Talk:Canada

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)

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)

Indeed, my apologies. Thank you. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

There has never been such a consensus. We have one user that thinks they own the place, maintain that ownership through fanatical opposition to anything not meeting their personal interpretation of what the "real" coat of arms is even though that's absolute nonsense and it's been pointed out to them more than once that their claim is inconsistent with reality, and a few dedicated lackeys that follow their lead. That's all it ever has been. Fry1989 ^eh? 13:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Commenting here, if anything, to try to shake people up to reality with an outside view: as an experienced editor at pt.wiki but not an usual one at en.wiki, I believe that not having the Canadian arms in the infobox is already nonsense, and the whole debacle behind this issue makes the en.wiki look ridiculous. I read the prior discussions, and I can't see any reason for Sodacan's rendition to trigger legal issues or "misrepresent official symbols", as AtlanteanAstorian perfectly pointed out above. The argument about it not being the "real" CoA has never made any heraldic sense, and the one about infoboxes being at "full capacity" or "bloated" seems like a made-up and lame excuse. And if the matter is a fear of legal issues, just contact the Canadian Government, and if the official response says there's no problem in using the arms, whether the "official" rendition or Sodacan's, put them back. Misleading readers into thinking the country has no arms, without even a note to explain why the CoA isn't there, should be absolutely unacceptable. Solon ^26.125 09:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone in favour of adding the arms to the infobox, we just have to accept that there is not a consensus to add them as a substantial number of editors are opposed and have made reasoned arguments, however much we may disagree with them. That's just the way Wikipedia works. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not an attempt to shake anyone. It's simply stating reality. There is a user, they know who they are as does everyone else, and with a small handful of obedient followers, that has shown a sense of entitlement to this article. That user has decided, and expects everyone to follow along, what image may or may not be used. They have determined for themselves that there is only one "true" or "real" version of the coat of arms, and anything less is not going to be used here so long as they have anything to say about it. It has been pointed out more than once that there are actually several versions in use by the Canadian Government itself, invalidating that claim on its face. They don't have an answer for that. Whenever their argument of what is "real" and isn't "real" fails to pass with most participants, they then predictably fall back to a claim of copyright, and push forth the idea that the rendition hosted on Commons is a violation of the Crown Copyright of their preferred image used by the Canadian Government. This despite the fact that copyright of independent artistic works is a principle that has been established both in law and on Wikimedia almost for as long as the entire project has existed, and should not need to be re-litigated over and over and over again here, and that they tried to litigate the copyright status of that image on Commons and failed there too. If that user removed themselves from this debate, there would have been an image in the infobox years ago. And even when a consensus was reached to include an image, they re-opened it within hours to further debate it. That cannot be described as anything less than fanatical. They are the problem, they are the obstacle, as is their behaviour and their unrelenting opposition. That behaviour would not be tolerated anywhere else on the project due to the level of control on this single issue having been exerted over a period of numerous years and would result in a topic ban. The "consensus" that people keep saying there is, is merely a whipped up frenzy by one user who is being given far too much latitude. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest already. Go report Moxy if you think his behavior is so egregious instead of posting a screed here. The coat of arms crew can try again in 2027. MediaKyle (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything you say. Moxy is the singular problem. My position has always been that the "real thing", as in an image used in an official capacity, is always best, but when lacking such, something is better than nothing. Their position is that nothing is better than something, as proven by the fact they will not accept anything other than one single image and that image only. An inability to compromise by one user is the problem; not what is "real", and not copyright. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Question for people. Why is it seemingly so important to include the coat of arms in the infobox? There's a field for it, and other countries (may) have it aren't policy arguments for it. Why is it so important that it's included on this article specifically? Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think many believe or assume that all countries coat of arms is a primary representative symbol of a country and its people (like a beaver). Yes a national symbol, but its primarily a government symbol used to represent the Canadian state, federal institutions, and the Monarchy (as to why its on passports - gov property). But as mentioned before I was surprised that the last RFC was not successful in implementing the fake version (as in add a nice image over accuracy) - as RFC normally attract random fly-by non-content editors (lol)....it will be implemented one day I have no doubt about it. Wonder if a photo of lets say the GG with the arms in the back can befound. Moxy🍁 17:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Press mention

For Template:Press:

• https://www.popsci.com/technology/most-popular-wikipedia-entries/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

wow 21 Moxy🍁 23:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2026

In the Infobox's section for Independence from the United Kingdom, change "Statute of Westminster" to "Statute of Westminster" (unitalicized). It isn't italicized anywhere else. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit: It is capitalized elsewhere, though I don't believe it should be. While MOS:CANLAW says to italicize Canadian acts, these are British Acts as far as I can tell. Shouldn't it not be italicized? Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. I'm not an expert on the subject of Canadian law, but I assume the Statute of Westminster is italicized because it's been incorporated into the Constitution of Canada, even though it was originally an act of the UK Parliament. The same would be true for the British North America Act, 1867 which is also italicized. See List of Canadian constitutional documents. Day Creature (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

"Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally [...]"

This sentence in the lead talks about income per capita but links to a list about GDP per capita. Income is not GDP. Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

History biased

the history section is biased towards what had the name Canada before the country of Canada was created in 1867. So for example there is no history of Newfoundland before it joined Canada. And history before 1867 is the history of the United province of Canada, not really including the Maritimes until they joined Canada. ~2026-31253-16 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There are different ways to approach history. Covering the specific history of a geopolitical entity is not biased in itself, compared to perhaps a more anachronistically-defined geographical approach. That said, if there are key points missing that are included in general Canadian histories, that would be worth looking at. CMD (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The History section on "Canada" article (in general) is meant to be a few small bullet points with more substantive history @ History of Canada or the history section of the various provinces or territories. It's not meant to be absolutely exhaustive on the main article because there's size constraints on how large the overall article can be. Is there something you feel should be more deeply intrenched into the other article, or is presently more entrenched currently that could/should warrant expansion onto the Canada article's history section? That's how I would suggest tackling this query. CaribDigita (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 14 June 2026

−

The country co-hosted the [[2026 FIFA World Cup]] alongside Mexico and the United States.

+

The country is currently co-hosting the [[2026 FIFA World Cup]] alongside Mexico and the United States.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is currently ongoing.

~2026-34751-87 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done MOS:RELTIME —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah did the crocodiles eat the algebra in the Wikipedia office again today? ~2026-34751-87 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Misinformation being justified

It seems misinformation is justified on Wikipedia for it is fine to make a current event seem like it happened in the past. ~2026-34751-87 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure we're misleading millions. A tragedy, really. I'll take this to management for you. MediaKyle (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Passive aggression ~2026-34751-87 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2026

Add the national emblem/ coat of arms of Canada next to the flag. Sbokhari93 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussions higher up the page. CMD (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2026

Change the article to have the Canadian Coat of Arms on the right side of the Canadian Flag. It would give more information and still look nice. ZachScientia (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. MediaKyle (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)