Talk:Canada/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The preceding RfC was closed with consensus that a (a free render of) the coat of arms should be used.

Should File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, or another render, be used in the infobox of this article? Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Notified: WikiProject Canada, WikiProject North America, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology.

@Absolutiva, Alaney2k, AlbusWulfricDumbledore, Alexander vee, Alexeyevitch, BigRed606, CoolDino1, Fourthords, Fry1989, Handoto, Joeyconnick, Loytra, MediaKyle, Mediatech492, Moxy, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Mrachmad59, Nikkimaria, Polygnotus, Rushtheeditor, Simonm223, Thedarkempire, and VulpesVulpes42: You have been involved in previous discussion on this topic.

Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Close BADRFC, see WP:RFCBEFORE. And RFCCLOSE above seems sus, although I don't really wanna investigate that now. @Moxy: what do you think about the previous RFC closure? It has already been challenged here. Polygnotus (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, close this. I'm waiting for the inevitable review of the previous closure. MediaKyle (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I opened this in response to that challenge to gauge consensus. If opinion comes out broader against my closure I will withdraw it. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Coleisforeditor There is already consensus against your RfC closure. And consensus against you starting this one. Please read Wikipedia:Supervote. Polygnotus (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

At the point I wrote that there were two comments in this RfC. Now there is consensus. I will withdraw my closure. Please calm down. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

My dog wants to go for a walk so I don't have much time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears someone else has done it for me before this. There is procedure outside of just withdrawing my close for me identified in WP:Supervote. Please calm down. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

there were two comments in this RfC This is not an RfC. Also Nikkimaria voiced their opinion. There is procedure Nope. Polygnotus (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

There is advice, which is as far as it gets here. This was an RfC before that was removed. Again, I don't understand why you are vilifying me. Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why you claim that I am vilifying you, or that anyone else is treating you as a villain. I noticed a minor problem and fixed it. I disagreed with you about something incredibly boring and unimportant. I said nothing about you as a person. Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that there is a procedure at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, being taking it up with the closer and then, if that does not resolve your dispute, taking it to the Administrators' Noticeboard. You should not just delete the closure, Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand why I'm being treated like some sort of villain here, ngl. People appear to have gathered unanimously around the idea that I am intentionally doing a supervote when I have made it clear my reasoning, intention, have made attempts to correct errors when pointed out, etcetcetc. I feel like some may need to read WP:AGF. Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You are not a villain. I don't think you are being treated as a villain. People here are very diverse and have all sorts of opinions. Closing RfCs is very difficult. Polygnotus (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Since my view is the 'considered at full weight' view that it's infobox bloat I don't really care much about which render is used so long as we are sure we're not breaking copyright law. I'm not a lawyer nor an expert in mark law so I won't profess any special knowledge on that front. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223 is correct, bloat is bloat, even if we add a picture of a cute penguin. Polygnotus (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Supervote - that said months ago we talk about how an RFC would attract many around the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument over concerns about misleading our readers that this is an official rendering or a copyright violation. It was the expected outcome from asking random people to vote on a topic that has been debate over for 2 decades. Moxy🍁 15:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy Maybe you can close it? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy if you are concerned that this was a supervote then you could take it to WP:AN and seek a close review. I am not going to - my principal concern was infobox bloat but I don't feel strongly enough about the coat of arms to fight over the close of an RfC over it. However that's kind of where things stand. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. I see now that it has been re-opened. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I've always been weary about using arms in country articles. In Canada, the flag is a national symbol used by all Canadians, while the coat of arms is primarily a government symbol used to represent the Canadian government. But if we have to have one it should be real. Moxy🍁 16:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Only recently removed from the page after years. Should be included, with a qualifier. Not materially different, seems to be some nitpicking out of the blue. Previous RfC close was dodgy too AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Support As per AlbusWulfricDumbledore above me. This nitpickery does not help Wikipedia. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. Sodacan's rendition of the arms is a faithful recreation that captures every aspect of the official arms. I stand by my response in the last RfC that this is an appropriate alternative so long as it is rightfully labelled as a non-official version. Any argument of "infobox bloat" should be backed with detailed justification as most other country pages have arms or an emblem of some sort in the infobox. I agree with AlbusWulfricDumbledore and VulpesVulpes42 here as this seems to be unnecessary nitpicking at this point. Thedarkempire (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Support, I agree with AlbusWulfricDumbledore for recreating the coat of arms of Canada. In particular, all coat of arms representing Europe (or elsewhere) are also recreated. Absolutiva 22:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Some random user would see the page and think Canada has no coat of arms, if there's no coat of arms there. Either we should include ( https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Talk:Canada/Archive_32&sq=Talk:Canada/Archive_32&lang=en&file=File:Royal_Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg ) or ( https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Talk:Canada/Archive_32&sq=Talk:Canada/Archive_32&lang=en&file=File:Arms_of_Canada_(shield).svg ), and include a notice saying something like "The official rendition used by the Canadian government is not used here due to Canadian crown copyright. See the page about the Coat of Arms of Canada to see the official rendition." Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The Canadian Government does not hold Crown Copyright over the coat of arms, that is a misconception that keeps being repeated here. They only hold Crown Copyright over their renders of the coat of arms. Coleisforeditor (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Support There are several points I need to raise here. As I find Moxy to be the most fervent oppositionist, it will appear quite pointed towards that user, but these are also meant for other users that have supported various points similar to those espoused by Moxy.

