations. What they are not is independent states. I think mention of officially recognized patriotic songs thereof (for example, the Generalitat de Catalunya has officially proclaimed Els Segadors the Catalan anthem) is appropriate for this list. However, I have italicized entities that are not independent states. - Montréalais

1) Scotland is a nation (nations are not the same thing as sovereign states).

2) "God Save the King / Queen" is not the official anthem of the United Kingdom (the UK does not have one), though it may be an official anthem of New Zealand.-- Picapica 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

re 2) you are correct, as per other discussion on this talk page, however, it is the de facto anthem, as well as the Finnish anthem is de facto, and a few others who escape my tired mind right now. Perhaps what the above user was referring to was that GStQ was the first song to be used as a national anthem (the definition of "de facto", really) --Canuckguy 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if a nation/autonomous region has a song, it should be listed under this list but noted as a 'national song'. SS 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jana-Gana-Mana

Why is Jana-Gana-Mana hyphenated? Jana, gana, mana are separate words unlike Sorood-e, etc. which are arabic/urdu/similar words which are usually hyphenated in English -- Paddu 15:43 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Lack of Yugoslavia

Why have East Germany but not Yugoslavia? Both are just ex-nations -- Paddu 15:16 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Dependencies

I think for better clarity, dependencies should be listed right after the country they're part of.

In addition, dependencies that don't have an anthem different from their mother countries' should be taken off the list--make it shorter. --Jiang 08:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why? Wiki is not paper! -- Cymydog Naakka 18:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

We're not unlimited in what we put. Why put in useless info? --Jiang 23:48, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Naming of anthem articles

Naming of articles: Should we keep all these anthems under their foreign transliterated titles or use the English translation? (like how is now done for the Greek national anthem, but not for the vast majority...) --Jiang

---

I find it odd that the anthem pages are listed by title rather than Nation_national_anthem. Just a thought. Kitwe

---

It's not odd. They are songs in their own right as well as anthems, and at least La Marseillaise and God Save The Queen have been the anthems of multiple countries. Sometimes they have a history before their use as an anthem. Maybe you could put in redirects if you think it's confusing. --ihatepotsmokinghippies 10:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

In regards to Guatemala's national anthem: This page should be moved to the title: Himno Nacional de Guatemala, as this anthem really has no name. "Guatemala... feliz" is never used in Guatemala to refer to the national anthem. It is called simply Himno Nacional de Guatemala. No need to make stuff up. There are similar titles for other nations' anthems that have no actual 'name'. - ChaChaFut 04:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm well aware of others, but don't have the time to research them all. If a kind soul like you points them out, I'd be more than willing to do what I did to Guatemala's page. --Canuckguy 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This also applies for the anthem of El Salvador. I changed it already. --Cirilobeto 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthems of the British Isles

Land of Hope and Glory is not the English 'national anthem'. As the article correctly states, a national anthem is a state-recognised song. (1) England as a state could not have had LoHaG because it wasn't composed for nearly 200 years after England ceased to be a state; (2) LoHaG has never had state recognition since. It is an English 'patriotic song', maybe the premier one. It could be described as an anthem as it has been used as such on sporting occasions but it never has been a state anthem and never received state recognition as such, which is the elementary requirement for a 'national anthem'.

In that case, most countries don't even have a national anthem. Finland, for instance. Maamme is de facto the Finnish national anthem, but as it does not have state recognition, it is by your definition not a national anthem. Still it is always listed as one. -- Cymydog Naakka 18:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

And also keep in mind, England isn't the only subnational area on this list, there are plenty of areas (including Scotland, N. Ireland, and Wales) who don't have the means of recognizing a state anthem, as, for example, the other countries of te UK also ceased to be independent in the 1700s or earlier! After a revert or two, I have altered the list in hopes to make the English question a bit more clear (ie that GSTQ is official and LoHaG is the "Commonwealth Games" anthem.)--Canuckguy 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The Londonderry Air has never been a Northern Irish anthem. Like LoHaG it is simply a 'patriotic song', not a national anthem. FearÉIREANN 02:40, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And the Welsh anthem? --Jiang

If it has been officially recognised by the Welsh Assembly or by the Secretary of State for Wales, and/or used at state occasions then it is a national anthem, if not, it is a patriotic song or colloquial anthem, but not a national anthem. I honestly don't know if it has been. :-)

What songs do Scotland & Northern Ireland use at the Commonwealth games? Just wondering. - Efghij 18:39, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

According to [[1]] page, _God Save the Queen_ was never actually adopted to be the official anthem of the United Kingdom. "Since it has never been officially adopted as the British national anthem, either by Act of Parliament or Royal Proclamation, nothing stands in the way of its banishment. Tradition is its only ally."

Ankh-Morpork

I removed the following entry:

Ankh-Morpork We can rule you wholesale?

because it is the anthem of a fictional country. Whether anthems of dependencies etc. should be on this list is debatable, but fictional anthems shoiuld definately be kept out. Wyllium 15:40, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Terra Scania

I removed the entry for Terra Scania, Sång till Skåne (A song for Scania) because the territory has not been an independent entity since before the creation of this song. This makes it impossible for Sång till Skåne to have been the anthem even from a historical perspective. Rossami 14:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

UN/EU anthems?

I'd like to correct the sentence that mentions Beethoven's 9th, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Beethoven's 9th is awfully long to use as an anthem. Mixing the declaration of one body's anthem and statements that other bodies have unofficial anthems is very confusing. Suggestions? Ventura 19:29, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

More correctly, it is the fourth movement of the symphony, without the German libretto, specifically the Karajan arrangement. Chris 20:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Unofficial anthems or not?

The intro to this article says that non-independent areas are listed only if they have an official anthem. However, this policy is not being adhered to, as "Gens du Pays," a song sometimes regarded as Quebec's unofficial anthem, is listed. Could I get some help removing the non-official entries? - Montréalais 08:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Micronations and other unrecognized phenomena

While I happen to be a part time micronationalist (and anthem enthusiast) myself (well, past tense on the micronationalism bit really, as I haven't had the time for it lately, and these things usually sprout up quickly and just as quickly die or lay dormant, as my nation did), I really don't think that this is the place for micronational anthems. (I just removed that of Lovely - another reason it doens't deserve inclusion on the list is that the anthem of Lovely doesn't even have a Wikipedia article yet!), but rather more recognized anthems (like ones you might find in, say, an encyclopedia?  ;) ;) ) .

Please, let's keep this list on focus, or we won't see the forest through the trees, or rather we won't see the anthems of the reocognized states through the other anthem flotsam and jetsam out there! --Canuckguy 01:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada

To 70.31.59.247: According to the Government of Canada, "God Save the Queen" is indeed Canada's "royal anthem" (unbeknownst to most of my fellow countrymen) --Canuckguy 13:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

God Save the Queen

The listing of GSTQ is highly inconsistent at present. It is shown for Australia, New Zealand and Canada, yet some editors keep removing it from Scotland and Wales. Nationalist POV apart, is there any reason to suppose that GSTQ has lesser status in Scotland and Wales than in Aus, NZ and Canada? And if it's inappropriate for Scotland & Wales, why is it appropriate for England? They're all constituent nations of one country, with the eponymous Queen as head of state. Whether or not it is "official" (if one defines that—rather arbitrarily!—as being dependent upon Act of Parliament or Royal Proclamation), can anyone supply any evidence that its status varies in the different constituent nations of the UK? If not, it should be treated identically in all.

A related matter is that the article claims to list non-independent states only if they have official anthems. Once GSTQ is removed, Scotland only has entries which are unofficial (I don't know the status of The same applies to Hen Wlad fy Nhadau)—so should it they not be removed entirely? (PS I am a Macgregor, so I'm not trying to diss the Scots here—but if this article is to be useful and encyclopaedic, it needs at least to be internally coherent.) Vilcxjo 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a tricky situation indeed. I've had to deal with the situation at my anthems site, and, even with emails from Britons, don't have a clear answer myself. To make matters trickier, GStQ isn't even the official UK anthem! (see note 4 at United Kingdom's fact box). My reasoning on my website (where I retain final editorial decision, unlike here) is that Scotland, England, etc. are part of the UK, whose anthem is GStQ. As you point out, also none of the British countries' anthems are official, although Hen Wlad fy Nhadau is probably more consistently used in Wales than any anthem can be claimed to use in any other British country.

The best way I guess I had this explained to me was bya Welshman and Wikipedian, who I wrote after his removal of GStQ from Wales, who mentioned that HWFN is used in Wales for Welsh events, and GStQ was used in Wales (and presumably, the rest of the UK) for British events. That sort of settles Wales, which has a clear local anthem (although I don't know if it's been declared "official"), but we still don't have a clear candidate for even an unofficial anthem of England or Scotland! --Canuckguy 01:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A user has just added the word "(unofficial)" after GSTQ in the UK entry. I think it is time this assertion (which turns up repeatedly on Wikipedia) was addressed. IMO, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the UK operates, which is (for the most part, and certainly by preference) based on established practice rather than on formal definition. As an obvious example, the British Constitution is not a fixed entity or something which can be defined in terms of specified documents; rather, its exact terms at any given time are determined by the (often conflicting) terms and presuppositions of various Acts of Parliament, and the ways in which those Acts have been interpreted by the courts. It does not follow, however, that the UK has no Constitution, nor that its Constitution is "unofficial"! The same point can be made about UK law, which is not codified but largely established by precedent. Nor, AFAIK, is the Union Jack anywhere specified as the flag of the UK, either by Act of Parliament or by Royal Proclamation; it would be a misunderstanding, however, to suppose that the Union Jack is therefore the "unofficial" flag of the UK. So likewise, GSTQ is not "unofficial", unless we (arbitrarily) make the prior decision to define "official" in this context as meaning "by Act of Parliament or Royal Proclamation". In the UK, the National Anthem is about as "official" as anything else of long-recognised standing. Vilĉjo 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It may have been me, I've been known to do a lot of boneheaded things in my life :) (Whether it was me or not, though, my agreement with the retaining "(unofficial)" there was implicit in the fact that I never removed the text.) I am well aware of the different system that Britian has, which is why I kept the text there. I personally define "official" as having been decreed by act of Parliament or whatever the local equivalent is. GSTQ - technically the royal anthem, by the way - has not been to the best of my knowledge. The fact that the British government website also says "[t]here is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition" leads me to believe that this is true (as governemnt acceptance usually codifies the "official" version.

Keep in mind too, that Britian is not alone in this regard (that is, countries with long-standing national anthems that have not been officially decreed), Finland's anthem has also not had official recognition, and Japan's, while having been in use since the 1880s, only achieved official status in 1999.

Were there to be a bill before Parliament codifying it for all eternity (my understanding is, with Britian's unique legal system with acts of Parliament being the legal framework of the nation rather than a written enshrined constitution, that this is how laws are made there) then I would definitely call it "official". But, since the governemnt's own website does not indicate that, therein lies my implicit agreement with the "(unofficial)" text. (I'm not so stubborn as to immediately put it back, especially since I don't know for sure that I was the one that put it there, but I would like either a discussion on this, or complete and utter agreement to my point of view :) (that was meant in a humourous vein, btw). --Canuckguy 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It all comes down to whether there is or can be a single definition of "official"/"unofficial", universally applicable. (It wasn't you who added the word, btw.) To define "official" as meaning "established by legislation", and then to say that anything which doesn't meet that criterion is therefore "unofficial", may work in the majority of cases but is inappropriate and misleading in the UK context. Inappropriate, because (as with the Constitution and the Common Law) that is not how most of the fundamentals of UK public life operate. Misleading, because anyone seeing the word "unofficial" against an entry would take it to be rather more than merely a narrowly legal description – it would be understood as a qualification of its public status.

To pre-empt an obvious riposte, calling it "official" might also convey to the reader something more than was intended. Which is why it's best, in this instance, to avoid the use of such adjectives entirely; you might even say that they constitute a Category mistake. The UK has a national anthem; this is it; there is no ambiguity about the fact; qualifications are therefore out of place. Vilĉjo 13:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "(unofficial)" does occur in the article, though, under Scotland, and I believe England too. However, since Finland, really in the same boat as the UK, does not have it, I'll leave it the way you altered it. I still don't see how, though, it can be considered truly official if there has not been some sort of Parliamentary proclamation on it. Of course, I'm not expecting it to be enshrined in a (non-existent) Constitution, as there is none, but Parliament does pass acts defining laws of British society (as you pointed out, just browsing Wikipedia the other day I was reading the article on the Act of Settlement 1701, which is a law determining British throne succession rites. Surely something to be enshrined in a Constitution if they had one, but instead was simply passed by Parliament, as is the British way. As far as I know, no such act has been passed defining the national symbols, thereby making the order of succession "official" and the national anthem "unofficial" in my view.)

After looking at the article for Finland's national anthem, they put a good phrase in there that I think should be added to the article for the United Kingdom, as the "unofficial" footnote was still there last time I checked; the Finnish article states that Maamme is the "de facto" national anthem, GSTQ, having not been officially adopted by Royal Proclamation nor Act of Parliament (direct quote from the GSTQ article), should have the footnote changed to "de facto" rather than "unofficial." A good compromise? --Canuckguy 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, de facto describes it well (not sure why I didn't think of it myself!) It would still be an inappropriate qualification, IMO, for a simple list article like this one (not that I understood you to be suggesting that anyway), but is clearer and more accurate than "unofficial/not official" in articles like United Kingdom or God Save the Queen. It conveys your point that GSTQ's status is not de jure, without implying any caveats as to its universal recognition as the National Anthem. Not just a good compromise, but greater exactitude too. Vilĉjo 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

GStQ is not Australia's national anthem, it is Advance Australia Fair. SS 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, and the page, for a long time, has said just that. If you'd notice, the page lists "God Save the Queen" afterwards, in brackets, as the "Royal Anthem". This is confirmed by two different Australian government pages that I found listing "God Save the Queen" as the Royal Anthem: "The Royal Anthem, ‘God Save The Queen’, is used in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen or a member of the Royal Family." and "In April 1984 the Governor-General issued a proclamation declaring that God Save the Queen was designated the Royal Anthem". It is also listed as Australia's royal anthem on the God Save the Queen page itself! --Canuckguy 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of UK entry

To the anonymous user(s) who consistently remove the entry of the United Kingdom on the list without any discussion please discuss your reasoning here. Also, please read the previous discussion where a consensus is reached where GStQ and the Scottish anthems are both agreed to be listed. (Plus, the United Kingdom is a recognized nation (this statement is not meant to assume that Scotland is not (or is)), the list is meant to, at its minimum, represent the recognized nations.) Further such reverts, especially without discussion, will result in a request for anonymous edits to be banned on this page. --Canuckguy 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been another edit of the same style, with no explanation. A page protection request has been entered requesting semi-protection. I didn't want it to come to this ...--Canuckguy 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I note that the same user has also been fiddling with the English national anthem. Matthew 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And the Scottish. However, I've left those edits alone, as I do most edits on those anthems - despite the voluminous talk we've had on the discussion page about the anthems of the UK countries, what's official, what's not, what the status of GStQ is, I feel there's nothing really conclusive and it's a highly debatable topic as to what goes in there, so I leave most of those edits alone. However, I think the consensus is clear that there should be no removal of a recognized country like the United Kingdom. --Canuckguy 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pentatonic??

Are there any national anthems in pentatonic scale or even in minor scale? They all sound so pompous. Are there any more mystical or haunting or introspective ones?--Sonjaaa 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know all the musical terms (my last music lesson was over 15 years ago), but I"m pretty sure that Israel's national anthem is in a minor scale. It definitely seems to fit your question. --Canuckguy 06:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

African-American anthem?

"Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" is the unofficial anthem for black people in the United States. Shouldn't it be included as well?

The article for Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing does a good job of presenting it as the African-American anthem, but this article isn't the place for it, but rather for recognized nations primarily, not ethnic groups within a nation. (If this were the case, this article would be way too big and lose its focus, by no means are the African-Americans the only ethinic group to have their own anthem.) --Canuckguy 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What to list on this article

There still doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what exactly we should list on here (the rule of "no fictional countries" was applied above, which I agree with.) However, I'd like to make another proposal. No anthem should be linked if it will be a redlink. If you want to make an article about the anthem then add it to the list, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But there's no real reason to list it here if it'll just be a redlink. (You can mention it on the respective entity's entry, though, in order to keep the information.--Canuckguy 02:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate this, as I had to remove Hamburg's anthem, "Hammonia", for a similar reason. It wasn't Wiki-linked at all, but even if it was, we don't have an article on it (the existing Hammonia article talks about something else). I didn't have too much of a problem adding it in the first place, but if there isn't going to be a link to the anthem, there's no point. (And, for reference's sake, the correct name of the anthem is "Heil über dir Hammonia", which also does not have a WP article). --Canuckguy 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Italicization

The names of nations that no longer exist, or are not independent states but nevertheless have official anthems (notably as constitutive parts of (con)federal states, e.g. the Belgian regions), are italicized.

