This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, labour (but Labor Party), realise), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Australia, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 2 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
Request for Comment on the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" as the official Royal Anthem of Australia
Closing this RFC per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure; it has been open for over three months and there have been no comments in three weeks.
Numerically, there is almost exactly a 50:50 split on whether or not "God Save the Queen" (henceforth GSTQ) should be included as the official Royal Anthem. However, I am not swayed by all the arguments on the 'exclude' side; one is of significance, which is reasonable, however, infoboxes and footnotes exist primarily as holding pens for pedantry / fine detail (depending on your point of view) to stop it spilling over into the main article text. I note a proportion of the other calls to exclude GSTQ from any mention at all are "Well I haven't heard it be used". This does not mean it is not used. Such comments cannot be considered a valid argument based on policy.
The arguments to include GSTQ are based on precedent in other articles, and a number of participants call for a brief inclusion as a footnote. This would be an appropriate use of a footnote (as mentioned, to provide a fine detail). I am convinced and therefore close this RFC with the conclusion that Yes, a reference to "God Save the Queen"'s status as the Royal Anthem should be made as a footnote. Fish+Karate 12:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the information box of this article list God Save the Queen as the official Royal Anthem of Australia? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC). Brythones (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Included, it should be. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you please say why? Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It's included at Canada, another of the Commonwealth realms. Haven't checked if it's on the rest of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Exclude 'God save the Queen' serves as the anthem only on the tiny number of occasions a member of the Royal family is present in Australia (something which happens only every few years) and is attending an "official [or] ceremonial occasion"(something the visiting royals usually only attend a small number of during their visits). Even then, Advance Australia Fair is at least sometimes also played (please see ). As such, this is nowhere near significant enough to include in the infobox: including it seems likely to confuse readers by implying that God Save the Queen is often used. By way of comparison, the official floral embalm is probably much more significant. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Included:God Save the Queen is the legal royal national anthem of Australia. This has been the case since 1984, where before then it served as the national anthem of Australia. The referendum in 1977 to determine the national song of Australia specifically stated: "Against the background that 'GOD SAVE THE QUEEN' is the NATIONAL ANTHEM to be played on Regal and Vice Regal occasions, electors may indicate their preferences as to which of the tunes of the songs listed below they would prefer to be played on other occasions." The legal status of God Save the Queen extends beyond royal visits: it can be played to represent the monarchy, government and people of Australia at all times. Brythones (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Included: Footnotes are supposed to provide "explanatory information" (per WP:FOOTNOTE), i.e. additional clarification; they should not introduce new information. It isn't appropriate to hide the royal anthem in a footnote. I think the footnote should state something to the effect of "Australia's royal anthem is played in the presence of a member of the Royal family when they are in Australia", following a link to "God Save the Queen", which should be listed below the national anthem (as in the articles of certain other Commonwealth realms, e.g. Canada). --Hazhk (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Included but explicitly as the royal anthem. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment: this edit, apart from being premature, removed the note entirely. I am aware that the royal anthem is little used, and that including it within the infobox might create an impression that it has a greater prominence than in reality; I propose retaining a footnote which will explain exactly how and when "God Save the Queen" is used. The citation can be located within the footnote. --Hazhk (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Although I don't believe the footnote is necessary, that is an entirely reasonable compromise to account for the alternative perspectives of other contributors - so I'm willing to agree to it unless a much broader concensus emerges to exclude the footnote. Brythones (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No. Putting in the infobox places it on the same footing as the national anthem, which does not reflect reality. There are plenty of official symbols that do not belong in the infobox because they are relatively trivial. For mine "royal anthem" falls into the same category as floral emblems and national colours. Note also that "Hail to the Chief" (which serves a virtually identical function) is not included in the United States infobox. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Any resolution yet? --Hazhk (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I think maybe this RfC could be advertised a bit more, given the relative lack of engagement compared to previous discussions. I'm not sure whether it has been posted on the Australia noticeboard for example. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: RfC relisted to allow for advertising the RfC on more pages.
