Talk:Canada#rfc B28C50B

Can you also put that Canada shares a land border with Denmark due to Hans Island please? TomTom7474 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Not in the lead, because it's deeply irrelevant trivia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Just my two cents: Trivia or not, it feels more symmetrical and nods to a rare geopolitical development between developed nations that previously only had one land border and now have two.

::It feels more "complete" to expand the sentence from the lead like so:

::"Its border with the United States is the world's longest international land border, and its border with Greenland is the world's third shortest."

::I don't see it as too deeply irrelevant that it can't be slipped in to kinda balance out the sentence by noting its complementary geopolitical extreme. Cloudwalk9 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Simply not lead Worthy..... zero relevance to the country's traits traditions or history. Moxy🍁 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It's trivia that does not belong in the lead. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::How is it irrelevant trivia when talking about the land borders of Canada? Canada does share a land border with Denmark now and hence should be included. TomTom7474 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::But then you would need to include France, (maritime and land) and Russia. See Borders of Canada. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Canada does not share a land border with France and Russia though. TomTom7474 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::According to Borders of Canada it shares one with France. However, the point is that mentioning the land border with Denmark requires that all borders, land or maritime, will require mentioning. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No it does not. Canada only shares a maritime border with France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon). Saint Pierre and Miquelon is only controlled by France and hence no land border, only a maritime border. By contrast, Canada and Denmark shares a land border through Hans Islands as both control the island. Both countries also have a maritime border (Hans Island and Greenland). As a result, Denmark fits the criteria for both so it should be mentioned… TomTom7474 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the land border exists or not. If you mention the land border on Hans Island then you need to mention all the borders, including the maritime borders with Greenland (Denmark), France, the United States, and Russia. If the maritime boarders are too trivial to mention then so is the land border on Hans Island. Those maritime borders are far more important than a minor bit of land on an uninhabited island. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah the maritime borders should also be mentioned. On other wiki pages for countries, maritime borders are mentioned so both land and maritime borders for Canada should also be mentioned. TomTom7474 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

its a odd omission, I don't think it's because of crown copyright because other articles still have it, nor because it's officially the coat of arms of the king because that's also true of the arms of the united kingdom(they're officially of the king, not the country de jure) so I'm puzzled. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Coat of arms has its own article. Coat of arms of Canada Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Simonm223 that's not what my question is, it's about it's omission on the infobox, unless that's a recent website policy change that seems puzzling to me, if it is tho it's fine, I just want to know. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Simonm223 that's not what my question is, it's about it's omission on the infobox, unless that's a recent website policy change that seems puzzling to me, if it is tho it's fine, I just want to know. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::oops accidentally sent the same reply twice, my bad LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I can't speak to that - I'm entirely neutral to the presence of the Coat of Arms in the infobox but others might have stronger opinions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The coat of arms image can only appear in the dedicated article, as a result of this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh, this exact copy-right issue happened with the Coat of Arms of Cyprus as well. There, a different rendering is used for both the main page & the info box of the country. Not to throw my hat in a ring I have no place in, but wouldn't it be better to do the same for the sake of consistency? Hutreb (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Wouldn't having two different renderings be inconsistent, rather than consistent? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have added a coat of arms created by a user (uploaded as own work). Looking at the previous discussion, I conclude that the copyright restrictions only apply to the file that was originally nominated for deletion (uploaded as government work). It was concluded to keep the file solely for the wiki page of the coat of arms. In a removal from all other pages, it was also removed here. The file I have added is own work, and therefore not copyrighted. The file also resembles the one that was nominated for deletion to an extent that is acceptable. (I have added Royal_Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg, the file that is restricted is Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg). Alexander vee (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I repeat my question, though: doesn't that make it inconsistent? I think it's preferable to simply defer the topic to the dedicated article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Most definitely not. The file I uploaded is on many pages already (as shown by its commons page). If anything, the page for the coat of arms should be updated to the copyright free version. Most countries coats of arms are already in Wikipedia illustration style, and this shouldn’t be an exception. The coat of arms is a clear identifier of Canada and should without a doubt be included on this page (especially if the only counter-argument is consistency with a singular other page(when many other files are much more inconsistent and these even look quite similar)). All countries with a coat of arms have one on their wiki article, and Canada shouldn’t be an exception. I kindly urge you to undo your revert. Alexander vee (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Given the issue raised in this discussion, I don't think that would be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Encyclopedic and Symbolic Significance: The Coat of Arms of Canada is not a trivial image – it is the official heraldic emblem of the state and a core national symbol, on par with the flag. The arms signify Canada’s national sovereignty and authority, being used by the federal government as the country’s formal emblem​. In fact, the Department of Canadian Heritage itself lists the Coat of Arms as an “official symbol of Canada,” underscoring that it represents the country as a whole (not merely the monarchy)​. This emblem appears on “federal government possessions like buildings, official seals, money, passports, proclamations and publications,” as well as on military badges and court insignia​. Such pervasive use – from coinage (the Arms of Canada are featured on the 50-cent piece)​ to the crests of the Supreme Court demonstrates that the coat of arms is fundamentally important to Canada’s identity. Including it in the main Canada article provides readers with a verifiable and immediate visual representation of one of the country’s most important national symbols, in line with Wikipedia’s emphasis on covering significant aspects of a topic​. (All of these facts are well-documented by reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s verifiability requirement for content.)

