Talk:Canada

About the coat of arms

Consider the precedent when dealing with copyrighted flags and coats of arms. In this case, they're only used twice: In the infobox about the jurisdiction, and the dedicated article. That means, use in the infobox about Canada, and the dedicated article. Elsewhere, the user version should be used. The Calgary flag is copyrighted, the Seattle flag is copyrighted, the Fort Worth flag is copyrighted, and they're only used twice. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Anything as a symbol of a government agency or the legally entrusted entity is usually copyright held or protected, however most copyright legislation has provisions on what can be regarded as 'fair use'. *Often* this may state something regarded as having an educational use might be included so long as one isn't earning huge amounts of money off it in the name of it being an 'educational' source..CaribDigita (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC).

  Maybe we should include a note like this: The official rendition is subject to Crown copyright. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I mean: The infobox should be like this:

  Flag

  Coat of arms [note 1]

  And when hovering over the note, a pop up should show up, stating: The official rendition is subject to Crown copyright. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know the legal situation in Canada. But in the UK, the royal arms are protected by perpetual crown copyright as a royal prerogative. That means that they will never be in the public domain.

  As Canada inherited the same uncodified royal prerogatives as exist in the UK, and as the government there considers their arms to be the arms of the king in right of Canada, then unless Canada has legislated that royal prerogative away, the situation should be the same as in the UK. But I'm unsure what Canadian legislation says. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it does seem that the situation is the same. Section 12 of the Copyright Act: 'Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown...' That means, not affecting the royal prerogative. The equivalent UK legislation is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Section 171. 'Nothing in this part affects...any right or privilege of the Crown subsisting otherwise than under an enactment'. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Canadian copyright - Quote "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🍁 14:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  If we're still talking about this... For curiosity's sake, a while ago I checked many of the different language Wikipedias to see how many include the coat of arms. From what I've seen, we're an outlier. See de:Kanada, es:Canadá, fr:Canada, pt:Canadá, zh:加拿大. If someone can find another major language that does omit the coat of arms, I'd love to see it, because I couldn't find one. So all things considered, the legal argument may not be so strong. I still don't think it should be included, but for me it's just clutter, I hesitate to pass judgement beyond that. MediaKyle (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it's the same protections applied to the UK Royal Arms:

  https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02/ROYAL%20ARMS%20BLUE%20BOOKLET%20-%202025.pdf

  And they will never be out of copyright. However, my understanding of Wikipedia's practices is that creations based on the blazon (like Sodacan's creations) are quite permissible and rely on US law as that is where the servers are. These depictions based on the blazon are already in use on some pages. Indeed, it seems that even the official depiction is in use on the Coat of arms of Canada page on a fair use basis. Dgp4004 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I guess there is a consensus at English Wikipedia to only follow US copyright law.

  We cannot mislead readers into thinking Canada has no coat of arms. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Candidyeoman55, Moxy, and Dgp4004: If you want to discuss about the user-made reproduction for the coat of arms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Unofficial rendering of coat of arms. Absolutiva 06:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  Was checking in on if any progress had been made on this, I will leave a summary of the legal situation here. In the context of the page you reference, the official symbols are protected as prohibited marks, a status similar to trademarks which the coat of arms gets as the Royal Arms, Crest or Standard (Trademarks Act 9(1)(a)). Ironically, the flag of Canada also gets this exact protection and I wonder if you would be in support of removing the flag. Trademarks nor prohibited marks are not copyright, and quoting a Wikimedia Foundation memo published after a Board meeting on the topic: Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work. In English, "works protected under a status other than copyright are considered free works for the purposes of Wikipedia", even if respect for the rule of law is a Canadian value that us Canadians have been trying to uphold for two decades now. This topic is further explored in WP:SOSUMI, an essay you have refused to read (apologies for the FOC violations but I do believe it to be incredibly relevant here) on the basis that it is not a guideline or policy.

  In fact, the link you reference (a website, not a law) does not even claim that it is copyright, it calls them official marks, a subtype of prohibited marks. The site references three trademark numbers (not copyright, as you seem oblivious to, and thus allowed on Wikipedia already, but I will continue for the purpose of redundancy), 0972257, 0972258 and 0907729, which are all listed as Prohibited Mark; Arms, Crest or Emblem under Paragraph 9(1), the exact status I have told you it was.