Include, but specify this is the royal anthem. As long as the folk down under legally recognize the queen as their ruler, then we should reflect this legal situation as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Exclude. It is not appropriate in the infobox, and would create confusion. Some people will only read the infobox, and could get the impression it is equally used when in fact it is rarely used. It is in effect the anthem of the royal family, not a national anthem of Australia. The current official protocol guideline is unequivocal: . Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
exclude and / or delete the whole infobox. It is an assemblage of data, with contentious parts being included, excluded, footnoted, and retained by polling, blunt assertions and force of will. The facts need sentences, not yeah-nuh-yeahs with a data label. cygnis insignis 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Include - Contrary to comments by others, including the royal anthem in the appropriate field in the infobox does not elevate it to the status of the national anthem. It merely states the well documented fact that God Save The Queen is Australia's royal anthem. However, it should be noted that the song was, also a fact, the national anthem for a lot longer that Advance Australia Fair has been. That the song is not often used is irrelevant because it still is the royal anthem. I doubt there are many Australians who know or care who the Chief Justice, the GDP, or even the area of the country is but these are all facts about the country that should be in the infobox. For the record, I'm actually an Advance Australia Fair fan. I felt that song should have been the national anthem a long time ago but I'm objective and recognise that GSTQ is the nationalroyal anthem. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Exclude. Bit stunned we're even having this discussion - it's a piece of trivia and its inclusion in a box meant to summarise key pieces of information misleads people that the "Royal Anthem" is a thing that any Australian would have ever come across in their lives. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm stunned that anyone would claim that the royal anthem isn't something that any Australian would have ever come across in their lives.. Anyone who was around before 1984 and certainly anyone who voted for a new national anthem back then would have come across the royal anthem. More recently, the 1999 referendum failed to turn us into a republic because a majority of Australians in a majority of states didn't want that to happen. The royal anthem was widely referred to during that referendum so a LOT of people have come across. If you haven't come across the royal anthem before I suggest that you spend a bit more time reading the encyclopaedia that you're editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Expecting people to remember a reference to music during the discussion surrounding a referendum held last century is a bit of a stretch - there will be voters at this year's election who had not yet been conceived at the time of the 1999 referendum! --Scott DavisTalk 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Those insolent young whipper-snappers need some learning, a sense of history, and a clip around the ears! The first line is God save the Queen, the fascist regime …cygnis insignis 07:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My point was that the claim that Australians wouldn't have come across the royal anthem is ridiculous. Quite clearly a lot have so the claim just makes no sense. That there are young voters is irrelevant. There are a lot of voters now who would have been around at that time and many of the youngest voters would have come across the anthem. I know this because I worked in a primary school where both the national and royal anthems were referenced at various times in class. @Cygnis insignis, please, we're trying to have a sensible conversation. Well, I am. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I also worked at a school, being made to pick up rubbish at the end of the day for wearing boots, and remember the cadets were being marched to a similar tune … tromp-tromp-tromp Her Majesty! Infoboxes are not sensible contributions, discussing them is bound to be made insensible by user's vox pops. What were we talking about? cygnis insignis 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Exclude. In any infobox, choices have to be made about what is key summarising information and what is not. An anthem that barely any Australian born after 1980 will ever sing in their lives? Yeah, not significant. Frickeg (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Exclude, I can't remember when I've ever heard God Save the Queen played in Australia. Completely undue weight. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It was played all the time when it was the national anthem and probably more times than Advance Australia Fair has been played since it became the national anthem. We don't have a lot of royal visits but that doesn't mean that it's not the royal anthem. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The term "royal anthem" isn't even heard when there is a royal visit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
How is that even relevant? When royals are visiting it's referred to as "God Save The Queen" in general use but any official schedules etc usually refer to the "Royal Anthem" being played, as it is on official websites. Regardless, whether or not it is referred to as the royal anthem does not change the fact that it is the royal anthem. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you think the Vice Regal salute should also be listed in the infobox, considering that it also is listed under "Other Anthems"? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, NO, as it's a salute, not an anthem. There's a hint in the names: "national ANTHEM", "royal ANTHEM", "vice regal SALUTE". Also, while national_anthem and royal_anthem are both valid fields in the infobox, vice_regal_salute is not. Was this really a serious question? I also wouldn't support inclusion of "The Australian National Anthem DVD and CD", "About the DVD", "About the CD" or "Australian National Anthem files for download" either, in case you were wondering. (They're also listed under "Other Anthems") --AussieLegend (✉) 05:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The Vice Regal salute has equal notability with the royal anthem and is far more commonly used, regardless of your "hint in the names". Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, it's not an anthem and there is no field for it so that's really a pointless argument. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Exclude. Undue weight for a rarely used anthem. Should not be on the same level as the official anthem. --Dmol (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
As I noted above, including it does not put it on the same level as the national anthem. That's a complete furphy. It just adds a fact to the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It implies that it is a notable fact, as opposed to something almost no Australian would know. It's less notable, as far as Australia is concerned, than the floral emblem of the ACT. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
By it's very definition an anthem is notable and whether or not people know it is irrelevant. You might be interested to know that the main reason people read encyclopaediae is to learn things so if they don't know that GSTQ is the royal anthem then they should after reading an encyclopaedia. As for something almost no Australian would know that's your opinion. Pretty much every member of the armed forces, police and most people at every level of government, and that's a huge number of people, would know what a royal anthem is because that is one of the things you are either specifically trained to know or just know as part of the job. As I've already argued above, there a lot of people wouldn't know who the Chief Justice is (and certainly not what a Chief Justice does) or what a GDP is, but both of those are i the infobox.