::::::::::::Not Redundant – Complements the Main Article: While the Coat of Arms of Canada has its own detailed article, displaying it in the main Canada article is not redundant but rather complementary. Wikipedia’s content is organized by a summary style; the main article is expected to summarize and visually present key national symbols for the reader’s convenience. We already include the Canadian flag (which also has its own article) at the top of Canada’s page, because it’s a primary national symbol – the coat of arms deserves parallel treatment. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to show a country’s main emblems in the infobox of the country’s article, even if those emblems have separate pages. This gives readers a quick, informative snapshot of the nation’s identity. The dedicated Coat of Arms article can delve into heraldic minutiae; the Canada article would simply show the arms to identify the state symbol, much like it shows the flag to identify the national flag. This is valuable encyclopedically – a reader of the Canada article should not be forced to click on a separate page just to see what the national arms look like. Including the image in Canada’s infobox improves the article’s completeness and accessibility without overwhelming it. It’s also worth noting that the Canada article already mentions the arms in its content (e.g. in the “Symbols” section and in discussions of currency)​, so an image of the arms directly illustrates existing text, rather than introducing something entirely new.

::::::::::::Layout and Visual Balance: Concerns about layout or clutter are understandable, but in practice the infobox template is designed to accommodate both a flag and a coat of arms side by side or one above the other without causing visual overload. Many featured and high-quality country articles manage this balance effectively. For example, the United Kingdom’s infobox displays both the Union Flag and the Royal Coat of Arms together, with a clear caption distinguishing their uses​. Likewise, Germany’s infobox shows its flag and federal coat of arms in tandem​, and Australia’s infobox does the same​. In these articles, the presence of the coat of arms does not clutter the page or disrupt readability – rather, it enriches the presentation by providing a fuller visual representation of the state. The Canada article’s infobox has ample space for the coat of arms next to the flag, maintaining a neat layout and visual harmony (the two symbols typically appear at a comparable size, keeping the design symmetrical). Wikipedia’s manual of style for images encourages using images that add informational value to the reader; the coat of arms meets this criterion, and when placed in the infobox it will not interfere with text flow or cause any MOS:IMAGE issues (since infobox images don’t “sandwich” text). In short, a properly sized Canadian arms image will enhance the infobox’s informative value while keeping the page design clean and balanced – just as seen on other country pages​