  Another defence you have used to say that the coat of arms is copyrighted, is that it is a work of the Canadian Government, and thus protected by conventional copyright. On that I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems (another essay you refuse to consider for the same reason as earlier) as if it was a part of this reply.

  In conclusion, please stop repeating this seemingly bad faith argument, given I have on numerous occasions explained to you that it is false and there seems to be no reason why you have not taken that on board. Please do not take this as a personal attack, I simply do not believe your ad nauseam repetition of this argument entirely based on your interpretation of a vaguely worded webpage is beneficial to the discussions on this topic. I also advise you to read WP:JUSTESSAY, and the see also pages linked there, on your tendency to entirely dismiss essays in discussions. Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  See the below discussion "Speaking of the coat of arms" ... We're done talking about this for right now... Come back in six months to a year. Enjoy the holidays or something. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, it will stay without a coat of arms for a while, but we can't mislead people into thinking there's no coat of arms. We need to find a temporary alternative until the dispute is solved. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  I tried adding a warning with a template I found at the Uruguay page, but they essentially reverted my edit. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  No one is being misled -- the coat of arms is covered under "Symbols". Readers know how to do CTRL+F if they're curious whether or not Canada has a coat of arms, or they can type Coat of arms of Canada into the search bar. No alternative is necessary. MediaKyle (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think that you cannot assume readers know that, many people who read Wikipedia are quite tech illiterate and many readers also only look at the infobox and do not actually read the article. with that said I am not in favor of adding the coat of arms or even a free variant to the infobox and instead I believe there should simply be a note in the infobox linking the page of the coat of arms similar to what is done with the "flag" of Austria-Hungary though I understand that it is a very different situation. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 19:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  I do not intend to restart the discussion, I moreso intend to point out this seemingly bad faith argument brought up ad nauseam. You are welcome to take your Christmas break and I personally do not intend to interact further, at least in the near future. I might write an essay or something for future reference. Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Never remove flags, they're widely used everywhere at Wikimedia projects. It would be ugly, other countries have flags but a large country would not. The use of flags is necessary in many contexts where words would not convey the message. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Note that I am only bringing up that the flag has the same status as the coat of arms, and if Moxy actually had the intention to remove copyright-offending materials they would also oppose the flag being in the infobox. I do not personally propose to remove the flag from the infobox. Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Coleisforeditor: I discussed about proposed change a free equivalent version to the coat of arms of Canada by Sodacan, but makes no consensus.

  Separately, there's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom#Official rendering of the coat of arms and WT:VEX#Unofficial rendering of coat of arms, whenever to include a copyrighted version of the arms or not. Absolutiva 22:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Coleisforeditor no guess work pls ...don't speak for me. Moxy🍁 23:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  I am not speaking for you, and I am not saying you have said anything other than that any depiction of the coats of arms is a violation of copyright per https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html which is something you said here in the same section 3 indentations up.
  p.s. you can do @pings with {{ping|username}}, your ping was not an actual wikilink so it would not have pinged me if I was not subscribed Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Note how the flag isn't listed..... it's simply too generic to be copyrighted in that manner. Moxy🍁 23:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  The flag does not need to be listed on this one webpage for it to be protected as a prohibited mark. It is protected as a prohibited mark 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 (Trademarks Act 9(1)(e)). It is not protected by copyright, neither is the coat of arms. You can verify that the flag of Canada is protected as a prohibited mark on the trademarks database, where it is trademark numbers 0902326 and 0972260. See how under category on these pages it says "Prohibited Mark".