Fair enough (except that the declaration begs such questions as official status and the nationhood of, say, the Belgian regions) but why in such cases italicize the names of the anthems as well as those of the "nations"? -- Picapica 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"List by country" navigational box

I would like to change the vertical "List by country" navigational box on the right of this page to a horizontal one at the bottom. Please discuss at Template talk:Lists by country. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reunion Island _is_ France

Reunion Island is part of France, as such La Marseillaise is the only anthem. P'tite fleur aimée is nothing more than a well know song, otherwise, please give references that 'P'tite fleur aimée' is regarded as an anthem, (in the islanders themselves). I was born there an we never regarded anything but 'La Marseillaise' as our anthem. Otherwise, where does it end? List every popular song in each county in England? Every 'Anthems' for every state in the US? --FFMG

There is a bit of a precedent for unofficial local anthems in the list, see, for example, Anguilla and Bermuda (the latter of which might be a good example for other unofficial local anthems of dependencies). However, it does seem like the French dependencies (to use an incorrect blanket term grouping all the overseas areas together) don't traditioanlly adopt unofficial local anthems the way the British ones do, so no problem about changing it, but I'm thinking perhaps that and St. Pierre and Miquelon could be removed entirely, as they are the only French dependencies on the list and places like Guadeloupe, Martinique, and New Caledonia aren't. Not even French Polynesia who, with the most local autonomy (the only French overseas territory with its own flag for instance), and an officially adopted local anthem (meaning "La Marseillaise" remains the national anthem) "Ia Ora 'O Tahiti Nui" (Long Live Tahiti Nui) is on the list, so perhaps Reunion and St. Pierre should just be removed. --Canuckguy 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more, the page is called 'National Anthems' and nothing but national anthems should be listed here, (precedents or no precedents, that's the name of the page). Maybe I am been over-technical on the matter, but wikipedia is used as a reference by many and if someone wants to know the national anthem of Reunion Island, (for example), they should know that it is 'La Marseillaise'.

Maybe we should put the whole thing in a table <country/location> <official anthem> <un-official anthem> That way there would be no 'gray' area.

Oh, and I did manage to find a page (in German) which does mention that "P'tite fleur aimée is "the national song of the island" (once a Babelfish translation tool is applied to it) since you were asking. --Canuckguy 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but an obscure German paper about a French colony can hardly be recognized as reference. The fact that it is spelled wrong does not help the matter either :).

I might also suggest a footnote system and we could mention the unofficial local anthems used that way. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to take this on? (As you probably well know from observing my own site, I'm too busy lately) I like this idea, this way the unofficial anthems are less obtrusive. However, then, it may result in more arguement, while places like Reunion and Anguilla won't spark much debate, I'm sure that it'll reopen the can of worms we had earlier about the British "home nations" of Scotland, Wales, etc. Another reason I want to leave it with you, people might be less likely to argue with an admin.  ;) --Canuckguy 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so unless anybody as a problem I will create a table with:

1. the name of the country/loaction
2. the name of the official anthem of that location, nothing but the legaly recognized name will be allowed. There could be more than one item
3. unofficial anthem name of the location,

2 && 3 can be blank, (in some cases)

1, 2 & 3 will have their own footnotes to explain if they are a recognized country, or if it no longer exists and so on.

Please let me know if that sounds reasonable enough. FFMG

I don't mind you doing that. I'd suggest maybe putting it up on a sandbox page / subpage of your user page (well, if you had one that is) so we can all have a look-see and make suggestions and edits before this page is completely replaced. --Canuckguy 06:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me, but as with Canuckguy, I wish to see it in a sandbox type page first. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new table

Hi, please have a look at the table I created and tell me what you think.
The second column will only have the National anthem of the country, (recognized by their constitution or what ever official body is/was in charge). In the introduction we would clearly indicate what the table mean so there is no confusion. If the location is not, (or was never), a country then it cannot have a 'national' anthem, but rather a 'popular' song.
Countries that no longer exist will simply have a footnote. As you can see with Russia I simply listed the previous anthems with dates.
The third col can have any popular songs with some relevant links, (I used Confederate States of America as I don't think it ever was a country). Places like Scotland and Wales will start a debate but maybe we will use whatever their official body use when they want to play an anthem, (not what people might like to see as the anthem).
That way readers will know without a shadow of a doubt what is the national anthem for a certain country and what is merely a popular song.
I would even be tempted to have two tables, one for countries and another for locations.
What do you think? Please make any changes you think would be more appropriate. FFMG

I noticed with Russia is that while they had three anthems, it seems to blend in the Rhodesia section. Can we put the table into cells? Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

no redlinks?

So what are red links supposed to be for? Ever wondered?

The way wikipedia works is I put a red link, someone else finds it and create a stub, someone else gets to the stub and adds smth, etc, etc.

Arrorró is a particularly easy topic to find info about, by the way.

Is there a cause for removing the red links I don't know? --euyyn 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been really concerned about the sheer number of anthems out there (many not "national anthems")that try occassionally to make it on this list. Wikipedia's actual amount of national anthems in its databanks is huge, pretty much all are covered. You did raise a good point about the redlinks, and, for now, I have restored your edit for the Canary anthem (as it is indeed a national anthem). I really hope that adding the redlink does result in Arrorró getting its own article, as it deserves it. (Perhaps you can create the article?) --Canuckguy 01:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I finally created it so you'll be happy =) --euyyn 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

recent edit and reverts

Hello all,

I recently added the anthem of Saint-Barthelemy called Hymne à Saint-Barthélemy. This have been reverted twice by FFMG for what I can see as the following reasons:

1) There was a red link. This is good thing this was removed as red-links can get tiring.

2) The ordering of "St. Kitts and Nevis". I object to the way this is alphabetized. Other sources spell out St. and order them by the the second word. For example, see the: ISO, UN, US State Dept., and the CIA World Factbook.

I see no reason why Saint Kitts and Nevis should be exempt from this.

3) The article does not list dependencies that have the same anthem as thje home country. I do not believe this does not apply to Saint-Barthelemy. As the source stated, the anthem has been official since 1999. It has also been performed on the island twice. The first was in 2004 when the Overseas France Minister visted:

A local journalist, Cécile Lucot wrote of this visit, in both English and French:

(in English)

After lunch at the Isle de France, the Mayor accompanied the Minister to her hotel, the Guanahani, stopping at the weather station above Gustavia and to see the hand-made straw hats in Corossol. At 7:00pm, Brigitte Girardin returned to Town Hall for a cocktail reception open to the island’s population. When she arrived, the Bons Chœurs choir sang the Hymn to Saint-Barthélemy. Brigitte Girardin then spoke with many different people, listening carefully to what they had to say.

source

(in French)

Après un déjeuner à l’Isle de France, le maire a accompagné la Ministre à son hôtel, le Guanahani, en s’arrêtant au météosite qui domine la rade de Gustavia. À 19 heures, Brigitte Girardin est revenue à l’hôtel de ville pour un cocktail avec la population. À son arrivée, la chorale des Bons Chœurs a chanté « l’Hymne à Saint-Barthélemy ». Brigitte Girardin est ensuite passée de groupes en groupes, attentive aux paroles de chacun.

source

The second time was last year when the new Government was inaugurated. Lucot wrote of this:

(in English)

The morning concluded on a musical note, with the Marseillaise—the French national anthem—then the Hymn of Saint Barth. Estrosi went on to lunch at the Sereno Hotel, where the guests included Laurence Parisot, president of Medef (a French business group). He then flew back to Saint Martin in the mid-afternoon.

source

(in French)

La matinée s’est terminée en musique sur les notes de la Marseillaise puis sur celles de l’hymne à St-Barth. Christian Estrosi est ensuite parti déjeuner au restaurant de l’hôtel Séréno où il a retrouvé Laurence Parisot, présidente du Medef, avant de reprendre l’avion pour St-Martin en milieu d’après-midi.

source

I hope this is helpful and I hope consensus can be reached on this. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit quick to revert, but the problems I have/had with the edits.

1- The red link, the fact that there is no article for that song on wikipediea tells us that no one knows about it, (google seems to agree).

2- The reflist was added at the wrong place.

3- I don't know why Portland Chamber Orchestra is used as a reference but they are certainly not an authority in national anthems.

4- Saint Bart is still part of France, as such only La Marseillaise is used officially. Otherwise you will need to change all the other DOM/TOM/COM listed here, (see previous discussion earlier).

Surely an official document from the French Government, (or Saint Bart), can clarify the official anthem of Island.

I am guessing that the confusion comes with the word 'Hymne' that might give the false impression that the song is an anthem of some sort.

At the risk of repeating myself, there does not seem to be any official links or references.

All the translations/sources you gave above simply point to the fact that the song is, (at best), popular in Saint Barth.

Please lets reach a consensus first and then we can make your changes, not the other way around. Because there does not seem to be any reference calling this song the official anthem of Saint Bart we have to leave it as it is until a better source can be found. FFMG (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As to your points:

1) & 2) I agree with ya on the link, the Portland Chamber Orchestra site and the bits I quoted above seem to be the only places were the song is mentioned. As for the placement of the ref, that's my fault. It seems to a bug with the Mac Firefox were the prompt jumps up the page in these edit boxes.

3) I agree with you on this too. The ref was first brought to my attention by the webmaster of World Statesmen when I emailed him the stuff quoted below. As I think over of it now, I've read a bunch of official bios of folks. I wonder if this guy wrote a song for the island that got popular?

4) You are correct that the is a part of France, and that since the info we now got is sparse, you are correct in making the you made. I intend to write the St Barth government on this and other symbols.

- Thanks, Hoshie 07:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive and article rename

I noted that User:Gary King has renamed the article and archived the past discussion, but firstly) why was the article renamed? Surely something that important must have been floated on the talk page first? (I see now that there is discussion as to the whys, hows, and wherefores on your talk page, but are people going to think to look there? The reasoning seems sound and there are links to each other's page, so I approve. Secondly, where is the archive? I see the (old) comments page was removed in the rename with an "archived" note, but I don't see a link to the archive! --Canuckguy (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it under the talk header now :) Cheers! Gary King (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What goes where?

Deciding what entities go on a list of countries and what doesn't is always a divisive and highly charged decision on Wikipedia (as elsewhere), I'm wondering what criterion is used here. For example, Republic of Somaliland was recently added to this list, but Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is in the List of anthems. My suggestion is to use the List of countries for anthems that appear on this list (except for the "non state countries", that is use just those that appear in bold and bold italic), and all other anthems appear on the other list. (Incidentally, both the Republic of Somaliland and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus appear in the List of countries.) --Canuckguy (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Gary King (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah, seems people don't read the talk pages before editing the list (what else is new??) I've added a note *hopefully* alerting people to this (and at the very least discussing this on this discussion page, I didn't see any objection to this when I asked back on May 4 ...) and hopefully we can all be vigilant in monitoring what gets added here (I can't be the only one with this page on his watchlist?) --Canuckguy (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Wales and other nations/countries

Please discuss here in National anthem Talk page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (signing late)

Please read the discussion above, too. This list is not "List of national anthems" anymore. List of anthems has what you need. The only items listed in this article are those that are also found in List of countries. Gary King (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very rude of you to reply here after all the work I've done on this! You talk as if you personally dictate what is allowed in here? Why don't you follow the link and read my explaniation? 'Countries' and 'consituent countries' are not mutually exclusive... (so Wales, England etc are countries) and more on what is nation/national too (which is why the discussion is there) - please follow the link. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King makes a very valid point. I have reverted to the previous stable edit.Pureditor 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. First of all, if you're going to get into amount of work – I have the most edits on the article. Secondly, that should be completely disregarded – please look at past discussions on this before making this change. It has been done before, and will be reverted again until further consensus develops. List of countries is really the central article, and if you want to add those constituent countries, then take it up THERE first, as it also uses "countries" in its title. If constituent countries are to be added to that list (it will require a lot of discussion, as I'm sure it's been already mentioned before), then I am more than willing to add them here. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have the most edits on the article you should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously. The ISO List of Countries is the 'central article' because you have forced that situation. National anthems itself should be the central article - along with 'Nation' of course (and country too) - leading naturally to List of National anthems. Which is the article people want to edit - but which you have simply re-directed to your ISO-based list. Why? I just can't get over how that can have happened! The whole essence of nationality has been cold-heartedly stolen.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. And for a better idea of how things resulted this way, please take a look at past discussions, and past FLCs for this article. Thank you. Gary King (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's not to do with you, and you are happy for the article to change, then I apologise - but you have come across a few times as a bit of a boss here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

← I don't think I have, but you have your opinion. I take offense to statements you have made, including "It is very rude of you to reply here after all the work I've done on this! You talk as if you personally dictate what is allowed in here?", and "you should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously." Gary King (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The second was a bit rude (sorry - I'm still a bit freaked over the re-direct) - but the first one was spot on. Maybe you can't see it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well, maybe you're right and I don't see it. However, I don't know why you would claim that it is "rude" of me to reply to your discussion here. And I still don't get why simply stating that there has been previous discussion on this leads to me being called "a bit of a boss". I only respond to discussions here because I watchlist this page and have tried to get it through FLC twice so far; the current state of the article is a result of those two, lengthy FLCs. Gary King (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For me this is a sub-article (or split-article) of National anthems (which I've worked on too) - they are basically one and the same article. Because I was typing in "List of national anthems" I didn't even realise the name had been changed! The problem with UK identity is that biases can mean articles go in unusual directions - Wikipedia needn't move an inch though. There is a way to do everything, IMO.

At the moment Scotland and Wales are being bullied by people attacking their integrity (as countries, as national anthem holders etc). It's done by a small but vocal minority (who tend to wear socks), and often a few IPs. It has stopped play on Wales for almost all of the last few months. This article could really help the situation, if only it addressed the countries involved. One thing on my mind is to make the List of national anthems 'redirect page' a proper List of National anthems in itself. What do you think? It seems drastic and a bit silly - but it is simply wrong that it currently directs here, as this is simply a different kind of list. Wikipedia has lived with (and continues to live with) two similar lists before now, that's for sure. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect is incorrect. I don't have any suggestion as to what should be done to it, but I don't have any strong feelings about it. Gary King (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me it might be best to just associate this list with the ISO country list it is clearly based on and related to, and for me to build up a National anthem list seperately. I've just noticed where List of nations leads to! If I put that on a sensible track too it could be the solution to our problems. Why try and fit two lists into one? I'm sure, with some cross-referral wording where needed, they can co-exist. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to go ahead and build out those redirects into their own lists. Gary King (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, thanks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Marcha Real

Gary, do you really think that the Grenadiers March was the "national" anthem of the Spanish Empire, so early as 1770 when no national anthem at all existed anywhere in the world (and in fact it was no used so until much later)? Why is said this is the encyclopaedia every one can edit when it is not true?212.51.52.5 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit based on the information given at Marcha Real. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And would you mind what part of what I edited was wrong? Because the current information it is.212.51.52.4 (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From the references that I've seen, it was implemented by Charles III of Spain? Gary King (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's false. During the II Spanish Republic (1931-1939) it was not the (any) anthem at all, and the most important, it was the most democratic (formally at least) period of the Spanish history. In fact, it never was a national anthem in the way the French one is, but more like the God Save the Queen (the Marcha Real was performed in catholic masses, for instance), and exactly that modern use starts with the Franco régime. I edited that modern usage, as anthem in the sense the word is accepted starts with Franco in 1936, not before, and democratically since 1978, not before. It is not possible to start a fight each time any person tries to correct something obvious in his/her home existence (and obvious for everybody except for the flawed ones), I think you have a problem with this, and it's growing and growing.212.51.52.7 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The information for the anthems here come from each anthem's article's infobox, I believe. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you, excuse me. I explained the best I could. I saw the Marcha Article before the editing I did, I imagine you can verify it. I didn't correct that article because it is too complex to me and don't see relevant in order to say that, in fact, modern usage of Marcha Real starts in the dates I wrote (you could say so that modern German anthem dates from 1750, as it does). The first Spanish constitution (Cortes de Cádiz, 1812) does not mention at all, in despite of it states Spain as the whole Empire (including the Americas, etc). As you want, none can start a miniwar to correct anything. Luck next time.212.51.52.8 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

Hey Gary. Great work on this list. I have two comments about the Lebanon entry:

• Title: As far as I know, the Lebanese national anthem is never referred to by "Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam" (which corresponds to the lines of the chorus), but simply by "The National Anthem of Lebanon" or "The Lebanese National Anthem" ("An-Nashid al-Watani al-Lubnani"). So I think it would be appropriate to change it to the common title.
• Date: I found an Arabic website which states that the Lebanese national anthem was officially adopted on July 12, 1927. It sources this information from a publication. Do you think its appropriate to add the date with a reference to this publication? Eklipse (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the date. As for the national anthem, Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam seems to say that that is the title of the anthem and that the English translation is "National Anthem of Lebanon", which is what I've updated the table to. Gary King (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article, at least as it stands now, doesn't seem to say that, but rather that "the title is taken from the national motto", no word about the English translation. I'm convinced, from my limited knowledge of Arabic and my many years as an anthematologist, that "The Lebanese National Anthem" is not an English translation of "Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam" but "We are All for Our Nation, for Our Flag and Glory" is. I also don't doubt that "An-Nashid al-Watani al-Lubnani" (trans: "The Lebanese National Anthem") is the more common title. I would suggest also either changing the English translation to match the Arabic, or (preferred) changing the Arabic to match the English translation.

I appreciate, by the way, your (sometimes quixotic) efforts to make this article a Featured list, of course any anthem-related article I would like to see as featured. I have several other comments/questions about your recent edits (I don't agree with all of them), they'll ave to be posted later today if I remember/have time. Thanks, Gary! --Canuckguy (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Canuckguy, you were ahead of me, I was going to say exactly the same thing. It's wrong to keep the entry as "Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam" ("National Anthem of Lebanon"), as these two terms don't correspond to each other. The article Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam is misleading. Until now, I haven't heard of, or found a source about the fact that the title of the national anthem is Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam, or that Lebanon has a national motto (check the infobox in Lebanon). Plus, the Arabic article about Lebanon (and any other Arabic text) always refers to the national anthem as The Lebanese National Anthem. I'll make the changes in the list right away, but I'm not sure if I should add the arabic translation Al-Nashid al-Watani al-Lubnani. Eklipse (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright I'm fine with that. Also thanks for fixing the sort Eklipse – the reason that needs the sort template and the "a" is so that all of the values in the column begins with a letter so that it knows to put the years before the other values that have words in them. Gary King (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked this in other lists, but I don't recall seeing that problem there - I thoguht the rules of collation put numbers before letters anyways. Maybe this would be something to bring up with whoever is in charge of the Wikimedia software ... --Canuckguy (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it only break sometimes and I haven't spent the time to test what the cause was. Gary King (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

My comments on Gary King's recent edits:

• It looks like the redlinks for composers/lyricists were removed. While normally I like to make sure a page is free of redlinks as much as possible, my opinion (and it's just my opinion, so take that for what it is) is that these redlinks are beneficial, if articles do get created for these people, the link would automaticlaly be changed to valid, yet this way we don't know if they have a valid link or not.

