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

Songs This template is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles Europe This template is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 29. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Thanks to all who helped create this template. Badagnani 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's 'micronation', not 'microstate'; for example, San Marino is a microstate, whereas the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands is a micronation. Of course, the name concern is secondary to actually including Micronations in the first place. Why is there a link to the 'national' anthem of Sealand? Micronations are hobbies, not countries, regions, or anything else worthy of inclusion in an important template of importance across the continent of Europe. Bastin 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To Badagnani: Are you referring to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, referred to in the beginning of the Svalbard article?

Is your source for claiming that Svalbard has its own national anthem (which happens to the same as the country its a part of) that Svalbard is included on that list?

After reading that list, can you explain why Svalbard is on it? Can you explain why Svalbard is "special" or "political" or what the connection between Svalbard and Hong Kong is or why in whole world, why are these four things special and nothing else? Can you explain why there are four entries on that page and not 3 or 5 or 500?

So far I not seen any proof of Svalbard having its own national anthem. Just a claim that Svalbard is "special". Are people just making up facts (very "original research") and putting them into Wikipedia? – TS 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Svalbard is a special entity with some degree of autonomy, similar to other entities in Europe of this sort. Correct, Svalbard does not have a unique anthem, but uses the anthem of its parent nation. We have dozens of entities in all of the anthem templates like this. It's still of great interest and educational value to know this, for all of these entities, and they are of course labeled as such. Thank you for your interest. Badagnani 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Svalbard is a part of Norway and is no more autonomous than a county or a municipality. There is no "parent nation". Svalbard is a part of Norway. It does not have a national anthem any more than any other part of Norway would have a national anthem. Please stop adding Svalbard unless you are to produce a reliable source stating that Svalbard has its own national anthem. TS 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the Wikipedia article states, it is a special entity within the nation of Norway. There are at least a few dozen such entities in other nations around the world, and we do include those in the templates, even if they use the anthem of the parent nation. Badagnani 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what a special entity is. And clearly there can't be a few dozen others as the "the Wikipedia article" clearly states that there is a maximum of four. – TS 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring, of course, to partially autonomous regions such as Catalonia, Scotland, and Tuva, as well as the four regions to which you are referring. I assume you know more than I about the special region of Svalbard as you appear to live there. All I know is what the Svalbard article states. Badagnani 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. The template has been reverted nineteen times, which clearly goes against the spirit of WP:3RR, even if it doesn't go against its literal meaning. Hopefully, you'll knock it off, maybe even get to discussing it properly, if someone else gets involved. Here's to hoping.

Whilst Svalbard is one of four 'special regions' with regards to international treaties, that does not change the position of its national anthem. The reason that other subnational territories (such as Catalonia and Scotland) have their own 'national anthems' listed is that they are used to indicate uniqueness and separation from their respective countries. Svalbard doesn't have a permanent non-Norwegian population, so it has no residing culture that is separate from Norway's, nor does it have a football team (for example) that would require a different anthem. The result is that Svalbard's national anthem is 'Ja, vi elsker', but only because it's Norway's anthem, not because of a more intrinsic and direct relationship of its 'own'. Bastin 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Svalbard is a special case here in that it differs from all the other territories on the list. Svalbard is an integral part of Norway, it has no indigenous people, noe culture separate from the Norwegian one and no aspirations of autonomy. Norway has full sovereignty over it by way of an international treaty. Local government is organised somewhat differently than other parts of Norway and if anything it enjoys a lesser degree of autonomy than other parts of Norway because the population is semi-settled. That is no-one really lives there permanently, they all have formal connections with mainland Norway. So it is not educational or informative to list Svalbard here because it gives the impression of a status that is non-existant. If you list Svalbard in this list you should also list every other Norwegian municipality and county.Inge 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any good reason why the EU and its member states should be listed first? And if there is a good reason, why then does this not apply to the non-sovereign territories so that such territories within the EU are listed above other European states? I prefer the previous alphabetical arrangement, myself. Man vyi 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutly. The EU member do not come first in everything. Ant the topic anthems has nothing to do with the EU, all nations EU member or not have an anthem. We should go back to an alphabetical listing. User:Allard 25 Mey 2007 12:03 CET

I have restored the alphabetical arrangement. The alternative order was pretty blatantly making political and cultural claims from an EU-centric point of view. Haddiscoe 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the anthems of many non-sovereign entities are included in the template, shouldn't Romani anthem also be there? - prezzey (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Badagnani (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "On Ilkla Moor Baht'at" really belong in the list of unofficial National Anthems of Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.12.211 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought in the "other political entities" category, you were supposed to list the sovereign state that has power over the entity. Therefore, "Gibraltar" should have a "UK" written next to it. Look at the entry for Greenland, for instance. There's a "Denmark" listed next to it, even though Greenland normally is not listed as an integral part of Denmark; its territory is never added into mainland Denmark. Therefore I feel that Gibraltar should have a UK next to it. Inkan1969 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, for example, whereas Gibraltar is not part of the United Kingdom. Of course, ultimately Gibraltar is under the sovereignty of the UK, whereas Jersey and Guernsey are not under the sovereignty of the UK but of the British Crown. The question is how best to present accurate information. Links to BOT and CD might do it. Man vyi (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could do what the template National anthems of North and Central America does. Have a dependencies section.Inkan1969 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can Tyneside be classed as a nation in any sense of the word?2.28.113.176 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have Transnistria's national anthem listed, shouldn't Donetsk and Lugansk's anthems be listed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.29.106 (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates are for navigation between articles, so they should be added if there are articles for them. I cannot find articles for either, but if you know of them or find them you could mention them here or add them yourself.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think EU members should be listed separately from the others. EU is a political entity and this is a cultural topic. – Alensha ^talk 02:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was thinking about changing it a few months ago. I'll give it a go and see the reaction. --Inops (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's perfect now. – Alensha ^talk 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I will remove the EU flag above too. The EU anthem is already covered in "Other entities". Christian75 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a box about national anthems and should be renamed to show that, which I will do. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]