Talk:Canada

Featured articleCanada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006, and on July 1, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Speaking of the coat of arms

We should use the user-made rendition, but with a note explaining the crown copyright of the official rendition.

I had this idea after seeing the Uruguay article. There, the flag on the infobox has a note explaining there are three flags.

What I meant is that the user made rendition would be displayed, but with a note explaining the situation. Like this:

Coat of arms[a]

And the text would explain: The official rendition used by the Canadian government is crown copyrighted. Therefore its use is restricted to the specific page about the coat of arms of Canada.

We cannot mislead people into thinking Canada has no coat of arms. Turkey has no coat of arms displayed because Turkey has no official coat of arms. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue will not be resolved by philosophical arguments here. Neither is it solved by offering a "reasonable facsimile". In order to use a copyright image we need permission from the copyright owner. In this case that is the Canadian government. Until we have that, no amount of sophistry is going to change the situation. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a non-free content policy, take a look at it. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is conventional to provide a link when you request someone look at off-article wikipedia content. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free content; Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]] : "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". Mediatech492 (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Qatar case, the coat of arms is copyrighted, and the copyrighted version only appears in 2 articles: the article "Qatar" (in the info box), and the specific page "Coat of arms of Qatar". Elsewhere, a free version is used.
This is also the approach with copyrighted flags.
The non-use of the coat of arms of Canada here misleads people into thinking the country doesn't have one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mediatech492, I think you've misunderstood the quote I'm afraid. That's just defining non-free work. That quotation doesn't mean that permission must be sought for Wikipedia - it means that the work must have been displayed *outside* Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright holder. So for example, displayed on a building or a published document. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that the approach I described is the approach of English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia only follows US copyright law. Non-free content cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Candidyeoman55, I would appreciate it if you would give this a rest. I think most of us are tired of this discussion. Try another RfC in six months to a year. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend removing the infobox, unlike Politics of Israel, Politics of New Zealand, etc. Absolutiva 04:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not needed for fewer politics-related articles. But well-known examples like Politics of Australia does not have an infobox without given consensus. Absolutiva 05:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never remove the country infobox in articles about countries. It will be reverted. It has data unrelated to the coat of arms.
The fact that other countries do it differently is irrelevant. We could just as easily argue that those countries should have infoboxes for their politics articles because Canada does. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be better to have this discussion on the Talk page for the article: Talk:Politics of Canada. Why raise it here? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because its off-topic article, my mistake. Absolutiva 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was for me, we would use the official coat of arms twice: At the article Canada (this one), and the article Coat of arms of Canada. Elsewhere, the free version would be used. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be consistent with how Wikipedia treats copyrighted flags and copyrighted coats of arms or emblems. Cases like Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Fort Worth, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and others that didn't come to mind here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know what your position is. It has not gained traction here, and the consensus does not accept your position. One of the principles of consensus is that editors should accept that their position has not gained consensus, not keep raising the issue. As MediaKyle said, please give it a rest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great idea, I get that having an unofficial rendering is a bit misleading but I think having none is even more misleading and a note would clear up some confusion. I also happen to be the person who added that note to the Uruguay article a few months back so seeing it mentioned here is kinda cool. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In most other versions of the Canada article (including French, Italian, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Greek, and others), the Coat of Arms is displayed alongside the national flag in the infobox. The English version seems to be the exception. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edited) The use of the coat of arms is -not necessary- to understand the country of Canada. Canada is much more than this symbol. It can make a difference in government or political articles. So let's finally let this rest. Alaney2k (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd love a moritorium on discussing this topic unless something new can be added. It's happened on other pages such as Ireland, Republic of Ireland and others. The last couple of years the coat of arms has just dominated the talk pages and conclusions seems to have been reached to exclude it. We need to either completely drop it, or have a final RFC that follows process that includes a discussion moritorium after the results one way or another. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a moratorium on further discussions about the coat of arms for now. I think we should have another RfC in about a year, and hopefully next time it won't get so out of hand and can actually be closed. MediaKyle (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda expected someone would've proposed a moratorium someday. This doesn't seem to be changing much. Probably a good idea. kxeon  talk 21:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will intervene only to clarify the legal position, because several comments continue to treat different legal regimes as though they were the same.
It is correct that if we are dealing with a copyrighted image, permission from the copyright holder is required unless a non-free content exception applies. The official government-rendered artwork of the Arms of Canada is protected by Crown copyright under section 12 of the Copyright Act. That specific artistic rendering cannot be freely reused without authorization. No one is disputing that point.
However, it does not follow that every depiction of the Arms of Canada is copyrighted. Copyright protects a particular artistic expression, not the underlying heraldic composition. The blazon, which is the formal heraldic description, is not copyrightable subject matter. An independently created rendering based strictly on the blazon is a new artistic work. Its copyright belongs to its creator, provided it is not copied from the official government artwork.
That is not a loophole or a philosophical argument. It is standard copyright doctrine. Copyright protects expression, not ideas, facts, or descriptive systems such as heraldic blazonry.
There is also repeated reliance on the Government of Canada’s language about “official symbols” being protected. That language refers primarily to protection under section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act, which grants the Arms of Canada the status of a prohibited mark. Prohibited mark protection is a trademark-type regime. It prevents commercial adoption and misleading association. It does not create a general prohibition on depiction comparable to copyright.
If prohibited mark status alone prevented depiction, then the Canadian flag would also have to be removed, since it is likewise protected under section 9(1). Yet it is displayed across Wikimedia projects. The reason is simple. Prohibited mark protection is not copyright.
The non-free content criteria only become relevant if the proposal is to use the official Crown-copyrighted rendering. If the proposal is instead to use an independently created rendering released under a free license, then the non-free content policy is not engaged at all. In that case, the image would not be non-free content.
The legal structure is therefore straightforward. The official government artwork is Crown copyrighted. The Arms of Canada are also protected as a prohibited mark under trademark law. An independent rendering created from the blazon is legally distinct from the government artwork and is not automatically subject to Crown copyright.
Whether the coat of arms belongs in the infobox is ultimately a matter of editorial consensus. If the current consensus is to exclude it, that is a community decision. However, it should not be presented as legally compelled by copyright law unless we are speaking specifically about the official government rendering. The broader claim that any depiction requires government permission is not an accurate statement of Canadian copyright law. AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formal name