• Personally, I kind of preferred the look of the dates pre-centering, but again, just MHO.

• Why was the previous image (of the Star-Spangled Banner) replaced with the current image (of Himnusz)? It is mentioned in the caption box that Himnusz is one of the earliest national anthems, but there are several older ones (God Save the Queen and La Marseillaise come readily to mind, both of which are also more well known than Himnusz). My preferences would have been to use either GStQ or La Marseillaise (by virtue of their influence on anthems today), have a more neutrall picture (can't think of what off-hand, it's hard to think of a suitable picture for a music-based article), or remove the picture completely.

Keep in mind that even though this list consists of corrections/criticisms, I greatly appreciate the work Gary did on this article, anything I didn't comment on, I approve of.  :) --Canuckguy (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Red links were removed of because of this discussion. The dates are centered; I'm not sure what you mean? I tried using the earliest anthem that I could find; Hungary's sheet music was the earliest that was available on the Commons. If you can find sheet music for an older anthem that we can use freely in this article, then please do so. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that I kind of liked the look of the dates column before it was centered (but, again, that's my opinion only.) Secondly, I see your point about the sheet music, I do have older ones (I have lots of sheet music at my site nationalanthems.info), but my question was (partly) is sheet music really the best thing to put there? The point of a picture on a Wikipedia article is to better demonstrate the article that words alone can't convey (remember the old maxim "a picture is worth a thousand words"?) As an example (arrived at by clicking "Random article" until I got one with a picture) Imnaha Guard Station has a picture of the station and the sorrounding area, further adding to the reader's understanding of the type of terrain, etc., that it's located in.) Sheet music is fine, but you can have the sheet of Mary Had a Little Lamb for all that matters, especially if you can't read sheet music - all that the picture says currently is that it's of an old piece of music, don't really say anything "national anthem-y" about it. (Heck, even the pictures that are on the Mary Had a Little Lamb article are more useful than what we have.) I'm leaning more towards leaving out pictures - there's already anthem-related pictures at the national anthem article, this is simply a list. (An article about aural subject matter might not benefit from pictures anyways, in the case of national anthems, "a song is worth 1,000 words" ... ) --Canuckguy (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this better now? Gary King (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthem / National anthem lists

There seems to be three lists on wikipedia which cover similar issues and the current setup of these pages seems very unsatisfactory and confusing to me and I believe other readers too.

List of anthems – This page currently contains mostly small areas such as dependencies and autonomous areas as well as including a couple of international organizations and movements.

List of anthems by country – This page is a featured list and contains the national anthems of the member states of the United Nations.

List of national anthems – This page includes all sovereign states, but only some territories, dependencies and non sovereign countries.

I consider the List of anthems by country page to be the best list currently and this is reflected in the fact it still has featured list status. Despite this, it is almost impossible to actually locate the list unless you know the title or look in the see also sections on the other pages. A Google search will almost always find you the List of national anthems or List of anthems which are clearly less well defined and maintained lists.

There was recently a similar problem with list of countries pages, where two lists were displaying almost the same data and there for simply creating confusion and arguments. This problem was resolved when one of the lists was redirected to a disambiguation page List of Countries removing the duplication and keeping a more clearly defined list at List of sovereign states. I think a similar change with these pages may improve the situation and make things easier for people to locate the information they are looking for.

Obviously any changes to the other pages would require agreement from editors of those pages, but I have linked this post on the other relevant talk pages and would like to hear peoples suggestions and opinions on how to resolve the problem. I would hope that everyone could see the current setup is far from perfect and something needs to change.

Here are my suggestions on what I think could be done to this page and the other pages to improve them and would like to know what people think of the ideas. These would be radical changes but they would solve a lot of the problems.

(For this page)

• This page be renamed to List of National anthems of Sovereign States (or something like that)

• This page criteria be changed to match the criteria of List of sovereign states (which is basically all UN members + 9 Sovereign States which lack full international recognition and a few special cases).

• The Sovereign States that lack international recognition (like Taiwan) be added to a separate table below the main list on this page and the two tables given correct labels.

(Other linked pages)

• A new page is created to include current national anthems of countries, regions, autonomous areas and dependencies not considered Sovereign States with a title something like List of National anthems of non Sovereign States but it could be worded better. The anthems are then either put in a sortable table with a column describing the entity (dependency, region etc) or in individual tables based on the type of entity.

• All national anthems that belong on the new page are removed from the List of anthems and list of national anthems pages. All that would leave on the anthems page is international anthems / movements which could be placed on its own new page and expanded. All that would be left on the national anthems page would be an identical list of anthems from the List of National anthems of Sovereign States page and there for would no longer be needed.

• List of national anthems becomes a disambiguation page which can list List of National anthems of Sovereign States, List of National anthems of non Sovereign States , List of historical national anthems etc.

• List of anthems becomes a disambiguation page which can list List of National anthems , Royal Anthem, List of anthems of International Organizations and Movements (or something with a better name). The anthems page could be expanded a lot in the future, to include separate anthem lists of political parties, sporting anthems etc.

If all of the above was done then the problems and similarities between the different pages would no longer be an issue. I understand some people have put in a lot of work for the current pages to be the way they are but again I hope people can understand the reason why I have a problem with the current setup and think others might too. Anyway I look forward to hearing peoples opinions as my suggestions are just one way which might improve things and I am sure there are many others. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this more i would like to make a few alterations to to suggestions that i made above which may be a better choice and involve making less changes to a featured list. Rename this article List of National Anthems of United Nations member states Create a new page called List of National Anthems of unrecognized or disputed Sovereign States rather than adding those unrecognized states to this page. The new page could then be added to the National anthems disam page and this would fit in with all the other suggestions i made above. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Well it has been over a week since there was any comment on my suggestion about trying to resolve the problem with the different anthem articles list of anthems by country and list of national anthems which contain mostly the same information leading to unhelpful duplication. There are a couple of solutions to this problem and I am unsure which would be the best way to proceed.

The first is simply to merge the two articles mentioned by placing “other national and regional anthems” in a separate table underneath the main table of anthems of countries in the United Nations. I believe list of anthems by country is the better article and as it still holds Featured List status I see no reason why a non featured article with a bad layout should be kept instead of this one. It is also worth noting until 6 months ago list of national anthems simply redirected to this page until an editor (who has now retired from Wikipedia) made the second list and started transferring anthems from list of anthems, a task that has not been completed.

The second option would be to create a new page for other national and regional anthems (unsure on the title and if unrecognized sovereign states like Taiwan could be included in a new section on this article or go on the new page). Such a page could then be mentioned in the introduction on this article so it is easily accessible. list of national anthems could then redirect to this page again or if needed (not sure if it is) turn it into a list of the different available lists so people can pick between list of anthems by country , list of historical national anthems and the new list of other national and regional anthems.

I prefer option two. creating some form of new page for the other national and regional anthems for several reasons:

• It will not have any impact on list of anthems by country status as a featured list which should be protected where as major changes to the articles inclusion criteria might.

• It will keep future arguments about what is and is not allowed to be included on the “other national and regional anthems” list on the new page so this featured list’s content remains undisputable and clearly defined.

• Whilst there are only 30 entries that would be added to this page if the merger went ahead, there are dozens more waiting to be transferred from the list of anthems page and if that did happen this would be a very long list which would be unhelpful and take a long time to load for some.

However I support either of the above options or any other solutions people have that would resolve this problem of duplication and the fact a featured list is almost impossible to find. It even comes second to list of national anthems when you do a google search for the exact title “list of anthems by country”. It has been over 3 weeks since I made my original request for some form of change, there has been very little feedback since then with just two people rejecting it a week ago saying there is basically no problem with the current setup but they have not replied to my response.

I have tried to reach consensus, I did not jump in and make major changes (unlike how the list of national anthems was changed 6 months ago to the way it is now). I have prompted for peoples feed back on many occasions on the talk page explaining why I feel there is a problem and what I think would resolve it. If again there is very little feedback and no strong objections then I think there is justification to be WP:Bold and make these changes, which I will do next week (a month after my original request). Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. My only comment is that everyone talks about 'national anthems' rather than 'country anthems', and therefore it does make sense to have an article about 'national anthems' that is more than just a list of anthems by sovereign country. It also avoids the problem of not including national anthems from places that are not recognised as 'countries' by the United Nations. Therefore, I would favour keeping the List of national anthems article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A merger which does not resolve the issue of non-sovereign countries is not acceptable. Again we have the fact that country means both sovereign and non-sovereign countries. I am happy for Wales etc to have a note that they are part of the UK but not for it to be omitted. If that means keeping two articles then we should keep it. --Snowded TALK 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou both for replying and i agree with the points you both make. I am not seeking to have Wales national anthem removed from all national anthem lists and i am not seeking to have just a single list of national anthems of UN countries because i agree there are national anthems of other countries and regions which would be excluded.

My problem is at the moment there are two lists, Both basically with the same title just worded differently. We have two lists each with 190 UN countries but one (List of national anthems) with 30+ other countries and regions on there and a fairly undefined critera. So those non UN countries get bogged down and lost in the list at the same time as having a featured list almost impossible to find. Thats why i want a single list for national anthems which has a table for UN member states anthems then another table for other countries and regions OR a separate list with those extra 30 mentioned (+ dozens more which need to be transfered from List of anthems on a single article which is easy to find. This would be a similar resolution to the problem recently solved at list of countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You say "it has been over a week since there was any comment on my suggestion about trying to resolve the problem with the different anthem articles list of anthems by country and list of national anthems ..." Yes it has been over a week. You first brought it up on 6th December with your suggestion of creating pages variously called: List of National anthems of Sovereign States, List of National anthems of non Sovereign States, List of anthems of International Organizations and Movements, List of National Anthems of United Nations member states and List of National Anthems of unrecognized or disputed Sovereign States. And as that had no support you're trying this. BTW, shouldn't there be something noted on both talk pages for a merger proposal?

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

First of all i did not say i made my suggestion a week ago i said it has been over a week since there was any comment on my suggestion (which is true). In my final comment i said "(a month after my original request)". I placed a merge tag on both articles, linked the discuss button on the list of national anthems to this page. I did not know a comment had to be added to the talk page on the second article, as that would encourage two conversations breaking out but i will happily add it on there if needed.

I disagree that a country or regions georgraphy / population is more important than the actual reason something is on the list (Be it a country thats a member of the United Nations, a disputed sovereign state or a non sovereign country / territory. I think it would be more helpful to include them in different tables or articles. As is the case on list of countries, or list of flags etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now added a link to this proposed merger on the other talk page, sorry for not doing it before. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am against the merge proposal, as a "national anthem" does not mean an anthem of a sovereign state, Wales has a national anthem which can be sourced to dozens of reliable sources, and it is not "God Save the Queen". I suggest that the merge templates be taken off the articles. --PBS (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Hi all. I would suggest that a better title for this article would be 'List of anthems of UN member states' - that would be the most accurate description of what the article is about and makes clear to all that details of anthems of countries or states that are not recognised by the UN should not be added. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support renaming of this article to "list of anthems of the UN member states" or "list of national anthems of UN member states". However that will not resolve the present problem with this article being almost impossible to find, compared to the List of national anthems article which simply includes anything and everything. This article is the featured list and it should have prime position or atleast the "list of national anthems" be a lists page like Lists of countries where people can choose between the UN anthems, historical anthems and the other list where England, Wales, Scotland, Kosovo etc can be included. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The List of national anthems article does not "... simply includes anything and everything." It includes national anthems in list form. i.e. it does exactly what it says on the tin. No more. No less. I would support the rename proposed here, as it would also do exactly what it says on the tin. This is just what you need in an article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It would make a lot of sense to merge this article into List of National Anthems. Given that there are non UN country anthems you either have one list for all or multiple lists with duplication. --Snowded TALK 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded --PBS (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why limit to UN member states? If keeping the way it is right here, I do not consider redirecting some other lists hereto a good idea, like historical and non-UN member state anthems.--Jusjih (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of entities with "national anthems" are UN member states. This article is largely redundant. I don't see why it shouldn't be merged. A split only makes sense when the list is too long. That does not seem to be the sentiment here. --Jiang (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Page merger

Proposed merger tags have been readded to this page, started a debate here BritishWatcher (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding audio

Given that this is a list of songs, surely we should consider adding a column for the audio file where available? Or possibly just in the UN Members table? I'd be happy to do the work myself. I've created examples of the main options below:

Nation	National anthem	Date adopted	Lyrics writer	Music writer	Audio
Afghanistan	"Milli Tharana" ("National Anthem")	2006	Abdul Bari Jahani	Babrak Wassa

And:

Nation	National anthem	Date adopted	Lyrics writer	Music writer	Audio
Afghanistan	"Milli Tharana" ("National Anthem")	2006	Abdul Bari Jahani	Babrak Wassa

For the second one I don't know how to get rid of the little thing to the left of the file, but I'm sure it can be done if that is the preferred format. I have looked into availability: of the 11 UN countries beginning with A, only Andorra doesn't appear to have an audio file, but I'm sure in time that will change. Any thoughts? —WFC— 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of the above examples have obvious flaws. I've created a new template, which combines the functionality of the second one with a reasonably compact layout:

Nation	National anthem	Date adopted	Lyrics writer	Music writer	Audio
Afghanistan	"Milli Tharana" ("National Anthem")	2006	Abdul Bari Jahani	Babrak Wassa	noicon Milli Tharana

—WFC— 11:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

considering taking this to delisting

We are missing sounds in here. As such, this list is deficient. don't think I am a hardass ballbuster. This is the eye of the hurricane.TCO (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. But the negative approach should always be considered a last resort. —WFC— 22:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding improvements, man. Makor kudos.TCO (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Using "national" in the Anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories section

I made this edit a couple of hours ago on the basis that with territories that do not claim to be nations in there "national" does not make sense. I was reverted, with the informative edit summary of "nonsense". Ordinarily I would follow WP:BRD, but I restored it because I assume that my rationale has been misunderstood. Nonetheless, I want to start a discussion on this, rather than get involved in a full-blown edit war. —WFC— 15:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think national should be removed from this section. For some of the entries, like the Aland Islands, they do not claim at http://www.bibliotek.ax/Alandica/Alanningens_sang it was a national anthem (or even an anthem) but just a song. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The section should not be renamed. Entries that are not national anthems do not belong on a list of national anthems. If editors are sure that entries are only songs, rather than national anthems, those songs should be removed from the list. If editors are uncertain as to whether or not entries are national anthems, a citation needed template should be added to the entry. @ WFCforLife: Your initial instinct was correct. If a bold edit has been reverted, but you believe it to be correct, the proper course of action is to begin a discussion on the talk page, rather than to restore the controversial edit. Please self revert, until a consensus is achieved here. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've self-reverted for the time being, and you make some good points as to what should and shouldn't be here. In my opinion, this list should consist only of UN members, and unrecognised but de-facto independent countries. In the table that started this discussion, only constituent countries of some of the European nations can really be considered countries at all. By definition, songs for the rest of them can't be considered national anthems at all. The previous decision to merge that lot into this list was an absolute shocker, and should be reversed (although there is discussion to be had on constituent countries). —WFC— 16:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the self-revert. Our opinions as to what should and shouldn't be here are irrelevant. WP:Title is quite clear - the subsection Deciding on an article title says: "Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic." Entries comprising an article entitled “List of national anthems“ should be verified as national anthems (de facto or de jure) by reliable sources. No more, no less. Daicaregos (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Former countries or something like that

I think that we should add something for former countries like Yugoslavia (Hey, Slavs), USSR (The Internationale; National Anthem of the Soviet Union) and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.220.7 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

We have this, at List of historical national anthems. —WFC— 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A comprehensive list; per WP:FL?

The Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, has been removed from this list without discussion. That it is a national anthem can be verified by numerous reliable sources, including: the BBC; the National Library of Wales; Visit Wales; Wales.com (the Welsh Government website); Daily Telegraph; the Guardian; The Independent; Washington Post; New York Times; The Australian; The New Zealand Herald; and even the Daily Mail.
The Manual of Style for stand-alone lists' says (list selection criteria): "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." There is no WP:NPOV justification for not including verifiable national anthems on a 'list of national anthems'. Please re-instate the Welsh national anthem on this list, along with any other songs that can be verified to be national anthems. Daicaregos (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The summary given was "Wales is not a member of the United Nations" so it was more of section issue. The inclusion of Wales is placed at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_anthems_of_non-sovereign_countries,_regions_and_territories. We can verify UN membership, but I think the selection of the countries here is based on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gallery_of_sovereign-state_flags (though the Bengazhi Libyan Government is listed here but not at the Gallery of flags). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It was removed without discussion here. I have never claimed that Wales is a member of the United Nations. The point is that no 'selection of countries' should be made at all. The MOS governing this article is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. I reiterate the list selection criteria given above, as it appears to have been missed: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Daicaregos (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it was all moved to a different list (which brought back Kurdistan, which I removed). Talk:List_of_national_anthems#Using_.22national.22_in_the_Anthems_of_non-sovereign_countries.2C_regions_and_territories_section might provide a clue. If, lets say we go with the membership criteria of UN Members, that will keep a lot of the list but remove that bottom category. But a lot of other items were removed from this list, such as former national anthems (or anthems of former states). I honestly think the list should be renamed and should only include UN Members and Observing States (like Palestine and the Vatican). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have you provided that link? Did you think I was unaware of its content? Whatever, it does not constitute a consensus to remove any entries from this list. Please explain why you are still suggesting choosing a 'membership criteria' that doesn't comply with the relevant MOS i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, which I note you are yet to comment on, or even acknowledge. Please confirm you have read it. Entries comprising a “List of national anthems“ should be verified as national anthems (de facto or de jure) by reliable sources. No more and no less. Daicaregos (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a discontinuity here between the title of the article and that of the lists. If the article title stays the same, then national anthems other than those of UN member nations should be included. Personally I would have one list of national anthems and note for example under the entries for the UK and England that they use the same anthem. If there is to be a list of UN member nations, then there needs to be a "Other National Anthems list" for anything which is clearly cited as such. I don't think renaming the article makes any sense as the common use is clear. --Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I also favour a single list. If a song is a verified national anthem, then it is a national anthem. The nation's status is irrelevant in this context. Daicaregos (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that status of the nation DOES matter to a lot of people here. The reason why I would suggest a UN only list, because as Daicaregos pointed out a few times, "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." A list from the UN of who is a member or observer is "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." If consensus is for a single list, I will be fine with it (I don't care either way, but a decision has to be made because it has been going back and forth for years, albeit slowly.) But having Wales in the section "Anthems of United Nations member states" is not going to work because Wales isn't a UN member (but would be interesting if it was, since subnational entities have became UN members in the past, but that is just the tired me talking). I have no problems adding Wales to this page, but needs to be in a different section. I know a lot of areas would use either the UK or French anthem as their anthem, so there needs to be a way to condense it somehow. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anyone suggesting that Wales is a UN member. The name of the article means that Wales (and others) need to be there. The only real question is do we have one list or several sections. I favour one --Snowded ^TALK 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So the reader should be led to believe that Bonaire can be compared like-for-like with China? —WFC— 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make be facetiousirrelevant points. If somewhere has a national anthem per citations then it belongs in a list of national anthems. You can't simply divide that national anthems means those anthems that belong to UN member states as that does not confirm with reliable sources. The question is one list or separate sections. --Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take that back. You specifically said that you think they should all be in one list, I simply challenged you on it. And the question is how do we best organise the information. —WFC— 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it an AGF breach? As far as I can see you are arguing about relative size of country which is nothing to do with the subject. I'll make a minor change given you seem sensitive. --Snowded ^TALK 23:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The argument that one can't compare Bonaire like-for-like with China is fallacious - on two counts. Firstly, the entries on the list are not being noted as countries, they are being noted as national anthems; Secondly, we are not comparing the entries, we are listing them. Daicaregos (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The irony is that I split this list because of the FL criteria. It would be impossible to reference the national anthems of in many cases unrecognised states to FL standards, and the list could not be claimed to be comprehensive if we knowingly omitted states from a section they belonged in due to sourcing. The alternative to splitting was probably de-featuring. I agree that a rename discussion should take place, as there is certainly an argument that "List of national anthems" should be a set index article. Including the phrase "national anthems" in the split list would go a long way towards alleviating the concerns of those worried about the status of countries such as Wales. —WFC— 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No entries belong on a list, featured or otherwise, if they cannot be verified. Entries that are not national anthems do not belong on a list of national anthems.
There may well be an argument that "List of national anthems" should be a set index article. However, WP:SIA says: “The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list.” The Manual of Style for stand-alone lists, WP:LSC says: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources."
No rename discussion is necessary – only that all verifiable national anthems be included on this list. Daicaregos (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The question I have is what would the section name be, "anthems of the constitute UK regions" and how far should we go with this list? Should former anthems be included or those of micronations? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No sections are needed, as only national anthems should be included. No former national anthems should be included, as this is a list of national anthems, rather than a list of former national anthems (a link to which could be included under 'See also'). The anthems of 'Micronations', as with all nations, should be included if (and only if) they can be verified as national anthems by reliable sources. Daicaregos (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We have such a link already for former anthems, just I wasn't sure of what kind of scope you are looking for. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He increasingly appears to be looking for any scope that will get Wales on this list. He started this on the pretence of comprehensiveness, yet rejects any attempt to outline that under the list's current scope it is comprehensive. He wishes to change the list's scope on the pretence of comprehensiveness, yet is indifferent to whether or not changing the scope of this list to include Wales would result in the list being comprehensive or not. —WFC— 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Former anthems is an interesting possible addition. However the issue here is if we have one list or a sectioned list. I am open to either option preference for first --Snowded ^TALK 23:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If Wales, England, Scotland & Northern Ireland are included? they'll need their own section, since they're not sovereign states. However, IMHO they shouldn't be included as they're not sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The title of the page is "national anthems" GoodDay, not "national anthems of sovereign states" --Snowded ^TALK 23:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I already know that. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral users may be interested to know that Snowded is editing other people's comments in this thread. I will return to this matter tomorrow, when s/he has taken the appropriate action and I have cooled down a little. —WFC— 00:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree that cooling down is a good idea. I removed material that commented on the motivation of another editor and did not address content issue. Further such comments were likely to provoke escalating ill temper. This is a very very straightforward issue and all we need to resolve is if sections are needed. Please try and work with that. --Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You did achieved precisely the opposite. Now restore the comments, immediately. —WFC— 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WIkipedia policy is clear, you should not comment on editors but on content. I did you a favour in removing them and you might want to stop issuing orders, it never really works around here --Snowded ^TALK 00:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The page is titled national anthems and we have a list which is a subset of that. One option is to create a list of national anthems of sovereign states and another of non-soverign ones and reference both from this article. Another is to have to lists here with different sections and the third is to have one long list. Can I suggest we have some discussion - what people prefer, what they can live with? I'm open to all --Snowded ^TALK 00:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's likely, this article will follow the solution applied to the List of countries related articles. An article split into List of sovereign national anthems & List of non-sovereign national anthems. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that this suggestion be suspended until the proposer restores the discussion to its original state. Why bother contributing if some some Welshman upset at his territory's lack of sovereignty can refactor your comments with no comeback? —WFC— 00:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend not commenting on editors or their possible political motives. Such comments tend to poison the atmosphere of the discussion-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I've already made the comment, I justified it, and I alone am entitled to decide whether it remains. This discussion can and will move forward amicably when the comment is restored in its original place and I can be confident that it will remain there. —WFC— 00:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just some advise, from a fellow who (in the past) tended to get himself in trouble over such posts. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's sage advice, and I truly appreciate it. But the comment was relevant, as it highlighted inconsistencies in the approach taken on this discussion. One minute we were talking about comprehensiveness, and the moment the OP realised that comprehensiveness might not be entirely in line with his POV, he moved onto verifibility. I point this out, and someone else with the same POV removes it, telling me that I am not allowed to post that opinion.

If people want to chastise me for the content or tone of my response, or refute it entirely, that is their right. If the post is so egregious as to warrant removal or a block, that should be done with an admin via revdelete. But that was not the case here: I, and I alone, am responsible for what I do and do not say. That is the basis of consensus-based discussion. If that principle is not adhered to, I do not see how reasonable progress can be expected to be made, even if I were forcibly removed from the process. —WFC— 01:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll understand, if I don't comment on this situation, any further. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you had made the consistency point without the comments on another editors motivations then there would have been no issue. --Snowded ^TALK 01:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's lovely, but that's not for one editor to determine. Not even one as self righteous as yourself. —WFC— 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You've decided to reinstate comments that contain speculation on the motivations of another editor, and you have generally compounded a failure to only address content issues with some rather foolish side comments and edit summaries. That is your call, but remember its all on record and if you choose to carry on in that way then your behaviour is subject to wider scrutiny within the community. --Snowded ^TALK 10:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that we might look at this from the point of view of a reader? In other words, if I wanted to find a particular national anthem, then I would expect to be able to go to an article titled "List of national anthems" and find information either by the name of the nation or by the name of the anthem. To me that implies a single list, sortable either on nation or song-title. I really think the arguments over the status of the region that the anthem belongs to is simply not helpful, although I appreciate that some editors may feel strongly about such topics. Nevertheless, I believe that putting the readers first is our over-riding duty as editors, whether they are looking for information on the national anthem of Wales or China, or wanting to know who sings "God save the Queen". If you would agree that the article titled "List of national anthems" should meet the need for that sort of information, then hopefully it becomes clear what the selection criteria and organisation of the list should be. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland inclusion/exclusion on these types of lists, tend to be the axe that divides these articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with RexxS, as long as the title of the page is as it is then people should be able to find something alphabetically. We can of course look at having a notes column so "England" would then say "This is also the national anthem of the United Kingdom" or similar. However a pipeline from the name would give that information that England is not a sovereign state would be available to any reader in the first line --Snowded ^TALK 01:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd opt for either article splitting or a new section for E/N/S/W. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GoodDay: Why would that be? If a reader hears a song referred to as "the national anthem of Wales" at the start of a rugby match on TV, why shouldn't he or she be able to go to "List of national anthems" and find out about that song by looking at a row containing 'Wales'? If I'm interested in finding out where "God Save the Queen" is used as a national anthem, do I really have to conduct a search across multiple articles or multiple lists? If there's a verifiable national anthem, I want to be able to find it in the obvious place. Sorting on song-title ought to show me immediately all the places where "God Save the Queen" is used --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

National anthems tend to be associated with sovereign states 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply not true GoodDay, the citations are very clear on this --Snowded ^TALK 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm merely speculating on why E/N/S/W inclusion, tends to meet resistance on these types of articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well please focus on how to move forwards. Why people take positions is their own affair and does not need commentary --Snowded ^TALK 01:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "Home Nations" is that while they are a prominent example in the English-speaking world, they're not as unique a case as people from the UK and Ireland tend to believe. The Faroes, Greenland, half of Oceania, some of the American and Dutch overseas territories are relatively similar situations. But if we then go and include all of those, we then get into things like US States, micronations, etc. When you take into account the numerous equivalents of the likes of Cornwall and Catalonia around the world, you quickly get into the territory where the list needs to be split anyway. It may antagonise some – I half expect a disgruntled Welshman to revert me – but the reason UN membership and/or sovereignty are frequently used is that they are the most workable dividing lines. —WFC— 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And with the problems we have on the various "sovereign state" articles is exactly who to include or not. For example, we include Libya (Bengazhi) as a state, but others keep Gaddafi's symbols only. People believe, lets say, Abkazhia to be a state but when we try to do the same for Kosovo, nope. There is a lot of nationalist fighting so having a "clear, defined" list that is supported by a source will settle the issue (but will keep a lot of places off, like Wales, Taiwan, Kosovo, Libya-Benghazi, etc). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept that there comes a point where a list gets too large to be manageable, so your point is well made, WFC. The article List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories contains another 46 entries in addition to the 200-odd here. Do we have any guidelines on how big a list may be? I know for normal articles, we consider splitting off once the readable prose size gets beyond about 32kB, but I suspect we're well short of that in this list. If we can avoid splitting a single list, it does offer the advantage of sorting by different criteria (which obviously makes searching by different headings much easier) – a usability consideration that doesn't apply to non-list articles. I'd be sorely tempted to sandbox a combined list and see if it becomes unmanageable; perhaps a job for tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it? --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Including the national anthems of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Libya (Bengazhi) (if they have one: have they? has anyone actually checked?) etc., is hardly a doomsday scenario. The question is, why would anyone want to exclude a national anthem from a list of national anthems? And if they did, would the list still fulfil the 'comprehensiveness' requirement of the Featured list criteria, in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations and reliable sources? Daicaregos (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=26&ParentID=20&LangID=1 is the anthem of the Libya-Benghazi Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. As you know, reliable sources must be cited, as part of the featured list criteria. None of the entries in this list are cited. Consequently, when this list is re-assessed for featured article status, it will be de-listed unless this issue is adressed. I think another column should be added to allow citations to be added. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the question I have is do we use English sources (because of what we are) or the actual legal code? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to use English sources (I assume you mean English language). But, per WP:NONENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." If good quality English language sources are unavailable, a translation to English should be provided. btw, what is an 'actual legal code'? Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant English language, yes. What I meant by "actual legal code" is something like for the Japanese or for the US. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you check the 2nd link (US) please Zscout, it didn't work for me. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a temporary link, so it doesn't work. But I believe we have a citation template for the US Code. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Zscout, the issue is not whether there is a dispute over whether something is or is not a country, but over whether there is a national anthem that has solid sources to establish the fact. As fas as I know US states do not have national anthems but if you have a source which says they do please share it. Otherwise the issue here is not convenience or avoidance of difficult issues for the editing community, but what can be supported by reliable third party sources. WFC, if you make personal attacks on other editors you run the risk of those comments being reverted, address content issues no problem. Otherwise I would go back to the question of usability - if someone comes to this article then they are looking for "national anthems". Is it easier for them to scroll through a long list in alphabetical order, or to have to first of all think about what type of nation/country they are talking about? I suggest the former. --Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are verifiable sources that say such and such an anthem is a national anthem then there should be no question that they should be included in a list of national anthems. I agree with several users on this but the argument that stands out for me is the one put forward by User:RexxS who says "If a reader hears a song referred to as "the national anthem of Wales" at the start of a rugby match on TV, why shouldn't he or she be able to go to "List of national anthems" and find out about that song by looking at a row containing 'Wales'?" They are absolutely correct. Repeating the question, why should the reader not be able simply to look up this list of national anthems to find the national anthem of Wales? Carson101 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless any policy-based reasons for excluding any verifiable national anthems can be cited, they will be added here. It will require the sections being deleted and all national anthems becoming part of a single list. Daicaregos (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "verifiable national anthems", really. If you mean that you intend to define a clear scope and include and exclude entities on this basis then that's probably OK, depending on what exactly that scope is. If you're working on the basis that a list of Indians must include both Pocahontas and Sachin Tendulkar (both of whom can be verified to be "Indian" by reliable sources), then clearly there may be issues.

As such a list would have such a broad "defined scope" that would not be possible for it to ever be comprehensive, I would suggest that adopting such a rule would mean that this list no longer met the featured list criteria and would have to be delisted if not changed. It would also risk serious bias in favour of places where the terminology "national anthem" is preferred, and against other places that have songs that play exactly the same role and have exactly the same (or in some cases greater) cultural and political significance but where slightly different terminology is used. Pfainuk talk 21:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me Pfainuk that you are not following policy here. If its a list of national anthems and something is verifiable a national anthem then its right to include it. I don't see how that would affect featured list status or bias. A song which has cultural significance but for which there are no references calling it a national anthem is not included. Your view of their relative significance is irrelevant surely? --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to add non-sovereign national anthems? then create sovereign & non sovereign sections. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that on principle but we need to look at the point made several times above that most people coming here will simply be looking for a national anthem and will not be especially concerned with status --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The cultural significance is important because it is part of what we mean by the words "national anthem". Unless we're restricting ourselves to sovereign states or some similar simple-to-follow scope, it seems very odd to act as though being described by someone as a "national anthem" means that a particular song is absolutely and fundamentally different from Texas, Our Texas. Patently, it isn't. Suggesting that it is is POV in favour of countries like the UK where "national anthem" is the preferred terminology for the songs of constituent parts and against the US where exactly the same concept is described using different words. Pfainuk talk 06:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there might be an argument to restrict it to countries (remembering that not all countries are sovereign states). I can't think of any example where a song is called a national anthem and that place is not a country. You do appear to be moving further away from policy in your statement above in seeking to interpret and possibly dismiss what is found in reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign & Non-sovereign sections will suffice for readers. It's prefferable to article division. GoodDay (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Got a reference to support that GoodDay? Or any reference which says that national anthems of non-soverign states are not really national anthems? If not then please stop littering this (and other pages) with your personal opinions --Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hose yourself down, please. I'm merely pointing out that it's not unreasonable to sectionalize the article. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Policy and good practice (demonstrated through the featured list criteria) require that we define a reasonable and neutral scope for all lists and make the list comprehensive within that defined scope. It does not require that the defined scope of a list be fully described by the article title, since that is not a sustainable position. Your proposal defines a potentially unlimited scope, meaning that there is no realistic possibility that the list can ever be comprehensive and no possibility therefore that the list can meet the featured list criteria. By Wikipedia's own standards, such a move makes the article worse, not better.

I am happy to only include countries, provided that the word "country" is clearly and appropriately defined. Based on previous arguments made on this topic, it is worth mentioning that a definition of "country" that boils down to anything that anyone has ever called a "country" is as limitless as a definition that boils down to anything that anyone has ever called a "national anthem", and therefore has all of the same drawbacks. It would also make the article worse, not better. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By "verifiable national anthems" I mean national anthems that are defined as national anthems by reliable sources. I don't understand why that should be a difficult concept to grasp for an experienced editor. If songs, such as (in your example) Texas, our Texas are defined as national anthems by reliable sources, then they should be on a list of national anthems. If they are defined as state anthems, for example, then they should be on a list of state anthems, should you wish to create one. Daicaregos (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that both Sachin Tendulkar and Pocahontas belong on a list of Indians. Not just that they belong, but that you cannot possibly have a list of Indians that does not include both.