::::::::::::Consistency with Other Country Articles (Precedent): Including the coat of arms in Canada’s page would align with established editorial consistency on Wikipedia. Nearly all other sovereign state (and non-sovereign jurisdictions!) articles include their national coats of arms or emblems in their infoboxes. As noted, the UK article features the Royal Arms (both versions for different jurisdictions) prominently​; the Germany article shows the Bundesadler (coat of arms) right beneath the flag​; and Australia’s article likewise displays its coat of arms next to the flag​. We can point to many other examples (Spain, France’s emblem, Italy, etc.), demonstrating a de facto Wikipedia standard: readers expect to see a country’s principal symbols – flag and coat of arms – at the top of the article. Omitting Canada’s arms makes the Canada page an outlier and arguably less informative than its peers. Editorial consistency is an important consideration per Wikipedia guidelines, as it helps avoid confusing the reader. If a reader notices most country pages have their coat of arms shown, the absence of Canada’s arms could even be misleading (suggesting Canada has none or that it’s unimportant, which is not the case). To maintain neutral coverage and completeness, Canada’s article should receive the same treatment as those of the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and many others that include national arms for a comprehensive representation​. Consistency here also supports NPOV: we’re giving due weight to Canada’s official symbols just as we do for other nations.

::::::::::::Addressing Copyright (Crown Copyright) Concerns: The most significant concern raised is the legal status of the Canadian coat of arms image, which falls under Crown copyright. It’s true that the Coat of Arms of Canada, being a government-created emblem, is protected by Crown copyright (in fact, Canadian law has effectively made this protection perpetual, beyond the normal 50-year term)​. By law, the arms cannot be reproduced without authorization​, and there is no public domain version of the current arms – however, this is exactly the kind of scenario Wikipedia’s non-free content policy is designed to handle. Wikipedia’s guidelines (WP:NFCC – Non-Free Content Criteria) acknowledge that some important images have no free equivalent, and they can be used under strict conditions. One of those conditions is No Free Equivalent (NFCC#1): “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.”​. In this case, no free image can truly substitute for the official arms – any “homemade” depiction from a blazon would either violate the same copyright or be an inaccurate rendering. As one editor aptly noted in a prior discussion, “user-generated national symbols based on blazons in place of official logos [are] simply not what we are looking for… we are looking for accuracy.”​ In other words, the only image that serves the encyclopedic purpose of identifying Canada’s coat of arms is the official coat of arms itself. This satisfies NFCC#1: a freely licensed equivalent of the Canadian arms does not exist (and cannot legally be created without essentially copying the protected design).

::::::::::::Moreover, Wikipedia routinely allows important non-free symbols in infoboxes when they are necessary for identification or critical understanding – for instance, company logos or album covers, and indeed other countries’ coats of arms under similar copyright. The Royal Arms of the UK (also under Crown copyright) are still displayed on Wikipedia, presumably under fair use rationales similar to what we propose for Canada. Policy precedent supports this: WP:NONFREE and WP:LOGO guidelines permit the use of a copyrighted emblem to identify the entity it represents, as long as it’s used minimally and in context. Here, the coat of arms would be used in one article (the Canada article) for the central purpose of identification and illustration of a discussed national symbol. The use is minimal (just one small image in an infobox) and directly relevant to the article’s content (the arms are discussed as a national symbol in the text​). This satisfies the NFCC#8 (contextual significance) criterion – the image isn’t for decoration; it adds information by showing readers exactly what the Canadian arms look like, reinforcing the article’s sourced content about the arms.

::::::::::::Additionally, NFCC#3 (minimal usage) can be respected. Currently, the arms image is used in the Coat of Arms of Canada article (which is obviously necessary). Using it one additional time in the Canada article is a justified exception because the contexts are different: one article is specifically about the emblem itself, and the other is about the country as a whole. Each article would have its own fair-use rationale explaining why the image is needed there. (Wikipedia’s non-free content policy allows separate uses of the same image if each use meets the criteria independently​) The encyclopedic value gained in the Canada article – giving readers immediate recognition of the nation’s official emblem – outweighs the very limited increase in non-free use. This point has been recognized by editors: there was consensus emerging that “as a legal symbol to represent Canada, it should be used in the Canada page”​ even if it’s also used in the monarchy article or elsewhere. Many country articles successfully navigate this same issue by including their arms with a fair-use claim. Canada should be no different.