It's less notable, as far as Australia is concerned, than the floral emblem of the ACT. That's really a silly argument. The ACT's floral emblem is relevant only to the ACT. The royal anthem is relevant to the entire country, which is why it's on the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet website, after the national anthem. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for the ACT's floral emblem to be in this article's infobox so it's irrelevant anyway. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Include as footnote. As at present: the note explains that this tune (nobody ever sings it) has a certain legal status, although rarely employed. (I remember when it was played in English cinemas at the end of a film and was abandoned when people became liable to get hurt in the rush for the exit before it began.) Wikiain (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Exclude Far too insignificant for an infobox. Gap9551 (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense given there is a specific field in the infobox for royal_anthems. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That reasoning is flawed; everything can be changed. That includes the existence of infobox parameters. Gap9551 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of your opinion, at this time the parameter exists so it is clearly not seen as insignificant. That may change in the future but for now, a royal anthem is seen as significant enough to be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Isn't necessary put this for remove it but are much... "discomfort" placing the correct map. Please, take care that that map are placed again, there is no a serious request of Australia to take control of part of Antartica. Thanks. --WikiInspector42 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
WikiInspector42 You most certainly do need to discuss this. Your replacement of the image with the edit summary "not serious claim", which is a rather silly thing to say, was oppposed and your edit was reverted with that edit summary stating "Your opinion". At that point it was clear that your edit was opposed and you should have come to the talk page to seek consensus but instead you restored your edit without any attempt at discussion. Your edit summary on that occasion, "unjustified", is as invalid as your summaries and statements at List of countries and dependencies by area and its talk page today accusing another editor of being a vandal, so you need to justifiy your removal, especially given that the Australian Antarctic Territory actually exists. Simply edit-warring to get your changes into an article is not appropriate and never works. I have now reverted you and left a warning on your talk page (the second by someone just today). That makes 3 editors who have opposed your edit and no doubt there are more who would see removal of the map showing the AAT as something to be opposed. If you continue to edit-war without gaining consensus you can expect a report at WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Articles' talk pages are to discuss confusing changes, but ok... --WikiInspector42 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Where are you learning about Wikipedia? Talk pages are not at all just to discuss confusing changes. Per Help:Talk pages, they are for discussing improvements to articles. Obviously, you think that changing the image is an improvement but others don't, so it needs to be discussed here. That said, saying that Australia's claim to the AAT is not serious given the history is confusing at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would think that, under the Australian Cuisine section, defining a food as an Iconic Australian Food, such as the Pavlova, then linking that to an Article which cannot cite with any certainty whether the food in question was an Australian or New Zealand creation, is a bit misleading for those with no history on the topic in question.
Similarly with the statement 3 sentences later "Australia was responsible for the flat white coffee–purported to have originated in a Sydney cafe in the mid-1980s", which then links to an Article which again cannot cite with any certainty the origin of the creation of the flat white, Australia, or New Zealand.
I suggest a rephrasing of both items, to say that while their origin is contentious, they are enjoyed in Australia, or something similar.
Yes, fair point, Kiwisheep. I've amended the 'Iconic foods' section accordingly. See what you think. (As for the flat white, I couldn't find the statement you mentioned, so have made no changes along those lines.) Meticulo (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That discussion for Canada is a completely separate problem. Listing the date using a template is just a trial balloon, and I am not attached to it, but I do think that we need some way of clarifying the abbreviations for ESL readers. AndrewNJ (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I've updated it to use the abbr template – what do you think of that? AndrewNJ (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)