You are relying here on a piece of terminology that happens to be different in different places and trying to construe that as fundamental. We can't do that because it's POV in favour of those countries (chiefly the UK) that happen to use that terminology. It seems to me that the only fundamental difference between Texas, Our Texas and (for example) Flower of Scotland is that the former is officially recognised while the latter is purely unofficial. On a neutral list, Texas, Our Texas would seem to have a better claim for inclusion. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of original research but that takes the biscuit. The UK happens to have four countries and there are good historical reasons. As nations they have national anthems. If you can find a source which says the same thing about Texas then we include it, or if you can find a source which says official songs of US states are the equivalent of national anthems elsewhere then you might have a case. Without a source its just your opinion and a somewhat eccentric one at that. Oh and God Save the Queen is a defacto anthem, you will find a lot which are as they have developed that status over time. --Snowded ^TALK 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am relying here on the WP:Five pillars. Particularly relevant is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. (Among other things), it says: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy" and "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources…".It appears that Texas, our Texas is not defined as a national anthem by reliable sources. Consequently, your, or my, or anyone else's interpretation as to whether it has a claim for inclusion on a list of national anthems is irrelevant. As I say, unless any policy-based reasons for excluding any verifiable national anthems can be cited, they will be added here. Daicaregos (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of having a section of sovereign and non-sovereign states, I think we can go with what we have now: UN Members, Non-UN members (which is a catch all and not having to worry about the nationalist fights I seen at other articles like this). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - provided that the non-UN members section is clearly defined as to its scope as per the Featured List criteria. Note that my position is that there should be clear inclusion criteria that might allow us to meet the featured list criterion on comprehensiveness (i.e. not the anything-ever-described-by-a-reliable-source criterion), not that any particular entity belongs or does not belong.

The standard argument here is that there is some kind of requirement that the inclusion criterion of a list entitles "List of (x)" be anything that can reliably sourced as being described as (x). I've seen it from Dai in particular in several other places as well. Of course, such a position has no basis in policy: indeed, WP:SAL and WP:WIAFL both make it clear that the inclusion criteria are defined by the lead, not the title. Pfainuk talk 19:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

{{od} looked at those policies and I can't see anything that allows a "list of X" as the name to be defined in the lede as a "list of X excluding all those X which are not Y". A list of national anthems is a list of national anthems. That said we now seem to have two alternatives on the table. One is to have two lists, the other one. EIther option includes any national anthem which is properly referenced as such. So we just have to resolve which approach. How about a quick one linear straw poll? --Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking if Wales was not included, this list would have been defeatured somehow. But the scope of that section can be defined by just saying they are not UN-members (but not include, lets say, every damn micronation Billy Bob and Joe set up) As for what sources to use, I am thinking using legislation or some other kind of source (like, for example, Taiwan uses the "National Banner Song" as their "national anthem" during sporting events, like the Olympics). Not just a random news article, since usually national anthems are set by constitutions or legal statute. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Statute for new nations, but for older ones its custom and practice. So no random news article, but a body of reports of official occasions on which the national anthem is sung would also work. --Snowded ^TALK 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking statutes can be used for any nation, regardless of age. (Well, that is how I will do my sources, if no one objects). The only thing we might disagree on is what language we have for the statutes/sources; for Japanese I used the actual Japanese law (but our citation templates do have room for a translated title). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would accept "any anthem that has been officially recognised by a government of a territory other than a UN member state" as an appropriate (though not ideal) inclusion criterion - but would note that that would exclude England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the UK does not officially recognise anthems. I don't think Snowded's criterion is appropriate because it has no apparent limit. There should be a clearly limiting criterion that will allow us to judge whether the list is comprehensive or not. Pfainuk talk 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They state that the inclusion criteria are defined by the lede, not the title. The whole basis for your argument is that the title is the be-all and end-all and we're not allowed to deviate. On the contrary, WP:SAL and WP:WIAFL explicitly allow us to pick appropriate inclusion criteria that may mean that the list does not cover everything that the title might imply. You are arguing, once again that you cannot have a list of Indians that does not include both Mahatma Ghandi and Sitting Bull. Pfainuk talk 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And you once again are advancing your opinions and continue to fail to provide any sources to back it up. THere are two meaning of "Indians", although one is generally considered offensive. There are not two definitions of a national anthem. You can't go against wikipedia policy here and you really really have to get a grip on the need to support your positions with references - I suspect you can't. --Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference WP:SAL (emphasis mine):

“ Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Future editors should not be left to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the page. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others. Non-obvious characteristics of the list (for instance, regarding the list structure) should also be explained in the lead section. ”

Reference WP:WIAFL (emphasis original):

“ Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. ”

Your argument is that we are required to include anything that has been described as an (x) on a List of (x). That it is the title that defines the list. As these sections make perfectly plain, this has no basis in policy at all. If someone is going against Wikipedia policy here, it's you, not me.

We are allowed to choose inclusion criteria that are appropriate to the list. Indeed, that if we want to retain featured status, we should be doing this. All I'm arguing is that we should adopt a set of neutral inclusion criteria that define the scope of the list clearly and allow for a possibility that the list actually can meet the featured list criterion on comprehensiveness. Your anything-that's-ever-been-described-as-a-national-anthem criterion doesn't do this. As I have made clear, I am not arguing for or against any particular entity being included, provided that they can be justified by said criteria. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that membership criteria should be defined. The Selection criteria section of WP:SAL says (my emphasis):

“ Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. ”

This is quite clear: where reliable sources unambiguously define a song as a national anthem, POV would be the only reason to exclude it. Despite all the scare stories about the possibility of an unmanageable list containing hundreds of 'micro-nations', the only example of a potentially inappropriate entry on this list is 'Texas, Our Texas', which isn't verified by reliable sources as a national anthem anyway. Please provide examples of micro-nation songs that are reliably sourced as national anthems. Just ten examples of potential inappropriate additions to this list would do, then we can all see what the problem would be. Daicaregos (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, could you please therefore provide a reliable source that confirms your point that a "national anthem" is a fundamental and universal concept, defined as any song that has ever been described as a national anthem. Since you insist that inclusion criteria should be based on reliable sources, and that these are the only possible criteria available, I don't think it unreasonable to ask for the reliable source on which you base them.

(FWIW it's reasonably trivial to find reliable sources that refer to "national anthems" of micronations. This includes some actual states, but several reliable sources dealing with micronations and their "national anthems". The point of noting Texas, Our Texas had nothing to do with micronations, but it does continue to demonstrate the fact that we in the UK use the term "national anthem" more broadly than other parts of the English-speaking world: those outside the UK may wish to consider On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at). Pfainuk talk 16:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on Pfainuk, you are maintaining a position without references. National anthems are associated with nations/countries a designation which is not coterminous with sovereign state or member of the UN. They are sung at national events and sporting occasions etc. The criteria are easy to establish. The country issue has been resolved elsewhere on several articles; it is not coterminous with state. We don't use the name more broadly in the UK, we have a history which means we have three countries with recognised national anthems (one of this is the same as the UK overall). Just been mentioned in a source as a national anthem would not be enough so that is an alarmist red herring. WP:WEIGHT comes into play. There is no reason for these lists to be exempt from normal wikipedia rules. If verifiable sources that satisfy WP:WEIGHT establish that something is a national anthem it is. You can't add in a criteria that they must be a UN member unless you find a source(s) which says that. --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again would you please stop misrepresenting my position. I have pointed out repeatedly that what you describe is not my position and have repeatedly explained to you what that position is. If you are unclear as to what it is, I suggest you reread those previous explanations.

You say that "[t]here is no reason for these lists to be exempt from normal wikipedia rules". Normal Wikipedia rules say that we should be defining the scope and inclusion criteria in the lede; that it is the lede, not the title, that defines the list. Under normal Wikipedia rules there is no basis at all for your apparent argument that we have to adopt the anything-ever-described-as-an-X criterion (in fact, based on the featured list criteria, the opposite is true).

You say that "been mentioned in a source as a national anthem would not be enough". But Dai has just said that "POV would be the only reason to exclude" any song that has been mentioned in a source as a national anthem. So, not an "alarmist red herring" (and not, for that matter, my preferred approach here - Dai brought it up), but an unavoidable consequence of his proposed criteria. The difference with your proposal is that you invoke WP:WEIGHT, further muddying the definition of the "scope and inclusion criteria" of the list and thus making it even harder for us to meet the featured list criteria.

Basing it on entities that have been described as "nations/countries", as though those words each had single clear, absolute and fundamental definition is flawed for exactly the same reasons. You still create a list that cannot ever be comprehensive because the inclusion criteria do not adequately define a scope for the article.

Finally, I note with interest the total failure to find a source that defines a "national anthem" as any song that has ever been described as a national anthem. The whole basis for this argument, that the being described as a "national anthem" is fundamental to the definition of a national anthem, is thus far unsourced. Pfainuk talk 08:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You have the nerve to whinge about misrepresentation, then claim “But Dai has just said that "POV would be the only reason to exclude" any song that has been mentioned in a source as a national anthem.” What I actually said was “This is quite clear: where reliable sources unambiguously define a song as a national anthem, POV would be the only reason to exclude it.” when referring to WP:SAL. In future, please include a diff when making claims about what I said, or include the entire quote. Daicaregos (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

While it was not exactly civil, I would note that this comment does not appear to invalidate any part of my point: that far from being an "alarmist red herring", your proposed criteria do in fact require that songs that "reliable sources unambiguously define" as the "national anthems" of micronations have to be included. I have already demonstrated that such sourcing is not just possible but actually pretty easy. Quite what in WP:SAL gives you the impression that this kind of inclusion criterion is not just appropriate but actually required I have no idea: WP:SAL simply does not support such an assertion.

I note also that you have still failed to provide a source for your argument that being described as a "national anthem" is fundamental to the definition of a "national anthem", and that no other definition is possible. Pfainuk talk 11:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, so you are not required to provide an evidence that a national anthem is only a national anthem it its a UN member state, while other editors who have produced Government and other sources that describe things as national anthems are asked to provide further sources? The criteria for wikipedia is reliable sources, if you want to argue that those sources are wrong in calling it a national anthem then we need more than your opinion and I haven't seen anything yet. You would be better occupied in working with other editors in agreeing criteria which mean that we don't include things which just have an odd or insubstantial reference. Very happy to work on that with you as a way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop putting words into my mouth. Third time of asking. The argument that you assign to me is not an argument that I have made. All I'm asking is that we follow our own policies and guidelines, including WP:SAL, and choose a set of criteria that might allow us to actually meet the Featured List Criteria. All in all, I wouldn't have thought that unreasonable.

WP:SAL tells us to create our own criteria, based on reliable sources, and we can't hope retain Featured List status unless we do. That page makes it clear that it is these criteria, not the title of the list, that define the list. You are making a proposal for one criterion, and both claim that it is based on reliable sources. You say that for reasons unspecified this is the only criterion available to us. But if, as is becoming increasingly apparent, there are no sources to that define a national anthem in this way (as any song that has ever been described as a national anthem), and no sources that suggest that this is the only possible definition of the term, then I believe it is clear that those criteria must be discarded.

This goes particularly when adopting such criteria would mean that we no longer meet the Featured List criteria, as in this case, and that accepting them would (by Wikipedia's own published standards) make this article worse. Pfainuk talk 08:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of making the criteria clear, but you can't use WP:SAL to allow you to define something to meet a POV unsupported by sources. The guidelines have to cover what a word or phrase means per reliable sources. In the case of National Anthems that clearly includes the national anthems of countries who are not members of the United Nations and not sovereign states. Todate despite many requests you have not produced a single source to justify a position that the UN restriction can be made. So either provide a source, or lets work on criteria that mean we satisfy both WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT --Snowded ^TALK 09:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your continued insistence on making up arguments, assigning them to me and demanding that I source them, is entirely unreasonable and is becoming disruptive. This is now the fourth time I have asked you to stop doing it.

I note with interest that you say that "[t]he guidelines have to cover what a word or phrase means per reliable sources", and yet you continue to refuse to provide a source that demonstrates your position, that a national anthem can only be defined as any song that has been described as a national anthem by your own choice of sources. I would also note that, regardless, it is the lede of the list and not the title of the list that defines the list. The title must describe the list, but this still gives us a fairly wide latitude to choose appropriate inclusion criteria.

I do actually feel that the current criteria are reasonable here. They aren't the only reasonable criteria, but they are reasonable criteria nonetheless. Because WP:SAL provides that it is the lede of the list, not the title of the list, that defines the contents of the list, the fact that the article as a whole might not include every "national anthem" is not significant. The sourcing that you have repeatedly demanded would be irrelevant even if I was saying we had to use the status quo, because the claim that you say is being made is not being made. Provided that every song covered by the inclusion criteria in the lede is included, there is no problem in policy or the Featured List criteria with not including every "national anthem".

The list as it is now could do with a better lede wording in this regard, but its inclusion criteria are valid per WP:SAL and the list can plausibly be said to meet the appropriate Featured List criteria.

Your argument still appears to be based on the notion that the list title defines the list. It does not. There is no requirement in policy - at all - that the contents of a list be defined by the list title, or attempt to include every entry potentially covered by the list title. The list title plays a purely descriptive role. The list contents are defined by the lede and the lede alone. Pfainuk talk 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are bordering on obfuscation, I will assume this is accidental not deliberate. There is nothing in WP:SAL that says you can constrain a definition of a term to deny reliable sources. They do not grant latitude to define something than other than it is. There are reliable sources a plenty that establish that non-soverign non UN member countries have national anthems that are sung on national and sporting occasions. There are no sources which say these are not national anthems, but just songs that are mistakenly labeled (Your position as far as I can read it). WP:SAL cannot override WP:RS, and it doesn't support your position anyway. When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. about sums up your position. Now how about coming down from that wall and agreeing a definition that prevents all and sundry being included but which does allow the inclusion of countries where WP:RD and WP:WEIGHT are satisfied. --Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you conceed that the scope of this list should be limited to ensure that it is possible for it to be comprehensive and verifiable, but are not happy with the current scope? —WFC— 10:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding to earlier concerns that any song could be included just because the odd source says its a national anthem. It is a wikipedia problem, we had it on Ayn Rand, where only one or two sources use the phrase "Philosopher" but the overwhelming body of references just ignore her. I think the determination that any source is enough was wrong there. In this case you can't exclude something where the sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, the latter of those is important. I'm happy to work on defining criteria that conform with those policies and elaborate them in this context. I am not happy with a position which says we can define these terms however we want. --Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see RS as an issue one way or another. If there is one list, reliable sources should verify that a song is called a national anthem; if there are two, reliable sources should verify which list a song belongs on, and indeed would carry weight with regards to the naming of the second list. Having two lists should ensure that the barrier to inclusion on the second list would be lower, provided that reliable sourcing is available, which in my opinion is a better way to ensure appropriate weight. Sure, there are one or two problematic edge cases, but on balance I think a weight argument favours two lists. —WFC— 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The first issue to resolve though is Pfainuk position, s/he seems opposed to anything other than UN member states - and that is the RS issue. If that is not the case, then we can have a one list or two lists discussion. I thought that is were we were several days ago when I started the straw poll, but it turned out not to be the case. Personally I think the barriers should be at the same level even with two lists, but there can be as easy presumption that a UN member state has a national anthem. --Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, the best faith I think I can assume at this stage is that you've not read anything I've written, have decided to make something up and assign it to me, and genuinely don't realise that the fact that you've decided to assign me a position doesn't mean that I take that position.

Certainly, it would be difficult for someone who has read my comments in this discussion to come to the conclusion that that is my position, given that I have repeatedly pointed out that this is not an accurate representation of my position, and given that I have said that I would accept several specific ideas that are not limited to UN member states - including the status quo.

To be clear, my position is:

• I oppose the anything-that-anyone-has-ever-described-as-a-national-anthem criterion that you and Dai have been pushing, as being based on a misunderstanding of policy (since it appears to be based on the notion that the title, not the lede, defines the contents of the list). Such a criterion also makes it nigh-on impossible for us to retain featured list status.
• The list should state inclusion criteria in the lede and stick to them. Those criteria should be sufficiently limited and easy to judge that this list can retain Featured List status.
• The inclusion criteria should be appropriate to the intentions of the list, but there is no problem if sticking to the inclusion criteria means that the list includes a few songs that many would reject as "national anthems", or excludes a few songs that many would accept as "national anthems". This does not make any judgement as to a given song's national anthem-ness, only as to whether it meets the criteria or not.
• Where songs that are often described as "national anthems" do not meet the criteria, I have no problem with explicitly stating this in the article outside the list, with links to appropriate other articles.
• Care should be taken not to imply that entities such as Canadian provinces, UK countries or Indian states either are, or should be taken as equivalent to, sovereign states, in the absence of context that clearly suggests that this is appropriate (e.g. England, Scotland, Wales and NI in the context of international football). I do not believe that we are discussing such a context.

Pfainuk talk 12:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, we are getting somewhere but I am not sure. Matching your points

• No one is suggesting an "anyone-has-ever-described" criteria, to the contrary I have specifically invited you on three occasions to work to agree criteria. I further suggest above that if anything they should be more strict for non-soverigh than that for sovereign states, so try to be less economical with the truth. The point being made, that I think you may simply not understand is that the lede cannot refine the title in opposition to sourced material. --Snowded ^TALK 12:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• inclusion criteria are needed, please respond to invitations to work on them.
• Inclusion criteria have to relate to the sources. There are clear sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:Weight in respect of several non-soverign state countries
• "songs which are often described as national anthems" is your formulation as yet not backed up by a single source
• Countries are countries, states are states. There is a clear body of RS material (and several wikipedia discussions and agreements) that establish England, Scotland and Wales are countries (NI is a bit less clear) and that they have national anthems. There is also a clear body of evidence that shows they have national anthems in other than a sporting context so the lede needs to recognize that.

Otherwise I have carefully read everything you have written, and it appears you are arguing that the inclusion criteria in the lede can challenge or restrict RS supported definitions and material. You have not produced a single source to support your suggested restriction. If you want to retain featured list status then you need to start working with other editors or the dispute level will disqualify it automatically --Snowded ^TALK 12:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Implying that you will insist on de-featuring if you do not get your way is not conducive to finding a stable solution. I would recommend retracting that (feel free to remove this comment if you do). —WFC— 19:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that we should all agree with Pfainuk so the list maintains its status? At the moment I am trying to pin down exactly what he is proposing and trying to get some engagement. To point out that conflict can lead to delisting is a simple factual statement . --Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I have been trying to work with other editors. Unfortunately, when those other editors make something up, announce it's my position, and then spend the next few days doing little beyond repeatedly demanding that I source it, even though it isn't my position and nothing I've written could reasonably suggest that it would be, it is difficult for that discussion to be constructive.