::::::::::::Rebuttal to Crown Copyright Preventing Use: To directly counter the argument “Crown copyright forbids us from using the coat of arms” – Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, operates under U.S. fair use doctrine. We do not need the Canadian Crown’s permission to include the arms in an encyclopedic context; we need to meet Wikipedia’s policies for non-free content, which we can. Crown copyright means the image can’t be freely licensed on Commons, but it can be used on English Wikipedia under a fair use exemption. As long as we adhere to WP:NFCC (which, as outlined above, we do), Crown copyright is not an insurmountable barrier. The image would be hosted locally on English Wikipedia with a proper fair-use rationale stating it is the official Coat of Arms of Canada, used to illustrate the concept of Canada’s national emblem in the infobox of the Canada article, and that no free alternative exists. This is a textbook case for allowable fair use: the purpose is identification of a subject (a well-established fair use purpose in encyclopedias and scholarly works) and there is no commercial usage or misuse that would compete with the Crown’s rights. In fact, preventing the use of the arms image on these grounds would be contrary to Wikipedia’s mission to illustrate notable topics – it would leave Canada as one of the few country pages without its coat of arms, entirely due to a legal technicality that Wikipedia policy already accounts for.

::::::::::::It’s worth noting that attempts to avoid non-free use by using suboptimal alternatives have been considered and found unsatisfactory. Some suggested using an old version of the arms (e.g. the 1957 design) or the Great Seal of Canada (which is public domain) in place of the current arms. However, experienced editors at WikiProject Canada firmly opposed this, arguing that the Great Seal, for instance, “is not a recognizable symbol of Canada in any way”​ and would only confuse readers. The purpose of showing the coat of arms is to display something people associate with Canada’s state identity; substituting a little-known seal defeats that purpose. Even using the outdated 1957 arms raises issues: the general public knows the current arms (with the Order of Canada motto added in 1994), and displaying an obsolete version could be misleading or less useful. Wikipedia’s aim is to be accurate and informative – thus the actual current coat of arms is the appropriate image to use, and fair use allows us to use it. As one editor noted in that debate, recognition matters: “it needs to be recognizable… I’d prefer a copyrighted one under fair use [over a lesser-known free symbol], just so we don’t have to worry about any copyright drama.”​ In summary, Crown copyright alone does not prohibit inclusion; it just means we must use the non-free content policy, which provides a clear framework to do so legitimately.

::::::::::::Alignment with Wikipedia Guidelines: Including the coat of arms in the Canada article accords with several Wikipedia content guidelines and principles:

::::::::::::* Verifiability (WP:V): The significance and official status of the coat of arms are verifiable through reliable sources (government documents, official websites, published references)​. We are not adding anything dubious or unsourced – only a well-documented national symbol. This ensures we stay within Wikipedia’s requirement that content be sourced and factual.

::::::::::::* Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV): Representing Canada’s coat of arms alongside its flag is a neutral, factual choice – it gives due weight to a key symbol of the state. Wikipedia should represent subjects in proportion to their prominence in real life; given how prominent the arms are in Canadian governmental and historical context, omitting it might underrepresent an aspect of Canada’s identity. Including it avoids systemic bias (i.e. treating Canada differently from other countries on a non-policy basis).

::::::::::::* Completeness and Balance: Wikipedia articles should give a balanced overview of their topic. For a country, that means covering geography, history, culture, and yes, national symbols. The visual balance of the article is actually improved by including the arms (as argued above), and the encyclopedic balance is improved by not neglecting one of Canada’s two primary national emblems. The Manual of Style advises that infoboxes summarize key facts – featuring the coat of arms meets this guidance by summarizing “national symbols” at a glance. Additionally, MOS:IMAGE encourages using relevant images to enrich the text; the coat of arms directly ties into content about Canadian symbolism​, making it a relevant and informative image, not merely decorative.