Firstly, the copyright issue. Moxy has espoused the belief that the Canadian Government's copyright is (essentially) all-reaching, and that File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is not truly a freely-licensed rendition. The understood position by most users with a background in heraldry, as well as some official sources such as the Canadian Heraldic Authority, is that independent works carry independent copyrights. Moxy doesn't appear to simply argue that File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is a violation of the copyright held by the Canadian Government because it is too closely derivative (although they appear to have made that argument as well), but that the Canadian Government can extend its copyright upon all renditions of the coat of arms, regardless of author and regardless of originality. To test that, I would put forward a challenge. I would ask that two individuals draw an image for me according to the following description: Please draw a blue square, with a gold sun upon it. Sounds simple, right? But we all understand that if two users were to do that, their drawings would be vastly different. One individual could draw the sun as a simple circle, but the other individual could draw it with rays. Maybe they both drew it with rays, but one drew 8 straight rays and the other drew 12 wavy rays. Either way, they both would have drawn different images based on their own imagination and artistic skill. One could claim copyright to their drawing, and the other individual to theirs as well, but neither could claim copyright to each other's. We would have two copyrighted drawings from two different individuals based on the exact same description. That is essentially what we are arguing over. Moxy either does or does not accept that it can be the case where two different images of the same thing can exist and not violate the rights of each other. Based on their comments, it is not entirely clear that they accept that. If it is the case that they do not, they are fundamentally mistaken on the point of copyright law.

Secondly, Moxy has espoused the belief that we should only use "the real version" of the coat of arms. They have repeatedly stated this in what would appear to be singular terms, to refer to File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. I would ask Moxy why they believe there is only one real coat of arms and that anything less is a fraud. To be clear, there are countries which have specified in no uncertain terms exactly what their coat of arms is to look like in every detail. Slovenia is a case of this, where File:Grb Republike Slovenije - geometrijsko pravilo.GIF specifies every measurement. The Canadian Government has issued no such similar specification. There are also numerous drawings in use by the Canadian Government. File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is not alone in its usage, there is also this version that is maintained by the Canadian Heraldic Authority's register, which as you can see is in a vastly different style. In fact, File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg exists nowhere in the registry. There is also a monochromatic version that makes regular appearance on government websites and banknotes. With at least 3 versions in use, the Canadian Government is more flexible than simply one universal drawing by one artist. I would posit that whilst it is ideal to use a drawing that the Canadian Government itself uses, that does not delegitimize drawings by other artists when none of the drawings as used by the Government are freely available.