The lede does not "refine" the title at all. The title is purely descriptive. The lede is the important bit, the title nothing more than a useful shorthand. This is the policy misunderstanding I refer to. All this about reliable sources based on the title is simply irrelevant because the title doesn't define the contents of the list. It's whether entities can be reliably sourced to meet the inclusion criteria set out by the lede that is relevant.

Now, clearly, we can't have a "list of national anthems" that in fact lists shark species in the North Atlantic. The title does actually have to describe the contents of the list. But it's that way round, not the other way around. The title describes the list, rather than defining it.

Yes, people have suggested an "anyone-has-ever-described" criterion, both here and elsewhere. Dai actually said that he felt that anything else would be POV. It's normally couched in terms of "unambiguously defined" or similar, but it boils down to, if you can find a source that says it is, then it should go in. This isn't being economical with the truth - it's clearly demonstrated by the above discussion. Indeed, your argument above appears to be that while you accept the need for inclusion criteria, those inclusion criteria must result in a list that matches an "anyone-has-ever-described" criterion. There is no reason in policy why this has to be so because the title doesn't play any significant role in defining the inclusion criteria for the list.

Finally, I'd note that "songs which are often described as national anthems" is intended purely descriptively. It's not an inclusion criterion - I would oppose using that kind of inclusion criterion as I've repeatedly pointed out - rather, it's a suggestion that, if the criteria chosen exclude England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (used purely as an example), I have no issue with putting something in the lede saying something to the effect, Some songs that are used as national anthems are not included because of X and Y. These include the national anthems of countries of the United Kingdom... Pfainuk talk 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has suggested an "anyone-has-ever-described" criterion you need to provide the diff (as previously requested) or people may think you are simply making it up. Otherwise, please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well let me phrase it differently. The lede and the title have to be consistent with each other, and with common meaning and sources. That does mean the title is significant; at its very simplest, if an article is titled "National Anthems" then people looking for a national anthem should be able to find it here. I said clearly that there need to be strict criteria so that 'just any source' is not enough, there have to be a body of sources and they have to comply with WP:WEIGHT. Now correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that you thing that the criteria should be such as to only allow sovereign states. If so what is the basis for that argument, and how would you source it as a qualified definition? --Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And while we are at it, can you give me the policy reference that says " The lede is the important bit, the title nothing more than a useful shorthand.". I've looked and I can't find it. --Snowded ^TALK 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that WP:Article titles is a policy and therefore takes precedence if there is a conflict with the guideline WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. I have a difficulty with considering inclusion criteria for an article titled "List of national anthems" as being anything other than "music/songs which are national anthems". I would expect any reader coming to Wikipedia to find information on what they have heard described as a national anthem to find it in the article "List of national anthems" - perhaps that would be a more practical inclusion criterion? --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION is part of that policy, and is the link that Snowded seems to have been seeking from Pfainuk for the last few posts. If we remain at two lists, and if consensus is against my idea in the straw poll section (big ifs I accept), that policy firmly suggests that this article should remain at the current location, with a hatnote to the other list. We should be doing that right now, with no prejudice to the outcome of this discussion, in order to help serve any readers who might feel misled by the status quo. I have added the hatnote on multiple occasions now, but for reasons I don't understand have been reverted by editors who are simultaneously arguing that readers should be able to easily find that content. I would like to comment further on the absurdity of that, but know that I will not be allowed to do so.

I'd like to tie RexxS' last point with the original motivation behind this discussion. Is it practical to go beyond UN members or sovereign states, ensure that this list is as comprehensive as can be and fully verifiable to FL standards, and not introduce systemic bias? —WFC— 17:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course its practical. We need sources that show that any candidate is a national anthem and those sources need to be substantive over a period of time. All that is needed on the article is to change the name of the list and then insert names that satisfy those criteria. --Snowded ^TALK 18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't seem to meet the featured list criterion on comprehensiveness, and does not clearly define the scope.

That said, I think it is practical to take steps that could increase the scope of this article without losing comprehensiveness or verifiability. This might include augmenting the list using dependent territories, using some proxy such as the inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1. It might also include listing the anthems used by major sporting bodies such as the IOC, FIFA, or used at continental games or the Commonwealth Games. I would prefer to put such anthems in a separate article, though as I have said, it would be acceptable to me to put them in a separate list within the same article (and to only include country/anthem pairs that are not already included). Pfainuk talk 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Something described as a national anthem being included on a list of national anthems? Be careful, there may be an outbreak of commonsense and we can't have that on wikipedia! The bottom line is this. An article about national anthems must include all national anthems in the world, all of them well sourced as such. Now, if anyone here has a problem with including non- sovereign national anthems then quite frankly that's just too bad. That sounds a little blunt maybe, but inventing a criteria to suit any particular persons idea of what a national anthem is, well, it's not on. That's why we have sources and if I'm not mistaken that is what wikipedia is founded on. If it's not then I propose that any national anthem younger than ten years old and therefore not very well established should be excluded, but that would just be silly, wouldn't it? Carson101 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I prefer listing only sovereign states in this article, there's a way to include non-sovereign states without making 2 lists. Have the non-sovereign states listed beneath their respective sovereign state entry. For example, have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales listed under the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't have a national anthem as far as I know. That does not really satisfy the ease of look up. But I think its more that OK to say by Wales that the sovereign nation is the UK. However those are all options we first have to resolve the policy and sources issue. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland have an anthem they use at the Commonwealth Games, but not elsewhere, I believe. Obviously, they also use the Ulster Banner at the Commonwealth Games, so we need to be careful. Pfainuk talk 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere

Some of the views on both sides are irreconcilable: some people are never going to be happy with one list, some never happy with two. Policy-backed justifications for both solutions have been provided, and now, while I accept that all sides are currently acting in good faith, we are effectively going around in circles arguing semantics and pitting policy against policy.

On a positive note, I believe we are inching closer to agreement on the principles that the hypothetical ideal solution would meet. I suggest that we try to nail down the principles on which we generally agree first – steering clear of actually deciding whether one list or two lists better meets those principles – and only after that attempt to work backwards to try to work out whether one list or two is the better fit. Should that approach fail (we have to be pragmatic, it probably will), we would at least be laying the foundations for a future RfC, which is where I believe are otherwise headed anyway. —WFC— 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the attempt to restrict the contents of any list to UN nation states, the second is the number of lists. I don't see (despite requests) any supporting references to either the literature or to policy that support restriction. I have seen one editor reference a policy but I have read it and can't see support for his/her statement. I requested a link but I haven't see one yet. Once we resolve the first issue, and assuming we do not redefine the meaning of national anthems then we can discuss two or one lists, or one list with notes (a possible compromise). The first issue is the one that is causing the problem at the moment, the number of lists is resolvable. --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's quite obvious as to what the core of this whole dispute/discussion is. Quite simply put: 1) Should England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland be included & 2) If so, how should they be placed? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No its not. The core of this dispute is whether wikipedia has a right to restrict the definition of what a national anthem is, subject to proper sourcing and weight. It will not only affect Scotland and Wales, but also others. Northern Ireland is not in the mix and England is problematic as they use the British anthem and its only at sports that its seen as English (Scotland and Wales also use it at political events). Other countries have been mentioned as well and we will need to look at them once the issue is resolved. --Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you tell me that that's my position, it doesn't make it my position.

Given this, could you explain to me how making up positions and assigning them to other editors is helpful? I've told you so many times that this isn't my position that it's becoming impossible to accept that you don't know this. Indeed, your continued demand that I source whatever position you have invented for me is part of the reason this is going nowhere. Pfainuk talk 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So what is your position? We moved to discussion of one list or two and you said it was the wrong question. You have then argued that some "national anthems" are only songs that may sometimes be called national anthems. I could go on. Sorry its very very difficult to match what you position is with what you say you say. Maybe it would help if you clearly and simply said what you think should happen? Also I would like to see which part of which policy you are relying on for your statement about titles and ledes --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded has it absolutely right when he says that "the core of this dispute is whether wikipedia has a right to restrict the definition of what a national anthem is, subject to proper sourcing and weight". I'll go back to what I said earlier. As I understand it wikipedia was founded on the back of reliable sources without which this website would be a complete mess full of personal opinions on what should and what should not be in an article. If anyone takes it upon themselves to ignore reliable sources in favour of an opinion then there is no point to this place. Following on from Snowded's post above, I too would like to hear from Pfainuk on what he thinks should happen. Carson101 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This position would make more sense to me if there was a single clear and simple definition of what a "national anthem" is. No-one's yet provided one.

Since Snowded brings it up, "songs that may sometimes be called national anthems" is a very good point in this context. Ode to Joy is often described as the European "national anthem" in Britain, even though the EU and Council of Europe are at pains to avoid that terminology on the insistence of the British government (among others), and even though few in Britain would consider the EU or Council of Europe to be "nations". On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at is often described as Yorkshire's "national anthem", frequently (though not always) in scare quotes - again, few would consider Yorkshire a "nation".

On the other side of the coin, one could cite The Power of Four and Ireland's Call as songs used as national anthems - on fairly formal occasions (international rugby matches) - even though few would accept them as actually being national anthems. There are rough edges here: the position simply is not as black and white as you imply.

I agree that the list should not be "a complete mess full of personal opinions on what should and what should not be in an article". This is part of the reason why I oppose a criteria that is based on whether a specific standard of sourcing is available: such criteria would almost certainly require subjective judgement calls over just about every entry, and inclusion would likely depend at least as much on the personal opinions of individual editors as on an objective analysis of the sources. Better to have a neutral outside basis for this list, into which editors cannot input their personal opinions. Pfainuk talk 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any way in which the Irish or Yorkshire examples would ever past any test involving the use of reliable sources. If the EU specifically avoid the term then that fails too. Your previous example of Texas would also fail. These are all red herrings and I tempted to suggest the whole of that comment should have been placed in scare quotes. Otherwise you ask for a definition. I like this one "A national anthem (also national hymn, song etc.) is a generally patriotic musical composition that evokes and eulogizes the history, traditions and struggles of its people, recognized either by a nation's government as the official national song, or by convention through use by the people." You might recognize it from the article itself. That in effect provides criteria that would exclude your examples above but would include non-soverign states. That definition in the lede makes it illegitimate to exclude non-soverign states from an associated list and its pretty clear. If you want to add to it you might say that the candidate has to be a nation or country (again those are not confined to sovereign states). --Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC) --Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether any of those songs meet a sourcing standard depends (fairly obviously) on what the sourcing standard is and what sources available. Your point that they (or any other song) wouldn't ever pass any test involving the use of reliable sources is not reasonable unless you can demonstrate that there exist no reliable sources that refer to them.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that it demonstrates the point I made directly above quite nicely: that what would be included on such a criterion is already being based more on the personal opinions of individual editors than on an objective analysis of sources. Where is the objective analysis of sources? Indeed, how can you have an objective analysis of sources against a standard that does not yet exist? How can you ever give a definitive "no" given that such an analysis will never include every source on the subject: how would you know that sources that would cause it it meet the standard that haven't been brought forward do not exist?

What it looks like is that you're dismissing them as "red herrings" based on your own POV. Unless you can provide an objective analysis against all sources on the subject, that's the only reasonable conclusion. And you cannot expect a Featured List to retain its status on that basis.

That definition, also, is not particularly useful for us because it is not clear or unambiguous enough what belongs and what does not belong and as such the list could not be made comprehensive. Similarly, if you just say that an entry has to be a "nation or country", that is still ambiguous unless we can find an appropriately clear definition of "nation" or a "country" - bearing in mind that these words have multiple different definitions and that relying solely on a sourcing standard on that point has exactly the same problems as relying on a sourcing standard for a national anthem. Pfainuk talk 06:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My position is, as I have described, that we need inclusion criteria that meet content rules and that allow us to meet the Featured List criteria.

Generally speaking, I would say that inclusion criteria should be neutral, including avoiding systemic bias (WP:NPOV). The criteria should be objective and unambiguous (WP:SAL), so that readers and editors can easily tell what entries belong on the list, and so that there is no need to justify each individual entry from first principles (WP:SAL, WP:WIAFL on stability). The inclusion criteria should make it possible to verify that all included entries meet the criteria (WP:V), that all entries that meet the criteria are included (WP:WIAFL), and that all entries are themselves accurate (WP:V). And the criteria need to be such that the list title reasonably describes the article at hand, though the title itself need not be definitive (WP:SAL, WP:PRECISION).

I'm sure there are other things to consider as well. But those seem to me to be the most relevant ones here.

Examples of criteria that would meet these could include something like, sovereign states or inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1 with appropriate allowance made for states with limited recognition, and/or the membership of international political or sporting organisations (provided that using such membership does not create bias). They could also mean taking all entries from a single named source (or 2-3 named sources), again, provided that this does not create bias. I support the status quo - plus a hatnote - though (despite Snowded's decision as to what I think) I do not think it is the only possible option.

A list that relies on all songs that meet X or Y sourcing method as its sole inclusion criterion, on the other hand, would suffer strong systemic bias (because the balance of sources are likely to favour instances in Western English-speaking countries), would fail to provide clarity as to what belongs (and thus be subject to editors' personal biases) and would make comprehensiveness impossible (because there may be other anthems out there where we just haven't seen the sources: this would rule out the possibility of FL status now or in the future). I oppose such a criterion. Pfainuk talk 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific proposals to change the current lede? --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, I don't see that the current list needs changing. If there are proposals out there, I will consider them. The changes required at this stage I would say are to add a hatnote to the other list (which you have repeatedly removed for reasons that I don't believe have ever been explained) and to spell out the inclusion criteria more clearly. The list will need to spell out the inclusion criteria more clearly regardless of what they are. Pfainuk talk 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, you say that "A list that relies on all songs that meet X or Y sourcing method as its sole inclusion criterion, on the other hand, would suffer strong systemic bias (because the balance of sources are likely to favour instances in Western English-speaking countries)". The balance of sources are likely to favour Western English-speaking countries for every single article on this website and just like every article if we can confirm a national anthem from non-Western English-speaking sources then that's what would happen. That's not a good reason for excluding well sourced anthems. Also, excluding national anthems for the express purpose of achieving featured list status is entirely wrong. If the reason given for not reaching that status is because someone thinks it's not comprehensive enough then so be it, though I don't think that would happen. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Carson101 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If we take a decision that makes the article fail the Featured List criteria, then that means that in the view of the community, that decision has made the article worse. These are criteria that have been established by consensus precisely because they demonstrate what makes an exceptional article in the community's consensus view. As I'm sure you're aware, we're here to make the article better, not worse. If you want the FL criteria changed, then you're welcome to try and get consensus around proposed changes. But in the mean time, we should stick to community consensus as to what makes an exceptional article.

Systemic bias, like all bias, violates WP:NPOV. While it is widespread, editors are at pains to avoid it in the same way as all other kinds of POV - but it's easier to do on prose articles because it's not as black-and-white as including or excluding an entry from a list. Featured articles and featured lists should not feature systemic bias, and if we choose inclusion criteria that favour one part of the world over another (given that this is easily avoided) then that is a bad thing and another reason why we might lose featured status. Pfainuk talk 18:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

the current title, and the lede do not restrict national anthems to UN member states. Given that you are happy with the current lede then it follows the the list should be changed to confirm with the description in the lede, i.e. to add in national anthems that satisfy the lede definition. I can't see how conforming the list with the lede and title, provided we use reliable sources and ensure we assess weight would mean that this would loose featured list status. In fact I would argue that the failure of the list to conform with the lede means that it should fail. --Snowded ^TALK 23:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is where we came in. If this article went to WP:FAR now it would fail (per item 3 on WP:FL?; comprehensiveness). To rectify this, as Snowded says, entries should conform to to the article's current lead and title i.e. where reliable sources unambiguously define a song as a national anthem, that song should be included on this list. Daicaregos (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also Pfainuk now seems to have fallen back to a single argument, that using national anthems for countries which are not UN recognized states favours one part of the world and thus represents systematic bias. I think that opinion (and it is an opinion) needs some support in a third party reference if we are to take it seriously. It may be that some parts of the world had different histories, but that is just the way the world is. Pfainuk has to date not produced a single example of a song called a national anthem, not associated with an entity which is established as a country by reliable sources, which would damage the integrity of this list. The reference to On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at was frankly pathetic. --Snowded ^TALK 09:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're making up arguments for me again. This must be about the tenth time I've asked you to stop doing that. Your post also fails WP:CIVIL.

I have never argued "that using national anthems for countries which are not UN recognized states favours one part of the world and thus represents systematic bias". I have made it clear that I don't object to using a criterion that includes entities other than UN recognised states. My view is actually that insisting on UN recognised states only would make the list worse than it is now. This idea that I'm insisting on using the UN to the exclusion of all other possibilities is purely your own fantasy and bears no relation to any argument that I have made at any time on this article.

It is, however, entirely legitimate to say that relying solely on the balance of reliable sources, without any attempt to mitigate the fact that those sources are more likely to come from Western English-speaking countries, does produce systematic bias, does break WP:NPOV and must eventually lead to the list being de-featured. That goes particularly if English-language sources are insisted upon.

The fact is, your announcement there is no way that On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at, Ode to Joy, Ireland's Call and The Power of Four could ever go on your version of the list without even backing that position up with a single source demonstrates what is wrong with your criterion. I note also that for all the bland statements about requiring a reasonable standard of sourcing and respecting weight, you have yet to actually tell us what standard you want to require.