  You can then verify the coat of arms as a prohibited mark by checking the three trademark numbers listed on the website you keep linking. The numbers are 0972257, 0972258 and 0907729. All three of these links, when you go to "Category", say "Prohibited Mark". They do not say "copyright". Why do you think it is copyrighted? Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Not to interested in explaining the difference for the 20th time in 20 years....but basically.....both the Canadian Flag and Coat of Arms are protected official symbols, but the key difference is permission: the Flag (Maple Leaf) allows some commercial use if un-altered with a disclaimer, while the Coat of Arms is much more strict, reserved for government use only, requiring specific approval under the Trademarks Act and Copyright Act, preventing private commercial exploitation - (start your research here). For some odd reason the Wikimedia foundation (or perhaps I should say Wikimedia Commons) see usage of most national flags as inherent (but not for municipal ones - very odd). They do follow some basics copyright laws for official arms... that's why we have all these recreations all over because their usage is restricted...the odd thing they do (as in Wikipedia Commons) about arms is ignore key parts of many copyright laws of official arms that they don't see as internationally recognized (because Zimbabwe is not a signatory to these acts...lol)... that is the basis of the conflict here. Canadians are generally very educated and have a thing for respect of the law, thus find Commons position odd. For Canada that specific wording - as you linked above - that excludes the Canadian flag is....... official symbols, shown below, including all of their design and colour variations, are protected against unauthorized use in Canada and abroad under......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, thus it's odd they allow these recreations that look so similar despite the laws. Moxy🍁 01:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  So the arms of Canada is in perpetual Crown copyright? Absolutiva 04:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes - Crown copyright#Canada...but Commons thinks otherwise. Most Canadian sites explain the copyright difference Government of Canada symbols are protected under the Trade-marks Act. The Arms of Canada, the Government of Canada signature, and the Canada wordmark are exclusive trademarks of the Government of Canada. Individuals or institutions external to the Government of Canada cannot use these marks without prior authorization. VS Canadians are free to use and display the National Flag of Canada as they wish. However, the Trade-marks Act protects the National Flag of Canada against unauthorized commercial use Moxy🍁 05:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding on perpetual Crown copyright, should we use a free alternative to coat of arms by Sodacan, similar than the United Kingdom's coat of arms based on the blazon. Absolutiva 05:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  The Government-made render of the arms of Canada falls under both crown copyright (as a work of the government) and prohibited mark (as the coat of arms). To renders of the coat of arms made by people who aren't the government, you get conventional copyright (Sodacan has released their rendition under a free license), and prohibited mark status. Prohibited mark status is a status like a trademark, and is not copyright. Wikimedia Foundation policy is that materials under restrictions other than copyright are okay and, granted they are not copyrighted, are freely licensed. Coleisforeditor (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  The rendition has been released in the public domain by some unidentifiable Wikipedia editor.... but to most people it's clearly a very close copy without significant change - as in just a slightly altered rendition that can be mistaken for the original version, thus is covered by the explanation above. Moxy🍁 16:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Moxy,

  With respect, I think the discussion keeps looping because three separate legal regimes are being treated as though they are interchangeable: Crown copyright, prohibited marks under the Trademarks Act, and Wikimedia copyright policy. They are not the same thing, and the distinction matters.

  Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act gives the Arms of Canada the status of a prohibited mark. That status prevents private parties from adopting the arms as a trademark or using them in a way that implies official endorsement. It is a trademark-style protection. It does not create exclusive reproduction rights in the copyright sense, nor does it prohibit descriptive or informational depiction. Prohibited marks restrict commercial branding and misleading association; they do not establish a copyright monopoly over images.

  By contrast, Section 12 of the Copyright Act provides Crown copyright in works prepared or published by or under the direction or control of the Crown. That means the official government-rendered artwork of the Arms of Canada is Crown copyrighted. The specific artistic execution produced by or for the government cannot be freely reused without authorization. However, copyright protects artistic expression, not the underlying heraldic composition described in the blazon. A blazon is a technical textual description. It is not copyrightable subject matter. The heraldic arms as defined in proclamation are not themselves a copyrighted “work”; only a particular graphic rendering of them may be.

  An independently created rendering based strictly on the blazon is therefore a new artistic work. Its copyright belongs to its creator, provided it is not copied from the official artwork. That is standard copyright doctrine: ideas, facts, and descriptions are not protected; only specific expressions are.

  The comparison with the Canadian flag is instructive. The flag is also protected under section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act as a prohibited mark. Yet it is universally displayed on Wikimedia projects. If prohibited mark status alone barred depiction, the flag would logically have to be removed as well. It is not, because prohibited mark status is not copyright. The legal category is the same.

  The Government of Canada website language about “official symbols” being protected reflects trademark-style enforcement and brand control. It does not convert the arms into a perpetual copyright over all depictions. Notably, the site references trademark registrations, not copyright registrations. That distinction is legally meaningful.