Thirdly, I must point out what I find to be a rather disingenuous argument (on multiple fronts) that we shouldn't be including national emblems in the infoboxes at all. Moxy has espoused the position that only the flag is the real symbol of the people, and the coat of arms is just a "government thing". This flies in the face of several understood conventions and 20+ years of practice here on Wikipedia. I am comfortable in saying that most people would support the position that countries (with the exception of a few I can count on one hand) have two primary national symbols, a flag and a coat of arms/seal/other emblem, which overlap to some degree but not entirely. The flag is generally open to use by all (government, citizens, corporations...), with the emblem more restricted to official government use. Both, however, symbolize the state, its existence and its sovereignty, at its most basic level. This position also appears to be the original intent when the infoboxes were created back in 2002, with parameters for both a flag and another national emblem. Whilst Moxy may hold the personal belief that including a national emblem beyond the flag is superfluous or unnecessary, that is not policy at this time. That is, in fact, a fundamental shift in policy requiring a discussion that would need to take place across the entire project as it would affect hundreds of articles. If Moxy is not willing to open that discussion and actually put their belief forward for scrutiny as potential future policy, and merely wishes to exercise it here alone, I am left questioning the sincerity and whether or not this is simply new grounds being drawn up to attempt to exclude any version of the coat of arms not meeting their chosen drawing. That they raised this point after the previous discussion was closed (yes it has been re-opened, but it was closed and then they brought this position up) in support of including the coat of arms in the infobox, sadly, infers to me that this is a continued attempt to keep the coat of arms out at any cost, now not based on whether or not it is "the real one" but whether it's even a legitimate parameter for us to use at all.

To summarize, none of the drawings in use by the Canadian Government are freely available at this time. That does not delegitimize the work of other artists, using their own skill and imagination and based upon the textual description, to create a drawing they have chosen to license freely for our use. The infobox parameter for a national emblem was there from the very start and has nearly 28 years of established use. To argue that it is not a legitimate parameter is a massive discussion that either needs to be opened in earnest or should not be used here alone to obstruct our use of a freely licensed drawing. File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is that drawing. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You said "Moxy" ten times in this message... Might want to check out WP:FOC. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Fry was addressing concerns raised by them, and not them as a person. WP:FOC is about not raising issues with editor conduct on article talk pages. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I also adore my handle. I don't mind when editors are focused on me over the sources. Moxy🍁 19:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither Fry1989 nor myself are “focusing on you over the sources”. We have both provided several sources. Your response, however, addresses none of the sources, nor any of the points raised. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

this has not been addressed. Moxy🍁 11:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That, indeed, has been addressed to you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes § Flags and coats of arms. I had assumed that your cessation in responding was because you had conceded. Evidently, it appears that you had decided to start ignoring me.

I ask you to please stop using this piece of misinformation towards new participants in the discussion, as I have explained to you why it is false. Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

We will simply have to disagree...... Us passing off a user rendition that clearly has just some simple variations of the main copyrighted version does not in my opinion pass as original content. Let's quote again so it's clear. " 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."' Do you honestly believe that we are to interpret that the user rendition doesn't simply change a few things here and there... over being new content. The main question is should we be misleading our readers that this is official version. I'm not sure why you believe copyrighted information from the government is misinformation. We will simply have to disagree..... As in my personal opinion not one of the replies above address the fact that we are using something so similar and trying to pass it off as original content..... Simply no way they'd be so close based on a written description..... This is basic copyright knowledge as expressed by over 50% of participants vs 2 editors. All that said... as stated above a few times RFCs of this nature attracts newer editors...thus leading too frustration for content editors that stewart these type of articles.... It's not the end of the world..... Most of us just hope to be factual rather than decorative.Moxy🍁 16:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You are reading off a website, not a law. I have explained to you the law surrounding this, and I have explained to you the reality of copyright regarding heraldry and blazons, which I urge you again to read Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems, which is a good explainer on the topic and the consensus on that topic. Heraldry is incredibly standardised, the argument that the renders look similar and thus the second must be derivative of the first is misleading because of this. It is clearly different where there is not specification, this is best seen in the helm. If you do believe that File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is in violation of Canadian crown copyright, you can bring that to Commons.