You cannot claim that a song does not belong on this list using a criterion based on reliable sources without reference to reliable sources. You cannot measure the appropriateness of a song against a standard that does not exist. What it appears at this stage is that your proposed inclusion criterion depends primarily on your own POV of what to consider a "national anthem". And that definitely won't pass muster at WP:FLRC. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk should know exactly what I meant in my last post. If he is worried that it would lose FL status because we include reliably sourced national anthems then that is not a good enough reason to exclude them, because of course, it is only Pfainuk's opinion that it would not have FL status. Perhaps it reached FL status because a lot of the community were unaware that the list was incomplete. As has been said above, it should actually fail on that now because it is not comprehensive enough as it stands. Carson101 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It needs improvement in the lede, to make it clear what the inclusion criteria are. But as I have pointed out, there is no inherent reason why the title should define the list: no reason why we cannot adopt inclusion criteria that are appropriate to the list.

But an inherently biased list, a list that can never be comprehensive, based on an inclusion criterion that is so vague that in practice it is based purely the personal opinions of the editors of the list, is never going to pass WP:FLRC. It doesn't take much to see that from WP:WIAFL, and yet that's what's being proposed. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Pfainuk its is becoming impossible to understand what you want to happen here. No one has proposed a vague inclusion list - that is fantasy on your part. You say you don't object to non UN nations, but when it is proposed you oppose it. Please try and say precisely what you think should happen, what criteria should be used, which countries (full definition) should be included or excluded. --Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I have opposed inclusion of non-UN members is entirely false - in fact my position has consistently been the opposite. I have explicitly accepted multiple sets of inclusion criteria that are not limited to UN member states. Including the status quo. The notion that I have opposed including non-UN-members is the position you have assigned to me probably a dozen times to me. I have disclaimed it practically every time. Your continued insistence on misrepresenting my position in this way has become disruptive and I ask you once again not to do it.

You say that "[n]o one has proposed a vague inclusion list", so perhaps you will tell me what the sourcing standard is that you want to impose here? So far, you've announced, apparently based solely on your own POV, that several songs don't meet them, and we are to assume that others do. But you've never (at least to my memory) explained how or why you reached these conclusions. Pfainuk talk 22:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should stick with the status quo, which is sovereign states 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That would mean the list was incomplete GoodDay and to make it clear an attempt to impose that solution would result in considerable controversy as its plain wrong. --Snowded ^TALK 00:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though the inclusion criteria is gonna be expanded beyond sovereign states. It's been quite a few days now & there's little progress made towards that end. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One of these days, you might possibly contribute to finding a solution rather than adding in comments with little or no utility at inappropriate times. If you bother to read we may be getting somewhere - note the comment that Pfainuk does not oppose the inclusion of non UN states. We need to build on that. --Snowded ^TALK 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't oppose non-UN members (assuming that translates to non-sovereign states) being included? Well then, I too am stumped. What's the hold up, Pfaniuk? GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We need an unambiguous objective outside criterion that is not susceptible to systemic bias, that can be filled comprehensively and that clearly defines what belongs in the list. A criterion that is purely based on sourcing, as is proposed, does not achieve any of these. I've pointed this out many times. Pfainuk talk 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it wouldn't. All we have to do is add a hatnote to List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories, and a paragraph that says something to the effect:

“ This list includes all national anthems of sovereign states. For other national anthems see List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories ”

.

Thus defining the scope and inclusion criteria for the list, meaning that it is possible for the list to be comprehensive within its scope. With such a paragraph, the list comprehensively covers its defined scope and is fully in line with all appropriate standards including all of the featured list criteria. Pfainuk talk 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, you need to understand that I (and I suspect others) are finding it very difficult to understand your position and the lack of clarity is itself disruptive. I hazard a guess at what you mean in practice and then you get all upset that the guess was wrong. I'm going to continue to try and bottom this out but you are going to have to put some effort in as well. If I read the above aright then you are saying you are happy for the list to contain non UN member nations. OK that is process, we can say that is agreed. We then get to the criteria for inclusion. Now here I and other editors have been very clear that there should be a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem. Given you were worried about ambiguity I also suggested this was not just a sporting anthem but should also be related to use at national events (this was an attempt to accommodate your concerns, I think that RS along is enough). I don't think that On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at, Ode to Joy, Ireland's Call and The Power of Four would pass that test, but if you have evidence that they would then please present it. --Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Given quite how many times I have detailed my position on this, in some detail, and given quite how many times I've pointed out that your decision that I'm insisting on UN member states has no basis whatsoever in anything that I've ever written on the subject, your first sentence is hard to fathom.

I have made it quite clear that I am opposed any inclusion criterion on the lines that "there should be a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem". Such a criterion is inherently biased in favour of cases in Western English-speaking countries, cannot ever result in a comprehensive list within the (potentially near-infinite) scope defined by the inclusion criteria, and is so vague that inclusion is likely in practice to be based on the personal POVs of editors instead of any objective baseline. Each of these alone, I would suggest, would be sufficient for this article to fail the FL criteria. And your saying that it should be "not just a sporting anthem but should also be related to use at national events" does not accommodate any of these concerns in any way.

Far better to use as inclusion criterion to use a defined neutral outside source or a neutral proxy for entities likely to have national anthems. Such criteria do not share any of those failings with your proposal, and thus allow the possibility of retaining FL status. The status quo is one such option, but not the only such option. Pfainuk talk 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This might get somewhere if can get it focused

• What source do you have to support your statement "Such a criterion is inherently biased in favour of cases in Western English-speaking countries"?
• On what basis are you arguing that using WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT leads to the infliction of personal POVs
• What sources do you have to say that there is a difference between national anthems of sovereign and non-soverign states?
• How does the exclusion of some national anthems from the primary list satisfy the FL requirement for completeness?

--Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This will be quite long: I'm afraid that if you want detail on this, you're just going to have to accept that.

I am surprised that you have not heard of systemic bias. Systemic bias the bias that is caused not by actually stating something but by measuring something based on a methodology that is likely to favour some outcomes over others. It is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Let me give you an example. A relatively large proportion of extrasolar planets that have been found in the galaxy are very large and very close to their parent star. Very few are potentially terrestrial: based on the raw data the Solar System is quite unusual. But any good description of that data must qualify it by pointing out that it is far easier to find an extrasolar planet that is very large, and far easier to find an extrasolar planet that is very close to its parent star: that the data is thus systemically biased toward very large stars that are very close to their parent stars.

In the case here, it is obvious that it will be easier to find "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem" for anthems from places for which there are a large number of reliable sources in the first place, and for anthems from places where a given reliable source is more likely to be put online in the English language. IOW, it is far easier to establish such "a body of reliable sources" for cases the English-speaking West than elsewhere in the world. This fact introduces systemic bias, and therefore POV, into the list. It is the sort of thing you can mitigate in prose - as I did with the extrasolar planets example above - but not easily in list inclusion criteria because ultimately an entry is either included or excluded. There is very little in the way of middle ground.

A point that is not clear, incidentally, is whether you propose that the exact English-language phrase "national anthem" needs to be sourced (thereby dramatically increasing the bias toward cases in the English-speaking world) or whether local-language equivalents are acceptable (thereby introducing bias caused by the fact that local use of equivalent terms to "national anthem" varies dramatically from language to language).

Moving on, on what basis can you guarantee, both now and in the future, that when counting anthems on a case-by-case basis, based solely on a vague requirement that there needs to be "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem", the standard of sourcing required for all entries will be both identical and objectively verifiable? I don't believe that that's possible: personal POVs will always come in unless you remove the scope for it by adopting a clear and unambiguous inclusion criterion. Let us remember that we have already seen you dismissing several anthems without reference to any reliable sources at all.

I also don't think it unreasonable to ask that we be able to easily and objectively verify that every entity on the list belongs and every entity not on the list does not. If the only inclusion criterion is that we require "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem", we can't do that in either direction.

Finally, note that the FL criterion concerned is that the list must comprehensively cover the scope defined by the lede, so if (for example) we define the scope as anthems of sovereign states in the lede then we can be sure that the list can be complete within that scope. If, as you propose, we define the scope to cover all reliable sources - in other words, to be effectively infinite - there is no way that we can be sure. If the defined scope of the list is national anthems of sovereign states as per the status quo - and it is perfectly legitimate to choose such a scope on this list per WP:SAL, WP:WIAFL and WP:PRECISION - then other anthems don't need to be included for the list to be comprehensive. Pfainuk talk 14:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the idea of systematic bias, its your use of it which is problematic. What I am surprised about is that you seem to be using it to argue against the standard wikipedia criteria of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The question of vagueness is no different here from anywhere else on WIkipedia. As to your "dismissed several anthems" which includes your reference to Yorkshire folk songs I await your provision of reliable sources, I can hardly provide a source to prove a negative as you should be (and I suspect are) all too aware. I note that you have not responded to any of my questions which required you to provide a source to support your opinion (a pattern in this exchange). To restrict the scope of the list in the way you say is legitimate breaks the requirement for completeness unless you can find a source to support your opinion. Its that simple. --Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The line "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem" is not and never has been a standard Wikipedia criterion for lists. There is an obvious difference between a list inclusion criterion and a prose article. A prose article allows for systemic biases to be flagged up and neutralised. This is impossible with list inclusion criteria. You're proposing that the scope be defined based on a biased premise with no attempt whatsoever to mitigate the effects of systematic bias. That's POV. And you cannot expect a featured list made POV not to be de-featured.

Your line "I can hardly provide a source to prove a negative" is essentially exactly the point I'm making with those. Because unless you can prove that negative - that a given song does not belong - and can prove it not just for "Yorkshire folk songs", but for all other potential entries from anywhere in the world, you can never be sure that the list is comprehensive and as such the list can never pass the featured list criteria.

Your statement "[t]o restrict the scope of the list in the way you say is legitimate breaks the requirement for completeness" is false. You asked for a source? I already gave you three. WP:WIAFL, emphasis origninal:

“ 2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.

3. Comprehensiveness.

(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.

”

According to our own featured list criteria it is legitimate - required even - to define the scope of the list in the lede and the list need only comprehensively cover that defined scope. It does not need to cover anything that is not within the scope defined by the lede. Not the title, the lede.

WP:SAL, emphasis mine:

“ Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Future editors should not be left to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the page. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others. Non-obvious characteristics of the list (for instance, regarding the list structure) should also be explained in the lead section. ”

And WP:PRECISION states that we should be "precise, but only as precise as necessary" in article titles and that (emphasis original) "concise titles are preferred". This makes it clear that a concise title should be used in preference to an fully definitive one.

The requirement for completeness is clearly defined as being within the scope of the article as defined by the lede section, not by the article title. Defining the scope of the article in the lede (such that the title describes but does not necessarily define the contents of the list) is not just legitimate according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines (including the featured list criteria). On a list such as this, it is effectively required. Putting a point in the lede stating that the list only covers sovereign states, or inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1, or a similarly objectively verifiable criterion, and pointing readers to List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories for other anthems, is exactly what we should be doing here according to relevant policies and guidelines. Pfainuk talk 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article should be moved to List of national anthems of sovereign countries, then. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but WP:PRECISION. We need concise article titles, but there's no reason why we need to be overprecise. The current title describes the contents of this list - it is a list of national anthems - though we we could do with putting the inclusion criteria properly in the lead, and we could do with the link to list of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories (and that article could do with a better title) that Snowded and others edit warred to remove (though I do not recall why they objected to it). Pfainuk talk 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to change the article title, but if that's not possible? then putting the inclusion criteria in the lead & adding links to the non-sovereign sister article, would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is o requirement in any of the standards to have a list matched by another list. There is no requirement to prove a negative, only a positive. None of the "scare" examples are likely to satisfy any RS check. There is however a requirement to be complete. Further you are persistently refusing to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your opinions despite several requests. To restrict to sovereign states (which is your defacto position despite all your denials) has to be supported by a source that allows the definition of a national anthem to be so restricted. The fact that you continue to assert an opinion against the existing text of the lede without citation support is perverse. --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So yet again you insist on assigning me a position that you have essentially made up entirely. Never mind that I've repeatedly and explicitly said that that isn't my position. Never mind that I have on multiple occasions - most recently barely six hours before your post - given examples of inclusion criteria that are acceptable to me and that do not amount to restricting this list to sovereign states. You've decided that that's my position and apparently I don't get any say in it. Frankly, if anything is perverse here, it's your continued insistence on making other people's positions up.

Meanwhile, you continue to demand that the list be "complete" by your standards (which, as I have demonstrated, are not the same as Wikipedia's standards), but to do that you insist that we adopt an inclusion criterion that means that we can never know whether the list is complete or not. Your opinion that the list is complete, when there is (by your own admission) no way that you can demonstrate that there are not other potential entries do not belong in the list, does not mean that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope". Particularly when the defined scope that you insist upon is potentially almost infinite. Particularly when the inclusion criteria you insist upon are so vague that it's impossible to verify that any given entry even meets them. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where you have "given examples of inclusion criteria that are acceptable to me and that do not amount to restricting this list to sovereign states", perhaps you would list them again. I would love to find that I am in error on this. Please also provide sources for the examples you have quoted (the Yorkshire folk song etc.) which would provide any justification of their inclusion per WP:RS --Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On 21:24, 3 September 2011, I indicated that, instead of your proposal, it would be "[f]ar better to use as inclusion criterion to use a defined neutral outside source or a neutral proxy for entities likely to have national anthems". The inclusion criteria must (among other things) be clear and neutral, and must allow the possibility of comprehensiveness. Your proposal fails on all three of those.

I have given as example inclusion criteria "sovereign states, or inhabited entities on ISO 3166-1, or a similarly objectively verifiable criterion". I have said that I would not object to anthems used at major sporting events being included in a supplementary list (though I would prefer to put them in a separate article), though I would first want to agree a clearly-defined set of major sporting events and a consensus that includes editors from different parts of the world that this is not systemic bias.

We could also use a single, neutral, scholarly outside source. We find an actual list of national anthems taken from a reliable, neutral and scholarly book or encyclopædia and we just list whatever entries they chose.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting this list to sovereign states. All we need to do is define the scope appropriately in the lede, and put a hatnote to the other list. We should have a hatnote to the other list anyway. Once we've done that, we meet all appropriate policies and guidelines, as well as the featured list criteria. But I am not insisting we do that.

The important point on "Yorkshire folk songs" is that you cannot demonstrate that they do not belong. Unless you can reasonably demonstrate that the list does not exclude entities that meet the criteria - and by your own admission your proposed criterion does not allow for this possibility - you cannot be sure that the list is complete and the list thus cannot pass the featured list criteria. Your opinion that it is complete is not enough. Pfainuk talk 20:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Choosing ISO 3166-1 for the inclusion criteria is not compatible with this list. ISO 3166-1 is restricted to UN member states and some UN agencies. That would be fine for a List of anthems of ISO 3166-1 members or a List af anthems of UN member states, but not for a List of national anthems. If you want to restrict the list it could be restricted to nations, but not to sovereign states or UN member states. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1(b) says the list must be: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Neglecting to list the national anthems of some nations, just because they are not sovereign states, is fairly major and the list would fail FAC. Inclusion criteria for entries on the list could be limited to the national anthems of nations, verified as such by reliable sources. Daicaregos (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record this is a list. As such, the relevant criteria are here. In any case I would dispute that any major entries have been omitted: when you add the territories mentioned on this map to non-UN sovereign states (visibly the most noticeable one is Western Sahara), there are clearly no major gaps. When we get into the region of constituent countries and/or sub-national entries, we are getting into territory where it is impossible to guarantee comprehensiveness. The argument for two lists is that we should not mix a finite, clearly-defined set of items with a dynamic set of items. —WFC— 09:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be taking two steps in oreder to decide what appears on this list. Step 1. List what entities are sovereign states?; Step 2. What are their anthems? (please let me know if I've misunderstood). That would be fine if this was a List of anthems of sovereign states, but it isn't. Restricting entries on this list to sovereign states is POV. Clearly there are entries missing from this list and that must be rectified. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What you describe is the net effect of my approach, but not the starting point.

I started by asking "how best do we ensure a verifiable, comprehensive, balanced list with no known omissions, or forseeable gaps in coverage?" Incidentally, I think this is a similar if not identical set of principles to Snowded's (and I would guess yours and Pfainkuk's too), and that the difference from there on is merely down to interpretation. It was for this reason that I was trying to nail everyone down on the principles they are using, and why I make a repeated call for everyone else to do so.

I – and I would guess Pfainuk – have concluded that it is best to use a scope for which we can guarantee comprehensive balanced coverage, which at a glance would appear to be UN members and/or sovereign states. Snowded and yourself have concluded that because we know of non-sovereign entities with anthems, those must be included for us to consider the list comprehensive and balanced. Please correct me if I have misrepresented anyone here, I have tried to make a pragmatic summary of the situation without giving any view precidence. —WFC— 15:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WFC here. I would note that, as has been demonstrated repeatedly above using policies and guidelines such as WP:SAL, WP:PRECISION and the featured list criteria, it is the lede that defines the scope of the list, not the title. Comprehensiveness is required within the scope of the list as defined by the lede.

There is no obvious POV in restricting the list in an appropriate way, such as I have suggested (including per the status quo). There is, OTOH, POV in using an inclusion criterion that is easier to meet for potential entries from Western English-speaking countries than for potential entries from elsewhere (that's bias in favour of those potential entries from Western English-speaking countries). And if the inclusion criteria are such that we cannot guarantee comprehensiveness, then clearly there's no way that the list can meet the FL criteria. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add non-sovereign states to this article & it's been quite awhile since this whole discussion was begun. It's run its course, time to move on. GoodDay (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@WFCforLife: Thank you for setting out your interpretation. Sorry for the delay to my reply. You asked to be corrected if necessary: you said "Snowded and yourself have concluded that because we know of non-sovereign entities with anthems ... ". Actually, they are not just non-sovereign entities with anthems, they are non-sovereign entities with national anthems, which can be verified as such by reliable sources. This is the whole point of our argument. National anthems should be on a list of national anthems.