Longstanding consensus against using "dominion of Canada" because Canada's formal name is, in fact, Canada.

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.

The formal name of Canada is the Dominion of Canada, even though it's seldom used, I don't care. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is seldom used, but, you still add it. There is no document saying the name doesn't exist anymore. "Canada" and "Sweden" are common names. I don't know why they never put Canadian titles. ~2026-53902-3 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The formal name of Canada is Canada. It has not been called “dominion of Canada” in any formal sense for over 70 years The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be called the Dominion of Canada, but I believe "seldom used" means something different in this case. Sure, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not used very often, but in formal circumstances it is used. The same argument applies to the Republic of Ireland. But as someone who has lived in Canada for 11 years, I have never heard the "Dominion of Canada" used. In even the most formal circumstances it is still referred to as Canada. I am not an experienced Wikipedian, so I am not familiar with the guidelines, but I would like to make this simple clarification. EFOSERVETY (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Much like the coat of arms, this topic has been litigated and re-litigated, and there is a long-standing consensus not to include "Dominion of Canada". This really should be added to the "frequently asked questions" box. I don't think there's anything more that can be said about this topic that hasn't already been said. MediaKyle (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at your passport cover, you will see that it says ”Canada” without any prefix. The same is in the constitution since its versions in 1982. “Dominion of” is the old name of Canada (and many other former countries part of the commonwealth), it is no longer used The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Canada gradually stopped using the term "Dominion" in official contexts during the 20th century. Under the government of Louis St. Laurent in the early 1950s, federal authorities increasingly replaced "Dominion" with "Canada" or "federal" in statutes, publications such as the Canada Gazette and government department names. This was part of the broader shift reflecting Canada’s growing autonomy following the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The patriation of the Constitution through the Constitution Act of 1982 marked the final constitutional step in affirming Canada’s full sovereignty. In the same year, "Dominion Day" (on July 1) was officially renamed Canada Day through an amendment to the Holidays Act, which effectively removed the last symbolic use of the term in everyday life.
Therefore, the official name of the country has been Canada for decades. The term "Dominion" is now obsolete. Former dominions such as Canada are fully sovereign states, all of which are either today constitutional monarchies or republics, and some, like Canada or Australia, remain part of the Commonwealth of Nations, with 15 as independent realms (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.) and 41 as independent republics (India, South Africa, Singapore, Cyprus, Malta, Jamaica etc). ~2026-24151-74 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. That's 100% right. The official name of the country is Canada. Just as India's official name is the Republic of India, Australia's is the Commonwealth of Australia and South Africa's is the Republic of South Africa, Canada's is Canada. Referring to it today as the "Dominion of Canada" would be like calling India the "Dominion of India" (or "Union of India" as it was known before 1950) or calling South Africa the "Union of South Africa" (as it was called before 1961). People should probably open a book and educate themselves instead of pushing their outdated nostalgia. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be important to several editors, who put Dominion of Canada links on several articles. It's not helpful, as Canada has been Canada since 1867. While it's fair to note Canada's connection to the monarchy and British ties, it does no good to Wikipedia readers who may think that Dominion of Canada is somehow different than today's Canada. Plus, unless we have a primary reliable source, we cannot count on sources like Canadian Encyclopedia's essay on the topic. Yes, we want a secondary source, but if that secondary source does not itself have a citation, it's just an opinion. When the Government of Canada puts it on an announcement and can be cited, then and only then can it be considered official. Alaney2k (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

"CANADA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect CANADA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 20 § All caps country names (A-C) until a consensus is reached. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Religious image.

I propose that the religion section should have two images within a : the existing one about religious freedom and a more specific one about Christianity, given that it is the majority, historical, and cultural religion of the nation. Especially in Eastern Canada, there is still a significant Christian majority. Lulasaurius (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that's necessary. The current image is great. MediaKyle (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MediaKyle: current image works fine. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like the current image and want to keep it. I'm just suggesting adding two images to represent two common themes in the country, one for Christianity as the cultural, historical, and majority religion of Canada, and another for multiculturalism/religious freedom. Lulasaurius (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to split them up to provide, what would seem to many, to be religious endorsement in Wikivoice. Unnecessary, and if we're doing the cultural and historical then it would be about the religions before Christianity arrived here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of what is known as Canadian ethnicity and culture, which gave rise to the nation, originated with the arrival of Christians, not with the Indigenous peoples. This is a Western nation, and the first state to be called Canada was French-speaking and Catholic Christian. Lulasaurius (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2026

Change "The country was a founding member the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) in 1989 and joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990." to "The country was a founding member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) in 1989 and joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990." I believe there is an "of" missing in this sentence, that if added will improve grammar. Similarsample5 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Canada in the infobox

I was wondering whether it might be useful to include the Coat of Arms of Canada alongside the national flag in the infobox. Many country articles on Wikipedia already do this (for example: Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, South Africa etc.), while others do not. I'm not advocating for the change, just putting the idea forward for consideration. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. We've been going over this for years and the consensus currently is to exclude the coat of arms, both the official and user-made renditions. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my apologies. Thank you. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2026

Add Canadian Coat of Arms to page beside national flag below "CANADA" ~2026-26876-79 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. MediaKyle (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Press mention

For Template:Press:

--Another Believer (Talk) 23:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

wow 21 Moxy🍁 23:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.