::::::::::::* Consistency (MOS:CONFORM): Following common practices across similar articles is generally recommended unless there’s a strong reason not to. Here, consistency with other country pages (as shown with UK, Germany, Australia, etc.) is desirable. It provides a uniform reader experience. Wikipedia’s readers shouldn’t have to wonder why Canada’s page is missing an element that appears on most other country pages – consistency aids user understanding and navigation.

::::::::::::Therefore the case for including the Coat of Arms of Canada in the Canada article is compelling. The coat of arms is a centrally important national symbol with deep encyclopedic relevance. Its inclusion enriches the article by giving readers immediate visual insight into Canadian state symbolism and heritage. All counterarguments can be addressed: it is not redundant but necessary for a complete summary; it will not disrupt layout or readability; and while Crown copyright applies, Wikipedia’s policies provide a path to include the image legitimately under fair use. Precedent from numerous other country articles and Wikipedia’s own guidelines on content support this inclusion. For these reasons, we should add the Canadian coat of arms to the infobox of the Canada article, with an appropriate non-free use rationale. This change would enhance the article’s quality, consistency, and educational value for readers, which is our ultimate goal as an encyclopedia AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::1000% wrong..... last thing we should do is mislead our readers about an official symbol of the country. Our purpose on Wikipedia is to educate our readers about factual information not about renditions or make-believe user generated images. That said if there was an RFC I'm sure enough random editors more concerned about perception then actual education would choose to put it in the article file:Coat of arms of Canada (1957-1994).svg Moxy🍁 01:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Moxy, it's obvious you didn't actually read or with the arguments laid out before rushing to reply. You're completely misunderstanding the proposal. No one is suggesting we use a "user-generated" or "make-believe" image — that's a strawman. The argument is to use the official Coat of Arms of Canada under a proper fair-use rationale, exactly as Wikipedia policy (WP:NFCC) allows — the same way we use the Royal Arms for the UK or official logos elsewhere.

::::::::::::::Leaving the Arms out, or trying to substitute it with something outdated or inaccurate, would be misleading readers, not the other way around. Our responsibility here is to inform accurately about Canada's official symbols, and the actual Coat of Arms — sourced, verifiable, and officially recognized — is a critical part of the country’s identity.

::::::::::::::Fair use exists precisely to handle important copyrighted images like this. Pretending otherwise, or ignoring that Wikipedia already handles similar cases correctly, does far more harm to Wikipedia’s educational mission than including the Arms ever would. We’re here to educate with accuracy, not hide behind bad faith arguments or ignore how policy actually works. AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Read all the falsehoods above vigorously....Our policies and mandate is to present factual information. Like AI generated images we should not present a falsehood to our readers. And if that falsehood is so close to the original it is thus copyrighted and should be deleted - [https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/terms-avis/copyright-droits-FAQ-eng.htm Canadian copyright law for the arms]. The fact that Wikipedia Commons simply ignores Canadian copyright in these renditions is something to be taken up with them. But here on Wikipedia we should not circumvent copyright or show distorted official images.Moxy🍁 23:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I agree with @AtlanteanAstorian surely it falls under fair use, to my knowledge the wikipedia rationale for using fair use is if the image is to serve as "a primary means of visual identification" key word being A primary means of identification, therefore would it not be correct to use the coat of arms in this way as it is one of the primary means of identification for the article as it is the coat of arms of Canada.

::::::::::::::::Not having the royal arms, one of the primary identifiers of Canada effects the educational value of the article a Nations coat of arms is a crucial and distinctive identifier   Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::The Wikipedia reliance on "fair use" is generally in the context of copyright. However, the Royal Arms in Canada are also protected by the federal Trademarks Act; see s. 9(1)(a). I understand that US trademarks law also has a fair use doctrine, but it appears to be of more limited scope than the copyright fair use doctrine. I think that before we can use the Royal Arms, we have to be satisfied that the use is consistent with both US copyright fair use and US trademark fair use, in light of Canadian law on this point. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Trademark protection exists to prevent confusion that someone using the trademark is associated with the trademark owner. As long as it's clear a given Wikipedia page isn't written, published, or otherwise endorsed by a trademark owner, there's no issue in using a trademark. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, odd omission from this article, after a long time AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Why was it removed from this article? Dr. Precursor (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:See section above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Under the literature section, Alice Munro is listed as one of the most significant living authors of short fiction. She died in 2024. Hisbigshow (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Fixed, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}