@PfainUK & WFCforLife : I share your goal of a complete list of national anthems. I do not agree, however, that this list should be limited to sovereign states. This list should be limited to songs that can be verified by reliable sources as national anthems. Arguing that known, uncontentious, verifiable national anthems should be excluded, in order to ensure the list is complete, is nonsensical (ludicrous, absurd and bizarre also spring to mind). To lay your minds at rest that it is possible to specify inclusion criteria that would include known national anthems and still allow the list to meet FL criteria, I refer you to biology Featured Lists as examples. A couple of dozen or so of these Featured Lists relate to species lists. New species are often discovered. And they are simply added to the lists. No drama. Take List of dinosaurs, for example – I guarantee you that that list is not complete. Yet it has FL status. Excluding verifiable national anthems from a list of national anthems is unnecessary. Daicaregos (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, I would have thought that the difference between:

• A real-life discovery of something previously unknown to humanity, and
• Something that we're not including because it hasn't actively been demonstrated as meeting the criteria by Wikipedia editors

was blindingly obvious. The notion that they are equivalent, as you have just argued, is nonsensical. Ludicrous. Absurd. Bizarre.

I would note that list of dinosaurs does not back your point up. Nowhere does list of dinosaurs claim to be a complete and comprehensive list of dinosaurs. Such a list is impossible, but also unnecessary. Nor does it have an open-ended inclusion criterion such as requiring "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is" a dinosaur, because such a list can never be completed.

Rather, it restricts itself to including only all genera that have ever been included in the superorder Dinosauria, excluding class Aves (birds, both living and those known only from fossils) and purely vernacular terms. Anything called a dinosaur that does not meet that criterion is excluded, whatever the level of sourcing that describes it as a dinosaur. If a dinosaur is unknown to science, then it falls outside the defined scope because it will never have been included in the superorder Dinosauria. The list comprehensively covers the scope defined by the lede.

The inclusion criterion on list of dinosaurs is clear. Comprehensiveness within that inclusion criterion is possible. The inclusion criterion is neutral and we can easily verify that all entries meet it. None of these four things can be said of the inclusion criterion "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem", or similarly open-ended criteria.

WFCforLife's description of my point is broadly accurate. We need a scope for which we can guarantee balanced and comprehensive coverage. There are various scopes that we can choose that allow this, but the proposal that we include any song for which we can find "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish [it] is a national anthem" does not. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, I am aware that dinosaurs and national anthems are different. My point showed it is unnecessary to claim a list as "complete and comprehensive" in order to fulfil Featured list criteria. Consequently, it is unnecessary to define the inclusion criteria using a predefined list designed to exclude some verifiable national anthems from the list, instead of using reliable sources. I would remind you that Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, Selection criteria says:

Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources

Which is what should be done here, of course. Daicaregos (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You say: "it is unnecessary to claim a list as "complete and comprehensive" in order to fulfil Featured list criteria". False. Criterion 3a of the featured list criteria:

“ It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. ”

List of dinosaurs passes this. It comprehensively covers the scope of the list. It does not comprehensively cover dinosaurs because that is impossible. But that's OK. Because criterion 2 makes it clear that the "defined scope" of the list should be defined by the lede. It is not defined by the title. It is defined by the lede. Thus the list need only be comprehensive within the scope defined by the lede. Not the title. The lede.

You also bring up WP:SAL, which could not make this point any more clearly. Emphasis mine:

“ Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Future editors should not be left to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the page. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others. Non-obvious characteristics of the list (for instance, regarding the list structure) should also be explained in the lead section. ”

The subject of the list is defined by the lede. Not the title. The lede. List of dinosaurs does this. It makes it very clear what its scope is, and that scope does not include dinosaurs that have not yet been discovered. These are not within the scope because the scope is limited to those that have been classified in a certain way. You may say that that rule has been designed to exclude some dinosaurs - it doesn't make it an unreasonable way of doing things.

(Incidentally, I don't believe that your claim that either the concept of sovereign states, or the list ISO 3166-1, was designed in order to exclude any anthem from a Wikipedia article is remotely tenable. The words nonsensical, ludicrous, absurd and bizarre come to mind again.)

Finally, I note that you say that inclusion criteria should be unambiguous and objective. Does this mean that you oppose the ambiguous and subjective criterion, "a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem", and similar wordings? We should be basing this on reliable sources, sure - the title should reasonably describe the list. But it is abundantly clear from policy, guidelines and the Featured List criteria that the title does not define the list. The list is defined by the lede. Not the title. The lede. Pfainuk talk 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, could you please explain what this comment of yours has in relation to this article. "It makes it very clear what its scope is, and that scope does not include dinosaurs that have not yet been discovered". An article that will not include something that has not (yet) been discovered and this article, which we are arguing over whether verifiably asserted national anthems should be included on a list of national anthems, has no connection whatsover as far as I can see. Too even compare them is quite nonsensical, ludicrous, absurd and bizarre. Let me also mention your argument that the list is defined by the lede, not the title. I am no expert on policy here on wikipedia so I've no idea if that is strictly true. Just for the sake of talking let us say that it is indeed true. What on earth is to stop us changing the lede to enable us to have a more comprehensive list of national anthems. I would remind you that if someone heard the Welsh national anthem being played and came to wikipedia looking for that anthem they would automatically look at this article for it. Why we should not have that anthem here for the readers benefit is beyond me. Also, please don't say that it would lose FL status, because you just don't know that and I don't believe it would. Carson101 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When Wales gains independance, its anthem will certainly be added. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if someone heard the Welsh national anthem and came to look it up on Wikipedia, I would expect them to look up something like Welsh national anthem. If that redirected here, something would be seriously wrong. You might make a similar argument regarding other songs often described as, or used as, national anthems (I have named several before). The more "comprehensive" the article becomes, the more tenuous the link to national anthems becomes. There has to be a limit, and that limit should be neutrally, objectively and unambiguously defined.

The desire that the list include particular entries does not release us from policy requirements. If the inclusion criteria suffer systemic bias then the entire list is non-neutral. If the inclusion criteria are subjective or ambiguous then it is impossible for outsiders to verify whether a given entry belongs or not and the list is likely to become rapidly inconsistent and biased as personal opinions take precedence over objectivity. If the inclusion criteria are such that we cannot determine whether the list is comprehensive or not, we must assume that it isn't comprehensive and thus directly fails FL criterion 3a.

It is easy to find inclusion criteria that mean that we can avoid all of those pitfalls. The status quo is one example. There are other examples that I have already cited here.

However, criteria similar to a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem suffer systemic bias. They are ambiguous. They are subjective. And there's no way of verifying that any given list covers them comprehensively. These are basic policies - WP:NPOV and WP:V - that this list would break. If your position is genuinely that a list that does not meet even basic policy requirements can retain featured status, I think you need to reconsider that position. Bad lists do not get to be featured.

Finally, I suggest you reread the above discussion if you don't understand what the list of dinosaurs has to do with anything. It was Dai who brought it up, apparently arguing that it was OK for a featured list not to be verifiably comprehensive because list of dinosaurs doesn't include dinosaurs that haven't been discovered yet: that leaving off verifiable but unverified anthems from this list was equivalent to leaving undiscovered dinosaurs off the list of dinosaurs. I believe I described this argument in exactly the same terms as you did. But in any case, his premise was factually wrong because the scope of list of dinosaurs is written such as to exclude undiscovered dinosaurs. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside GoodDays brilliant and detailed argument for the exclusion of the Welsh national anthem, I would just like to say that a list of national anthems that excludes any verifiably asserted national anthems is an incomplete list. I've heard you say that already, I hear you say. Well, I'm sorry for repeating myself, but that is the crux of the argument in my opinion. Nothing else matters, or should matter. It's great that you can quote WP:NPOV, WP:V and such, but that does not take away from the fact that you can't see, or won't see, that it is plain and simply wrong to leave out national anthems from a list of national anthems. I can't see myself continuing this discussion for that reason. Carson101 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a shame that you apparently feel that neutrality and verifiability are less important than your personal opinions on the subject. I believe that the community, as expressed through the featured list process, would disagree. Pfainuk talk 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read my above post before you replied to me? I have been hammering on about verifiability and yet you say I think that it is less important than personal opinion! I'm astonished that you can say something like that when it is so obvious that it is not true. And tell me, what is more neutral than a well sourced national anthem? It is a shame that your personal opinion takes precedent over a fact that is verifiably sourced. Words almost escaped me when I read your post, but not quite. Carson101 (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, and saw that you dismissed WP:NPOV and WP:V in favour of your personal opinion ("It's great that you can quote WP:NPOV, WP:V and such...").

I want to minimise the influence of personal opinions in determining inclusion, both now and in the future. The way to make this happen is to choose a neutral, objective and unambiguous inclusion criterion - so that you can verify whether a potential entry should be included or not. This is what I have been arguing for and this is what is required by policy and guidelines. Inclusion criteria along the lines of a body of reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT that establish something is a national anthem are biased, subjective and ambiguous. They push us in precisely the wrong direction, maximising the influence of editors' personal opinions in determining inclusion. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay "proposal"

We should move the title to List of national anthems of sovereign states, as that's its content. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What policy do you base this on? Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice Try. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? Is your suggested move based on any specific policy or not? Daicaregos (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Too liberal an interpretation of 'national anthem', will certainly dilute the content of this article & cause it to loose its FL status. GoodDay (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On what policy do you base your opinion? Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's based on WP:IAR. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason in policy or the featured list criteria why this list cannot retain exactly the list entries it has now and the name it has now. For naming, see WP:PRECISION: there is no need to be more precise than necessary. However, there is the option of turning this into a set index article as noted below. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Side comments

I'm not seeing any consensus for making 'any changes' to this article. Perhaps the whole inclusion criteria discussion has run its course. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No GoodDay, there is if you look a balance for a list, whether one or two is open. Further this is a policy matter on sources --Snowded ^TALK 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Scope vs Sources may be messy. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources are easy; just cite an Embassy website or Ministry of Culture page (or law). Scope, not so much. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for including non-sovereign states in this article. Therefore, it's time to stop flogging the dead horse & move on. GoodDay (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think a dead horse is being flogged. The fact is this, an article purporting to list national anthems and excluding reliably sourced national anthems is an incomplete list. Carson101 (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In the english world, national is associated mostly with sovereignty. Wales (for example) doesn't belong in this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Wales is a nation (as numerous editors here have repeatedly pointed this fact out to you) and this article is about national anthems. So do explain why Wales shouldn't be here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a sovereign state & in the english world, national is most associated with sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You come out with statements that means nothing and doesn't have any reality in the real world. All I hear from you are your prejudices against anything that is verifiably called a nation/national anthem/country (take your pick) that you don't like. Your political beliefs have no place here and I for one would be grateful if you would stop repeating your opinions on here when you have nothing to back them up. If in future you have an opinion on what is a national anthem and what is not then please keep it to yourself unless you have something of more substance to bring to the table than you have at present. Carson101 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for their inclusion on this article. So please stop trying to force their inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is far from dead when it is quite blatantly obvious that the list is incomplete, so I'd be grateful if you would stop it with the no consensus nonsense. Numbers are not the criteria for a consensus in many cases, and I think you know that. Carson101 (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is precise & FL status. Let's not ruin that status with possible political motives. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A typical statement from you that means absolutely nothing. Carson101 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice try what? I've seen you use those exact same words over several article talk pages and I still don't know what it means. More worryingly, I don't think you do either. Carson101 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll, one list or two

• One list as it matches how people will come to the article and search, they will naturally look for a country name and will not want to search two. --Snowded ^TALK 20:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Two lists because, in order to make the scope of the article easier to define and not having to worry about nationalist fighting. Base this list off of key membership in, like we have right now, the UN. As for not being able to find the country in two lists, Ctrl-F. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not the right question. The right question is what the most appropriate criteria for inclusion are. We can't determine what the arrangement is until it is clearly determined what we're arranging. I would note, however, that I consider it non-neutral to treat entities such as UK countries, US states or South African Provinces as though they should be considered equivalent to sovereign states, except in cases where they are in fact generally treated as equivalent to sovereign states. This is not such a case. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a source which says a national anthem is only a real national anthem if it belongs to a sovereign state. --Snowded ^TALK 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a source that demonstrates that I have said anything about a "real national anthem", or else stop putting words into my mouth. Pfainuk talk 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK let me rephrase it. Please provide a source to say that the meaning of national anthem is limited to sovereign states --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting Pfainuk. If you can't supply a source to sustain that position then your argument falls. Wikipedia editors can't choose to redefine a term --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Before I lost internet, I was thinking of, perhaps, adding members of the two major sporting orgs, FIFA and IOC, into the inclusion list. I feel this is where most people will hear the term national anthem for the UK states, and as I mentioned before, sporting anthems of some of these entities will be different from their actual anthem (in the case of Taiwan). Having one giant table would be harder to edit, so it is easier to split said list into smaller sections (and each scope can be defined in the sections.) Plus, the lead can define all of the sections, but just at the very end. The lead doesn't have to be one sentence; it just the whole intro. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now those definitely are not national anthems. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just making a point on why the confusion and why people want to the stuff included. I don't care either way what goes on this list, but trying to stop an edit war. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• No change I support the current situation and article names. The inclusion criteria of both lists are very suitable with well-defined inclusion criteria. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• No change or Two lists, as we shouldn't be mixing the anthems of sovereign & non-sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there will be a lot of confusion of sovereign state or not, due to nationalist debates and inconsistency on Wikipedia, would you support a two list that is defined on UN membership? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• One List If someone were to want the music and lyrics to the Welsh national anthem, or just the title of the anthem, the natural place for the reader to look would be on a list of national anthems, not two lists. I expect that seems rather obvious but then that is why it is the right choice. Carson101 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Two lists, for the purposes of simplifying what I'm about to say. What is important is that we arrange our articles and lists in such a way as to ensure that they are informatives, lead readers to where they want to go, are comprehensive, completely verifiable, and follow a clearly defined scope. I agree with Pfainuk's post at 20:53 UTC yesterday, and on those grounds I would favour a split.

  That said, I remain open to moving this page to List of national anthems (United Nations members) (or similar for an alternative method of splitting), and logically the other list would become List of national anthems (non-United Nations members) (or similar for an alternative method of splitting), the one caveat being that the list's lead attempts to justify use of the word "national" – we then at least have a verifiable reason to use the phrase, even if it is not to some people's tastes. This approach would enable us to reserve List of national anthems for a set index article, which would introduce what a national anthem is, the two lists up for discussion here, as well as other relevant lists and articles, most notably List of historical national anthems, List of anthems of micronations and List of U.S. state songs. —WFC— 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I like this idea the best. This current page could be moved to the UN members list, yet I think this list was moved before from a UN-only title if my memory serves me correctly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to any index dab page. This is material that could fit on one page, but is better spread across two and definitely should not have three. This standard title should have actual content. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting a DAB page. I'm talking about a proper set index article, along the lines of (but hopefully better than) Dodge Charger. It should have a proper lead explaining what a national anthem is, and then introduce each list in far more depth than one would expect from a bog-standard DAB. —WFC— 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
        • They are still related. There is absolutely no need to have one page for introduction and two further pages for the actual list of anthems. Let's introduce the lists on the actual list articles, not on a separate index. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• One list - Readers would expect to be able to find all national anthems on a list of national anthems. While I agree that Scotland is not equivalent to China, in terms of its sovereignty, their national anthems are equally valid and belong on the same list. One sortable list containing all reliably sourced national anthems, would be of far greater benefit to readers than subjectively separated lists. An additional (and sortable) column could be added to the table to note each nation's status, if required. Daicaregos (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I seen for other articles for country recognition that the organization is listed. I think this can work for me since some countries are listed as nations in the terms of FIFA and other sporting bodies (and this is how, as I mentioned earlier, some will hear Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau next to, lets say, 君が代). Also, this would be perfect in the case of Taiwan that has two "anthems" that are used for different occasions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure what you're getting at Zscout, but mere "anthems" do not belong on this list, whereas "national anthems" do. Daicaregos (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Even if we have the list saying UN only, UN this, UN that, it feels like Wales and others being kept off the list is going to be unacceptable for a lot of people. I believe this because there are songs that are called National Anthems at sporting events for Wales by FIFA, and The National Banner Song for Chinese Taipei at the Olympics. If you give me some time, I will come up with a mockup. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Including such entities would be fine with me, subject to the various points that I have previously outlined: that the inclusion criteria be clearly defined and that these lists should be separated from the main list such that it is clear what inclusion criteria apply to what entities. I actually think it would be more useful for navigation purposes to put them off in a list of sporting anthems article, though will not insist on this. Pfainuk talk 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting list, for sporting anthems. Unfortunately several of them are national anthems of countries, albeit not sovereign states. They are also sung at non-sporting occasions (in the case of Wales with the Queen present) --Snowded ^TALK 22:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I support a standalone list like that, so that keeps stuff like Chinese Taipei from being confused in this list. I still like to have two or three separate sections, but everything should be on one central page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• One list, containing all current national anthems (as supported by reliable sources). Hiving off several national anthems to another list based on technical sovereignty distinctions is unhelpful to the reader, especially when that list is only mentioned in the "See also" section. Splitting the list into sub-lists within the one list article would be okay. --Avenue (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have the other article mentioned in the lede - indeed a hatnote was added for this purpose - but unfortunately for some unknown reason certain editors decided they didn't want it and so edit warred to remove it. Pfainuk talk 18:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• No change, the status quo is acceptable & more precise. GoodDay (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)