I repeat my previous argument that the Canadian flag has the exact same protections as a protected mark as the coat of arms and ask you why the flag is on there if it is believed protected mark status is equal to copyright, which it is not. My evidence to this is the Canadian Trademarks Database, which displays the protections of each registered work. Flag, and CoA 1, CoA 2, CoA 3 (these are the registrations displayed on the website you keep referencing)

I should also note that a lie doesn't become truth when “over 50% of participants” support it, even though I dispute that count separately, because Wikipedia:Consensus is not a vote.

It is not unreasonable to say that you should stop spreading misinformation to people entering the discussion to sway them to your side, and the idea that the opinions of new people to a discussion are somehow invalid in contrast to editors who have been discussion for longer is entirely unacceptable by policy.

Your refusal to WP:CONCEDE your argument when I have provided so much definitive evidence against it, and instead to ignore me, is quite simply astounding. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

As I've stated before your links to me indicate that various parts of the coat of arms is copyrighted individually as well as a whole. Again we will simply have to disagree about your point of view of copyright versus what the government says. I understand you're not a fan of copyright laws I have a different position.... Its that simple there's nothing to concede.Moxy🍁 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

No, my links are simply the registration numbers on the website you are sourcing. They are not various parts of the coat of arms, they are the same coat of arms but different renditions (one with colour, two black and white), which you would be aware of if you had clicked it.

The law assigning this status merely says “No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for,” “the Royal Arms, Crest or Standard;”

Previous consensus on the topic of protections for national symbols like this asserts that it is allowed as it is not copyright — please see WP:SOSUMI and {{insignia}}.

For this reason, your argument is simply false. A government website making that claim does not mean the law is any different.

You also have not addressed any of my other concerns. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I wrote this a decade or so ago......Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays .... Put it plainly linking to essays and documentation pages does not represent the community nor anything verifiable. Moxy🍁 01:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

But they explain topics and common practice, is it not incredibly bizarre to write off arguments that use essays to explain themselves?

Additionally, the heavy use of {{insignia}} is evidence to its common practice. I'm sure there have been discussions on this topic, but I am not actively in a place to find them. Coleisforeditor (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have now done a bit of digging:

• My most definitive evidence is a Foundation memo that states “Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work.”
• Existing WP:EDITCONSENSUS on the specific issue is that prohibited/official marks can be included, as seen with the inclusion of the flag here and the flag and coat of arms on province articles (all prohibited marks as the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of the Government of Canada or of the province or municipal corporation concerned, given public notice of its adoption and use). There is no previous WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS on the usage of prohibited marks.
• The United Nations enforces its prohibited/official marks (which they get protection under as the words “United Nations” or the official seal or emblem of the United Nations), which is acknowledged in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Nations, however they are still included in articles and allowed on Commons.
• I echo the points raised in WP:SOSUMI
• Contributors in a deletion discussion backed WP:SOSUMI, this is not a formal decision of consensus on it but it is evidence that it is fairly agreed on.

This was only light, and this is by no means near an exhaustive list. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The main question is should we be misleading our readers that this is official version . Of course we should not, and neither do we have to. Heraldry is indifferent to whether a rendition happens to be "official" or not, and only cares about conformance with the blazon. As long as Wikipedia is upfront with our rendition being user‐made, this is not a problem in any way.

