Talk:God Defend New Zealand

The Call of South Africa
Per above. However, God Save the King / Queen and Star-Spangled Banner may be kept due to the presence of multiple senses in the entry (and also because the USA and the UK are the 2 most important Anglophone countries — and of course, the deletion proposal of the above terms are from the perspective of English; and so for example,, , , are entry-worthy from the perspective of these languages). ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree we should keep any that have additional senses, but I don't agree that we should have entries for national anthems based on the perceived importance of countries. Either they're lexically relevant or they're not, so I'm in favour of adding God Save the Queen/King and the Star-Spangled Banner to this as well, referring only to the national anthem senses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep all except The Call of South Africa, which is basically SOP and a purely encyclopic title and Poland is Not Yet Lost, same . The rest are either single words, or in the case of Marcha Real and O Canada, not immediately parseable as names of anthems. bd2412 T 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete unless (1) it is a single word; or (2) it has at least one sense that is not simply "national anthem of XYZ". Thus, "The Call of South Africa", "God Defend New Zealand", "Marcha Real", and "O Canada" should go. I agree with that trying to determine the perceived importance of countries is inappropriate and unworkable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have no idea what "O Canada" intends, and "Marcha Real" (literally "Royal March") does not name any specific country, so the fact that it is the anthem of Spain is idiomatic to the phrase. bd2412 T 00:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel the names of national anthems are essentially more suitable material for Wikipedia, and am minded only to make the two exceptions which I previously mentioned. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not exceptionally attached to the two-word names. I find them idiomatic, but would not lose sleep over them if they were deleted. We might have a soft redirect from those to Wikipedia. bd2412 T 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If we're keeping some of them, then we should keep all. I agree with Theknightwho that we shouldn't be giving increased relevance to the US & UK because they're the "2 most important Anglophone countries" (debatable). If the issue is that the others don't have additional senses, then send them to RFV. AG202 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all for being encyclopedic. Binarystep (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see that for most of them, but for Hatikva and Kimigayo as single words, we should be able to parse their meaning as words here. bd2412 T 03:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how they're less encyclopedic simply because they have one-word titles. I'm aware there's precedent, since we also have pages for and, but that doesn't seem right to me. If these titles aren't being used as words (like  and ), and they don't have unique translations (like  and ), I don't see how they're within our jurisdiction. We don't include newer works like  or , and I don't agree with any policy that'd give preferential treatment to older works for no reason other than their age. If anything, we should move non-lexical work titles to an appendix. Binarystep (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * actually I’m happy for all names of national anthems except those that have an idiomatic sense to be deleted, including the single-word ones. We seem to be wedded to single-word entries for some reason, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike, which is a made-up word without prior meaning, Hatikva and Kimigayo are actual words with prior meaning. These are transliterations from the original Hebrew and Japanese, respectively. We do, as it happens, have an entry for ficciones as a word. bd2412 T 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to their uses as words, though, I'm referring to their uses as the titles of artistic works. Binarystep (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how they can be separated out. They exist as words parseable in English because they are used as titles in other scripts. bd2412 T 19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy is WT:NSE; we do include many names of specific entities, which was voted on. NSE are up to editor discretion. --18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the multi-word ones, at least (God Defend New Zealand, Marcha Real, O Canada, The Call of South Africa, and I would add Poland is Not Yet Lost). We don't include (relatively) modern book titles like Swift's A Modest Proposal or Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, either. Single-word ones like Marseillaise seem at least more word-like (compare Iliad). Tea room/2022/June. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I mistakenly excluded the Polish anthem. Now added. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Interesting how a battery of non-U.S. terms are nominated for deletion once again while the American equivalent isn't. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If these are deleted, I will immediately nominate the two arbitrary exceptions on the same grounds. Theknightwho (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all, this doesn't belong in the mainspace. PUC – 10:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you state a specific rationale, which would include at least one salient characteristic making this not belong in the mainspace? Otherwise, the rationale stated contains no specific content and is at the risk of making your vote discountable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the single-word ones . Governed by WT:NSE, so this is up to editors. "encyclopedic content" is not a CFI rationale and does not give us any guide as to which NSE to keep and which to delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep all to simplify the closure. The multi-word ones are less worthy of keeping, but no harm is done if we keep them as well, and we can per WT:NSE. Those who dislike multi-word names in a dictionary won't visit the entries by accident, seeing immediately what they are. Let this be deleted by deletionists if wished. And if we consider The Call of South Africa and its German translation Die Stimme Südafrikas, this is not a word-for-word translation since "Call" is not obviously "Stimme". Admittedly, considering translations as worthwhile would allow many names of specific entities; OTOH, if we allow Washington County without translations, then these are more lexicographically worthwhile than this county. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see 5:3 delete:keep, which would be no consensus for deletion. Any more input to make the result less equivocal? (The word "encyclopedic" ought to be banned from RFD discussions as practically meaningless.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that several of the keep votes were qualified, it makes absolutely no sense to give a numerical tally for all the terms as a whole. Your unwillingness or inability to understand what encyclopaedic content is does not make it any less relevant. You just don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Competence is required for RFD closures, and I'm sorry to say that you lack it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea of "encyclopedic" content in relation to proper names is nonsense as it does not tell us which proper names to keep and which to delete. Thus, no one has ever explained why "God Defend New Zealand" is "encyclopedic" while "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not. Ideally, the words "encyclopedic" and "lexical" ought to be banned from RFDs, and substantive differentia ought to be invoked instead, until these words can be given anything resembling operational practical meaning that has anything like bearing on actual inclusion and exclusion. Until that happens, the word "encyclopedic" is just a thin veil behind which "I don't like it" is hidden, or something of the sort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all per other keep votes. Especially God Defend New Zealand. DonnanZ (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * : Can you state a rationale, in keeping with the strength-of-the-argument-augmented numerical consensus? Otherwise, there is the risk that the RFD closer will discount your vote. A minimum rationale is "Keep per person so-and-so." --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have amended my comment, striking part of it because of criticism; the critic failed to take into account that I am an NZer. DonnanZ (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I think it's valuable to include these idiomatic terms that I can imagine myself searching for. Even in the cases of Poland is Not Yet Lost and The Call of South Africa we have meaningful etymological information besides the simple definitions and Wikipedia links. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * that's what Wikipedia is for. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As national anthems, I can easily see these as having more meaning than just "a song", but as references to patriotism for that country. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * not really seeing how that is a relevant consideration for RFD. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that these terms are not SOP or mere titles of songs. They are symbols that stand for what country has that anthem (eg "God Save the King/Queen" is a song that represents the UK, same with the "Star-Spangled Banner" for America and "Kimigayo" for Japan.) Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not understand this argument. Equinox ◑ 06:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think some of these are well-known enough to serve as symbols for patriotism, citations like "when I am dead sing over me the Marseillaise" would be persuasive. RFV Drapetomanic (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * like, I do not think the fact that a certain national anthem may be a symbol of patriotism is relevant as it is not a sense of the term. We do not define rose as “a symbol of love”, nor magnifying glass as “a symbol of an Internet search”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that it can be used as a symbol of something means that it has "entered the lexicon". No entry for white feather, huh? Just "show the white feather" Drapetomanic (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here we are "A flag with a white color, used as a symbol of truce or surrender." Drapetomanic (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * however, white flag is idiomatic in that sense. One can say “She raised a white flag, and admitted she was wrong”. If you feel that any of the national anthems listed above, or others, are idiomatic in the same way, then kindly find at least three quotations for each of them unambiguously indicating, for example, that when a sentence says “He sang ‘The Call of South Africa’” what is actually meant is “He is patriotic”. A similar discussion took place concerning, which was ultimately closed with deletion as evidence of idiomatic use just wasn’t there. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thinks it's enough for la Marseillaise' to be used to imply patriotism, just as a literal white flag implies surrender. One can say "the soldiers raised a white flag" and that needs to be searchable so one would know they were surrendering. It's something you need to know to have a full grasp of the language. Drapetomanic (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t, I’m afraid. My reading of WT:CFI is that we require proof of idiomaticity, and not some vague suggestion that a term might imply idiomaticity in some contexts. Otherwise, entries will be filled with so-called senses like rose – a symbol of love, and dog – a symbol of faithfulness, which we do not do. I think the entries should all be deleted, and of course if editors can find at least three qualifying idiomatic uses for a particular anthem they can put them on a citations page and request for the term to be undeleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep all (I just came across an article from The New Yorker where the author misspells "Marseillaise"–it's useful information to include). – Jberkel 07:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * People can just as easily look up Wikipedia … — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What was the context? CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/72578335/72582774 – Jberkel 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This seems idiomatic to me, referencing the ideals of the French Revolution within the context of the film mentioned (Casablanca). CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I read the above discussion as evincing no consensus to delete the nominated entries. However, as an involved editor, I invite comment on this reading before seeking to close the discussion. Does anyone disagree with this assessment? bd2412 T 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I see no consensus to delete. PUC – 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. Some of these, I think, might be revisited with individual nominations in the future. bd2412</i> T 04:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)