  Even assuming Crown copyright applies to the official government SVG or other official artwork, that protection does not extend to all independent renderings. There is no provision in the Copyright Act stating that the heraldic arms as such are perpetually protected beyond the government’s own artistic execution. To argue that any drawing of the arms infringes Crown copyright would require demonstrating copying of the official artistic expression. Absent copying, an independently drawn version is legally distinct.

  Jurisdiction also matters. Wikipedia operates under U.S. law. Under U.S. copyright doctrine, heraldic descriptions are not copyrightable, and independently created renderings are protected by their creator. Trademark-style restrictions in foreign jurisdictions do not automatically bar inclusion unless copyright is implicated. Wikimedia policy reflects that legal framework.

  The issue, therefore, is not whether Canada protects its symbols. It clearly does. The issue is whether that protection constitutes a blanket copyright prohibition over all depictions. It does not. The official government-rendered artwork is Crown copyrighted. The Arms of Canada are protected as a prohibited mark under trademark law. Those are separate regimes. An independent rendering based strictly on the blazon is legally defensible and consistent with Wikimedia copyright policy.

  If the concern is the use of the official government artwork, the clean and legally sound solution is to use an independently created rendering derived from the blazon rather than the official graphic. AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  This message is unreadable on PC and I can't figure out how to refactor it... Please start a new section or something. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I very much agree, there should be a coat of arms on the infobox.

  Here is a TL;DR of the argument as I understand is for anyone out there:

  The flag of Canada is protected under the same law as the coat of arms. The flag / coat of arms themselves are not protected under copyright, although they are trademarked. The specific artistic rendering the Government of Canada created is copyrighted, but we can make a free version, based on the written description called a blazon, which is the official version encoded in law. The copyrighted version is only one possible interpretation of the blazon, and we can make our own free version based on the blazon for Wikipedia. CoolDino1 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean by unreadable, as I can read it fine, but I have copied and refactored it on my sandbox for you. User:Coleisforeditor/sandbox Coleisforeditor (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not care if for a given work they do not explicitly say you may not use anything, it must be freely licensed, you massively misunderstand copyright policy on Wikimedia wikis. But either way, it is not copyrighted (it is a prohibited mark!!). Crown copyright is an entirely separate thing from prohibited marks, a simple Google search will tell you such. You fundamentally misunderstand copyright law. Most flags are allowed because they are simple and cannot be copyrighted (search threshold of originality), because laws have specific protections for them, or because copyrighted elements were drawn by someone who put it in the public domain based on the legal definition of the flag, which cannot be copyrighted. I cannot emphasise enough that prohibited marks are not copyright, and your refusal to understand that or indicate at all that you are willing to acknowledge that is flat out just not beneficial to the discussion. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free knowledge, not to follow specific national laws placing restrictions on specific symbols, if that were so should we remove the hammer and sickle from articles about communist parties because some countries like Poland and Ukraine have banned them? Should we remove the swastika from the page for the Nazi party because it is illegal in Germany? Obviously not, because those are not copyright restrictions. The goal of Wikipedia is to spread free knowledge, not to be a good follower of the law. A random government website saying they will enforce their prohibited marks does not change the law nor does it change Wikimedia policy. Coleisforeditor (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Crown copyright does apply to the government svg render because it is a work of the Canadian government, I should add, but I have not been advocating the government render to be used. Coleisforeditor (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Notes

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

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)

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)

Wikipedia has a non-free content policy, take a look at it. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:Non-free content; Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I recommend removing the infobox, unlike Politics of Israel, Politics of New Zealand, etc. Absolutiva 04:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Because its off-topic article, my mistake. Absolutiva 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2025

• Change "population_estimate" to 41,575,585 and the reference should be

  <ref>{{Cite web |date=December 17, 2025 |title=Population estimates, quarterly |url=https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 |access-date=December 17, 2025 |publisher=[[Statistics Canada]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251217211652/https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 |archive-date=December 17, 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>
  

• Change "population_estimate_year" to "2025 Q4"

However, I don't know how the "IncreaseNeutral" is supposed to used. The estimated population supposedly decreased from Q3 to Q4 2025, but it's increased since the 2021 census, so I don't know which applies here. ~2025-41549-18 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do NOT change the estimate unless you are also updating the source's archived copy, which people constantly fail to do. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done IsCat (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Holiday deletion

User_talk:Explicit#Coat_of_arms_of_Canada Moxy🍁 17:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A deletion review ..Moxy🍁 16:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Image placement in the article

@Moxy: Greetings and felicitations (to everyone, not just to Moxy). This is what the center and end of the article look like to me. I admit that I have a very wide window (5120 pixels), though the image placement starts to look bad at about two-thirds that width.