Most of us just hope to be factual rather than decorative. Indeed, and including the armorial achievement is decidedly not a matter of decorativeness – it is a matter of identification, and thus most certainly one of encyclopaedically conveying facts. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

"You said "Moxy" ten times in this message... Might want to check out WP:FOC...." Yes, I suppose I have. I don't see why that should be a problem in this case. I made a strong effort not to make my comment merely a trial of Moxy. As I initially pointed out, I do view Moxy as the leading voice on the side of opposing using another rendition than that used explicitly by the Canadian Government itself. They have been for numerous years and I don't think they would deny it. Discussions often go that way, with a leading voice making the main arguments and subsequent commentors leaning towards those arguments and choosing to support them. It would be foolish then for me not to point out where I believe Moxy is mistaken. Being called fervent or passionate is not a crime or an insult. It could even be called a compliment. Those that know my early history know that I could be described as passionate as well, although I have wound down most of my activity in more recent years. Regardless, my comment addressed several specific points themselves: Copyright (of the chosen rendition that might be used), authenticity (from a heraldic point of view), flexibility and what could be perceived as inconsistency (of the Canadian Government itself), the history and current and long-established practice (in regards to these country infoboxes), the question of whether or not national emblems are commonly perceived as a symbol on an equal footing to a nation's flag, and speaking of beliefs that would be project-wide in effect as if they are to be accepted practice when they currently are not, but not caring to put them forward for broader scrutiny to actually become such and only using them in a singular discussion to further a singular desired position, which I very strongly dislike just as much as I dislike "other things exist" being used without any sort of qualification and I regularly oppose that when I see it too. The only other point I have to raise is that showing derision towards the viewpoints of "random" or "new" users is most definitely not policy-based and not a good look. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

But the page about the Canadian government used coat of arms here on Wikipedia says, when talking about the fair use rationale: "Use, unaltered, in a non-commercial, educational context is specifically allowed by the Canadian government." We should use the user made rendition in the info box with a note about the official version. I think we should use the user made rendition everywhere. The government version should only stay at the specific page Coat of arms of Canada. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean, use the official rendition only in the specific page, and the user made rendition elsewhere. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

With a note in the info box saying "The official rendition is subject to Canadian crown copyright, and therefore it's only used in the specific article about the Coat of arms of Canada. The use of the coat of arms is for educational purposes, so people can recognize the symbol." Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the coat of arms to info box AfraidDeer94495 (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

See the very long discussion further up this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to get some thoughts on adding the position of Chief Justice of Canada to the infobox, similar to how it is reflected in the United States article.

• While Canada's Westminster tradition derives from the United Kingdom, the Parliament of Canada and provincial legislatures is bound by written constitution in addition to constitutional conventions.
• As such, its courts play an important role in interpreting the constitution and statutes. Once a decision is made by the Supreme Court, it is considered final and neither Parliament nor the Crown can override this.
• While the legislative and executive functions of the government are fused, and thus represented by the prime minister, the judicial system plays an independent and distinct role which is missing from the infobox.

WildComet (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That sounds totally reasonable to me. It's a small bit of real estate for a link that may help our readers, and it seems appropriate that the Supreme Court should be represented in the infobox. MediaKyle (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. It's in the US infobox because their constitution has the executive, the legislature and the judiciary as separate and equal arms of government. That isn't the case in Canada which, as you say, uses the Westminster system of government. In Canada, all authority flows from the Crown and the separation of powers is not really a thing. To add the chief justice would suggest to readers that Canada has a similar system to the United States, which it really doesn't as the chief justice is far, far less important. Some things just shouldn't be standardised. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I don't think this should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No cuz as its part of the judicial system that is an appointed position independent of government that only interprets laws and resolves conflicts. - and to be blunt "the Chief Justice does not occupy a position of tangible strength". The Chief Justice is simply responsible for the administration of the Court.....its the branch itself and it's judgments that are relevant. This is simply the norm for Westminster style countries New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia etc...Moxy🍁 00:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not a governmental leadership position. The US is not a good example an we shouldn't be copying their completely different method of government. Canterbury Tail talk 01:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I would leave it out because it's not something that most readers would want to know. The CJ btw ranks third in protocol in Canada and is one of three offices (along with the GG and PM) where incumbents were appointed to the Imperial Privy Council and are called the Rt Hon. The CJ is also the Deputy GG and assumes the role as Administrator should the GG be incapacitated or the office is vacant. TFD (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Canada has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox, update the population to 2025 Q3 estimate (41,651,653) per https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901. 96.79.116.169 (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Toast1454_TC 13:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)