In section "Government and Politics", a link to the New Democratic Party should be added; all other parties have a link to their respective Wikipedia pages except the NDP. 2607:FEA8:5747:8700:99BB:584C:750:55D7 (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Done.Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Canada|answered=yes}}

Per Elections Canada, there are now 343 seats in the Canadian Parliament and no longer 338.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/faq&document=index&lang=e Respectful Toad (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Updated, thanks {{ping|Respectful Toad}} The Interior (Talk) 07:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

witch are the official languages 86.122.74.18 (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750633265}}

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (:File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• No per previous discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It should be there 2600:4040:2821:D500:70BD:5E96:3954:4F0B (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. Infoboxes are already at full capacity as far as I see it. MediaKyle (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's not yet in full capacity. Similar that to coat of arms of the United Kingdom, rather than fair-use. Absolutiva (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Clear precedent with other countries like the United Kingdom. Only recently removed from the page, with more recent arguments centering around a decision made in 2013, which seems silly. Should definitely be included in the infobox in some form AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support per previous discussions arguments. Alexander vee (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Most other infoboxes have the countries' coat of arms, and it would be preferable to have at least something there until people can agree whether to use the official rendering under fair use or not. CoolDino1 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support

: Additionally, I read that we can make a request from this link in "Requests and complaints" section at bottom. (https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html). Mirza R. (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg or the Paris conventions copyright laws it would be deleted [https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html as outlined by Canadian copyright law -"Designs, logos or marks that are similar to, or that could be easily mistaken for, the official symbols are pursued by the Government of Canada as unauthorized use".] Moxy🍁 03:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC) ]]

• No unlike most other countries Canada has a copyrighted version- [https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/commercial-use-symbols-canada.html source]... and fair use has been rejected for this article. We should not misrepresent National official symbols as per many previous talks over the past two decades. Welcome to the newcomers.Moxy🍁 02:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Moxy Something I am curious about: when did this discussion start? 2013? Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::As long as I've been on Wikipedia over 20 years ago. Moxy🍁 23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Moxy Well that is a reassuring thought. Long after we are all dead and buried, and our species has been replaced as the dominant one, there will still a debate raging about wtf a "Canada" is, or a "coat of arms". Polygnotus (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support. The UK and Australia pages for instance both use redrawn versions of their arms (like those by Sodacan under Creative Commons), so there’s clear precedent. I understand the concern about misinforming readers if it’s not the official rendering, but surely, that can be addressed with proper labeling and sourcing.

:

:The arms are a key national symbol, and so removing them entirely takes away from the article. The official version was on the page for years without issue, and now the Canada article is inconsistent compared to nearly every other country page, all of which show a national crest in some form. A clearly attributed rendition would preserve both accuracy and educational value. Thedarkempire (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• No for reasons given by Moxy in previous discussions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• No as per Moxy and infobox bloat. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Something is better than nothing. If the option is available, it should be used. – Handoto (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• No Proposal does attempt to resolve the issue of copyright raised by Moxy and others. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, per Thedarkempire. The copyrighted and free versions are so similar that the latter still holds significant educational value; the differences and context can be explained with footnotes. I don't understand the arguments concerning infobox bloat considering every single country article besides Canada contains both a flag and national symbol where applicable. To exclude it here would be an egregious case of inconsistency. Loytra (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :To me there's differences in colors and style but I see by Loytra's and others comments.... a whole bunch of individuals feel that it's a good representation of the official copyrighted version. Wondering if we should put it up for deletion as Canadian copyright violation - Quote "[https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html The use of the Government of Canada’s official symbols is restricted to the communications, operations and activities of the Government of Canada. The official symbols, shown below, including all of their design and colour variations, are protected against unauthorized use in Canada and abroad........Designs, logos or marks that are similar to, or that could be easily mistaken for, the official symbols are pursued by the Government of Canada as unauthorized use.]"Moxy🍁 21:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• No per Moxy and :File talk:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. These things serve no purpose and are just "infobox bloat", but if we must use them then the official (real) one. Polygnotus (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It does serve a purpose, @Polygnotus, and is not "bloat". The coat of arms is an official symbol of the country and represents it. It is on par with a flag. Using that reasoning, we should remove all flags from country articles, which would be silly. CoolDino1 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@CoolDino1 First of all: a truly excellent username. Secondly: I would indeed use flags as symbols for countries very very sparingly on an encyclopedia. MOS:FLAG seems to agree with that.
• ::A coat of arms, or a flag, rarely represents a country. There are few lions, and even fewer unicorns, in Canada. And there are about 873 countries that have the same flag, according to my drunk uncle. Polygnotus (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::First - thank you, I like my username too. And second - I think your uncle wasn't paying attention in geography class. :)
• :::In MOS:FLAG, what part exactly are you thinking of? It seems to support flags in country articles: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." (if you are going to have flags in articles about a country's military or sports team, it would make no sense not to have it in the article about the country itself), and in a hatnote: "The bulk of these recommendations are also applicable to official seals, coats of arms, and other representations which serve similar purposes to flag images." (emphasis mine). CoolDino1 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@CoolDino1 MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:FLAGCRUFT and MOS:FLAGPLACEHOLDER and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE and MOS:COA and a thousand other places say that flags and coats of arms use is discouraged. Since a coat of arms does not represent a country, is not widely known outside of that country, and are generally ugly relics of an ugly past there is no need to include them. And the coat of arms of Canada is worse than most, because it is just some weird anachronistic thing someone designed in 1921; which represents colonial heritage and completely ignores the history of the people who live in what we today call Canada. Polygnotus (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::First, I agree, Canada has an ugly history, and I have the utmost respect for the First Nations. However, the coat of arms being "ugly relics of an ugly past" is not Wikipedia's call to make (see WP:NPOV). Its ignoring the history of Canada's people should be addressed, but by the government and people of Canada, not Wikipedia.
• :::::In the places you cite:
• :::::MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: it states "Human geographic articles – for example, settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." (emphasis original) - Canada is a 'human geographic article'.
• :::::MOS:FLAGCRUFT: states "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", however, I would argue that an article about a country is the place to 'emphasize nationality', as the article is literally about the country.
• :::::MOS:FLAGPLACEHOLDER: this policy is about placeholder images, not using flag images as a flag
• :::::MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE: this policy is about subnational flags. Unless you would like to argue that Canada is the 51st state, that policy does not apply.
• :::::MOS:COA: States "Do not rewrite history", and "Do not use the coat of arms of a person as a stand-in for a national, military, or other flag." Using the Canada's official national coat of arms is not "rewriting history" or using as a "stand-in".
• :::::I hope I am writing clearly, sorry if it's not clear. CoolDino1 (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@CoolDino1 WP:NPOV does not apply to my opinion. I have explained how the PaGs and essays work in like 4 discussions in the past year; I don't really wanna do it again. I should probably write an essay. {{tq|Using the Canada's official national coat of arms is not "rewriting history"}} We are not debating using Canada's official coat of arms, so I am not sure how that is relevant. Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• No Partly because I agree that we should not be making use of copyrighted material but also because I kind of want to see an end to infoboxes in politics related articles rather than an expansion of the real-estate given to existing ones. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Joeyconnick}} You can't just vote twice, you have already voted one for above. Absolutiva (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hey {{u|Absolutiva}} maybe next time just let me know of the error—pretty sure you can't strike out someone's contribution for a legit mistake, but I've removed my inadvertent double contribution. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Has the ongoing forest fires been mentioned? 216.247.72.142 (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:See 2025 Canadian wildfires. CMD (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)