Can we come to a consensus about rearranging the images so that this isn't happening? (This is what I did before.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit: Moxy's objections to my changes to image placement. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

5120 pixels is a very odd format and should not be used for image placement because very few will use the format. There is very few images here compared to most articles - cant imagine how other pages look to you. To put it simply this article is the example used on how images should be presented . As an FA article it follows every format recommend we have and has been tested in all skins (with moble view being the priority}. I would suggest when editing any page to view pages in both mobile and normal desktop view. The scrutiny is used for most country FA and GA articles like Japan see WP:COUNTRYSIZE for more. "Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section," Do what is best for the majority of readers....really should avoid galleries because of pixel setting...and if it has to be used - mode=packed is recommended MOS:ACCIM.

Example of fragmented image display in mobile view (India article an accessibility nightmare because of use of galleries Talk:India#Too many pics and violation of Image styling)

What protocols iWP:COUNTRYGALLERIE follows...

WP:GALLERY - Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text

WP:THUMBSIZE - Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g.

MOS:ACCIM - Avoid indiscriminate galleries because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display.

MOS:IMAGELOC - Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement

MOS:SECTIONLOC - An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section;

MOS:RESOL - Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using devices with small screens such as mobile devices, or to readers using monitors with a low resolution. On desktop, this is sometimes an issue in articles with multiple images on both sides of the screen;

It is also the example used for many other format recommendations...from WP:NOTSTATS to WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE. Moxy🍁 05:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

DocWatson42, when your window size is 3x that of most viewers, you are pretty much guaranteed to have some display differences that happen only to you. Changing the article to make it look right on your unusual window may cause it to look worse for the vast majority of readers. You also did not say what skin you are using, unless I missed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I use Vector legacy, since it does not limit the width of the displayed window. I do try to check what the articles look like in narrower windows before I save. And I use 200 pixels because it is the default size for images.

As for Moxy's image example, that's not what I see in my mobile browser (iOS Safari)—I just checked that part of the India article. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The default size for images is 250px, as of some point last year. CMD (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm behind the times, then. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Canada WWI l'Emprunt de la Victoire2.jpg

The description notwithstanding, that's a drag harrow, not a plow. And being monolingual, any Quebec French speakers can have at the translation without let or hindrance. kencf0618 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

removal of quotation from the Canadian Encyclopedia

The removal of this information in a footnote seems to be a clear violation of Wikipedia's principles:

rarely used formal title: Dominion of Canada<ref>The Canadian Encyclopedia: Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867. It was also used in the formal titles of other countries in the British Commonwealth. Government institutions in Canada effectively stopped using the word Dominion by the early 1960s. The last hold-over was the term Dominion Day, which was officially changed to Canada Day in 1982. Today, the word Dominion is seldom used in either private or government circles. -- Espoo (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there's a search bar for the talk page archives. Type in "Dominion of Canada" and read over some of the prior discussions. If you have any new arguments to make, feel free to present them here, but a blanket statement about "Wikipedia's principles" is unlikely to get you far. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Simply no need for note... it's all in a section devoted to this without having to plagiarize from the encyclopedia. Moxy🍁 22:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I was the one who reverted the cite, I want to respond to Espoo's suggestion that doing so was a "clear violation of Wikipedia's principles". One of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that points in dispute are resolved by means of consensus. That can take a lot of time and work when different editors have different perspectives. However, once consensus is achieved, it's fair to expect stability in the result.

In this case, there has been an extensive discussion on the name of Canada, both in this article, which has a section on the topic, and in the article dedicated to that very topic: Name of Canada. There's the archives on the Talk pages for this article and the Name of Canada article that recount that history.

Once a consensus has been achieved, especially one that took a lot of time and effort, with good faith discussions by the editors, it's reasonable to expect some stability. If one editor brings a different perspective to an issue that's been the subject of a lot of discussion leading to consensus, it's fair to require that editor to raise their position on talk pages, and try to change the consensus.

What's not fair is for one editor to ignore the consensus, make the change they want, and then accuse other editors of breaching WP principles, for respecting the consensus that has been achieved. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Formal name

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)